Talk:Masuria

message: Pamare, Paruse, Mazuria-Jotva are ethnic Lithuanian teritories initialy occupied by poland, later regained independence, then again poland invited crusaders to occupy them, but crusaders just took those lands for themselves and created Kingdom of Prussia. After WWII these regions including another ethnic Lithuanian teritory Palenke was given to another occupant - poland. International court must solve this problem and give ethnic Lithuanian lands back to Lithuanians!!! We live in civilized world and no agressor or injustice must be tolerated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.112.200 (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to mention the large Chinese population of about 5 000 000 people that also has the rights to claim the territory of East Prussia. Not to mention the Roman legionaires that conquered the land in the 1st century AC, under the leadership of Kara Mustafa and Chingis Khan.
--Jidu Boite (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: poland has occupied 150 000km2 of Lithuania's teritory

message: Many children were separated from their families in an attempt to eliminate Polish culture.
Any sources, that this happened in masuria ? (62.180.160.38 (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  children 

message: Genetic tests showing a mixture between Germans and Old Prussians? There´s a genetic difference between Germans and Old Prussians? Which one ? And who made such tests and when ? After WWII, in the 1950s? I think the term "Genetic test" is simply rubbish.(HerkusMonte (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic tests 

message: German attempts to destroy Polish schools in Mazury
--Molobo (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Melchior Wańkowicz wrote a very interesting book Na tropach Smętka, about Masuria in the interbellum. This is what he wrote about the summer 1920 plebiscite: "When the last days came, Polish plebiscite outposts were hidden in an enemy country, behind barbed wire. Our activists did not dare to venture outside and the locals saw with their own eyes the power and strength of the Germans whom they had been taught to obey for 700 years". Tymek (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For further expansion 

message: There is much discussion on this page about whether the results of the referendum in Masuria after World War I to determine the wishes of the population to be a part of Poland or Germany were affected by the fact that Poland and the Soviet Union were at war and by the fact that perhaps much of the population thought they were voting to be a part of Prussia, but not Germany. I am not a historian and do not believe I am qualified to contribute to any article in Wikipedia. I am writing this to provide additional information to those who are so that it may help them. My grandfather and mother were masurisch. Like many masurisch, they had German first names and slavik sounding surnames. For example, my grandfather's name was Johann Filipcyk. Based on conversations with my family, masurisch people were almost exclusively Lutherans. Perhaps for that reason, their culture was very German and they very much identified with and considered themselves Germans. My grandfather was a German soldier during World War I. My grandmother and her children, including my father who was a child at the time, were at one point refugees fleeing the Russians during the first battle of Tannenberg during World War I. My family and other masurisch friends of the family always without question considered themselves to be Germans, and nothing else. They would be shocked if anyone would suggest otherwise. I realize this is just one personal experience and I have no way of knowing what the total population was thinking on the ground in Masuria in 1920.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipcyk (talk • contribs) 03:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal family history that may shed light on whether Masurens considered themselves German or Polish 

message: Double naming is used in historic context not in description of modern locations and regions in Poland.
Please restrict double naming to historical context.
--Molobo (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article consists almost exclusively of historical and geographical content. In both cases, double naming is essential for understanding and correctness. -- Matthead  Discuß   07:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Double naming should be used then in proper historic content, not in regards to modern locations.--Molobo (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, Molobo. So everything's just fine as it is. Best regards. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double naming is used in historic context not in description of modern locations and regions in Poland 

message: I don't think it's correct to list Marion Gräfin Dönhoff as having been "from Masuria." She was born at the Dönhoff family manor, Schloß Freidrichstein (destroyed by the Soviets), near the village of Löwenhagen, on the south shore of the Samland Penninsula west of Königsberg. This whole area has, of course, been part of the Kaliningrad Oblast of the Soviet Union and later Russia since 1945. (Löwenhagen is today one of several Russian towns called Komsomolsk.) I don't believe this northern section of the former East Prussia ever was part of Masuria.
Before and during WWII, Dönhoff managed another family estate at Quittanen (now Kwitany) near Preußisch Holland (now Pasłęk), in western East Prussia. I don't believe this was part of Masuria, either.
Dönhoff did write in her childhood memoir Kindheit in Ostpreußen about riding on horseback through the Masurian lake country, with which she apparently was quite familiar, but that doesn't mean she is "from" Masuria.
Sca (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dönhoff

message: While it's fine to attribute statements to their authors - in fact, sometimes it's recommended - this kind of attribution should be done in a balanced and NPOV way. You can't "attribute" only statements from Polish authors but present text from sources by German authors as stand alone. This kind of practice tends to suggest that the Polish sources are "only opinions" while Germans sources are "facts". This leads to a POV bias in the article.
For example, none of the statements from Andreas Kossert are preceded by qualifications such as "According to Andreas Kossert...".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A book published in 1963 by the Western Institute is definitely a borderline case, anti-German bias was a virtue for some time at this Institute. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1963 thing is ok. The other part is not an accurate characterization of the Institute. Early on, the Institute had a very "pro-Polish" focus rather than a "anti-German bias", in that it tried to concentrate on questions and topics of study which had been previously ignored by German historiography. The directors and scholars of the institute, certainly by the 1960's if not before, were world renown and cited extensively in Western sources (Labuda is a good example). Considering what was going on in Western Germanyhistory profession at the time (though it got cleaned up later), the researchers of the Western institute during this time were way more neutral than their West German counterparts (leaving East German historians aside for now).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsurprisingly, we disagree on the scientific reputation of People's Republic of Poland historians and their East German colleagues. We also disagree on the aims and political motivation of the Western Institute in post-war Poland. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. And I fully realize this, which is why I'm advocating that the material be treated in an even handed fashion. I would also hate to see this degenerate into a "how much smack can I talk about your sources" kind of thing which would greatly deprecate the quality of the article. So a simple attribution to the author - and sure, a year - and in some cases maybe the nationality is sufficient. Let's leave out our own opinions out of this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I was actually mostly referring to West German historians of the immediate post war period (many former Nazis, etc.) and only mentioned East German ones in passing. So are you agreeing with me on the WG thing and just standing up for the EG ones? Or as I'm guessing, probably disagreeing on both?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we using such West German historians? Did I use such sources? I don't think so. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a general approach on how these things are being treated across many articles that have to do with Polish-German topics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribution 

message: The Volksliste  was used to categorize people in the annexed territories of pre-war Poland, not within pre-war Germany. As Masurians were already German nationals (except for a small group in the Soldau area), they were not affected by a "formal" Germanization and thus by the Volksliste categorization. To claim "the Masurians" were placed on the Volksliste is absurd. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the source most certainly says that Masurians were forcibly placed on the Volksliste. If you're right, then that just means that the Masurians who lived in Poland were so forced. Nothing really dubious about that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We might add, that the Volksliste was only relevant for the Soldau-Masurians (but that's not what the source claims), currently it's extremely misleading to claim (all) Masurians were placed on that list to Germanize them. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The source neither refers to Soldau-Masurians, nor does it say "all" Masurians. It just says Masurians, along with Kashubs etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's the problem with that source, it's ambiguous and the average reader would for sure misunderstand that claim. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you have another source which specifically addresses the issue then of course you can put it in to clarify.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volksliste 

message: - this is an honest question, do you really think that a consensus can be reached on something like this? Generally speaking, the burden is on the person trying to add the material, in this case German names. But this section does not involve any historical context, it is simply a list of present day towns. Otherwise, under your interpretation of the G/D vote we need to include German names wherever a present day name of a place in Poland (or a good chunk of it) occurs. Of course, there is no country on Wikipedia for which this is done, and it does sort of smack of unnecessary irredentism. When readers click on those links they'll already get to see the German name in the lede (which you put in there, in many cases), so how about not overdoing it?Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That double named list has been part of the article for a long time now, it wasn't invented by me nor did I add a single of these names in the respective town-articles, please don't try to make a point based on such assumptions. The "burden of proof" in this case would be to proof these names are the German names (which is not disputed), not whether we mention them or not. The article has a very strong focus on the history of Masuria and both Masuria and these towns have a long German-influenced history, which should be sufficient to mention these names.  HerkusMonte (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Probably because Lech Walesa wasn't born in Danzig :-). HerkusMonte (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Changing to striking. The issue remains unchanged Herkus.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GD vote 

message: In this edit the famous victims of German genocide in Masuria have been changed from famous to further victims of T4 action aimed against mentally ill:
I hope this is just a mistake and will be corrected soon by the author of this edit.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 13,000 were killed, about 1,800 of them mentally ill in the Action T4. Nobody claims these bishops (Further victims...) were mentally ill, that's absurd. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

text: That kind of interpretation is erroneous, I don't see a reason to consider any kind of far-fetched bad faith. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

text: It's good to know it is erroneous. Could you make the change so the sentence is clear that people  murdered and named do not belong to T4 group?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are Polish bishops murdered listed as mentally ill victims? 

message: http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Preussen/Ostpreussen/PL3.htm
This site seems to be an amateur one. Such sites are not RS. If no confirmation that it is RS is provided it will be removed.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a problem of WP:RS, however as the number refers to East Prussia as a whole and not just to Masuria, I removed that part. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amateur site used as source? 

message: The activities of the Polish minority in Masuria are based on: Maria Wardzyńska: "Intelligenzaktion" na Warmii, Mazurach oraz Północnym Mazowszu (Intelligenzaktion in Warmia, Masuria and Northern Masovia). This book refers not only to Masuria but to several other regions, especially the actions against the Gazeta Olsztynka editors are not relevant for Masuria as Olsztyn is part of Warmia. Does Wardzyńska mention specific actions in Masuria? HerkusMonte (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where exactly were "Directors of Polish schools and teachers imprisoned"? Where did "Polish preschools" exist? Does Wardzyńska specifically claim this happened in Masuria? Where? Did Pieniężny's effort show any influence on Masuria? The situation in Warmia and for sure in Norther Masovia was slightly different from Masuria where up to 80 percent voted for the Nazis and where the Polish minority was insignificant already since the early 1920s (the whole section is a case of WP:UNDUE, BTW). HerkusMonte (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Warminska publication deals with Masuria and obviously the types of acts she describes in work about Masuria are relevant. If you believe she is incorrect and her information is wrong, you are free to write a thesis on that, otherwise this is nothing else than Original Research.
 situation in Warmia and for sure in Norther Masovia was slightly different from Masuria where up to 80 percent voted for the Nazis and where the Polish minority was insignificantMaybe, but that doesn't mean it wasn't oppressed. Your claim is OR anyway, as obviously Polish minority was significant enough to include it in post-war Poland. To close this-please present sources contradicting Wardzynska, otherwise we can't include your OR.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

text: AFAIK there were exactly 3 Polish schools in Masuria, founded in 1931 and soon (long before the war) closed due to the lack of pupils (ref: Kossert, Masuren). Piassutten had exactly 2 pupils and was closed immediately after Lanc’ death. So, where exactly were Polish schools or pre-schools closed, which school-director or staff was exactly imprisoned? All this is true for Warmia and, yes, pro-Polish activists were persecuted in Masuria, but we should try to describe the specific situation in Masuria (without generalizations and without repeating a bloodthirsty Nazi-song). HerkusMonte (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not for presenting Original Research. Please present sources contradicting Wardzyńska. There is no reason to remove information about Nazi atrocities and actions against minorities in Mazuria.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off topic 

message: Why are attacks by Nazi now named "Polish minority activities"? This is completely non-neutral and doesn't reflect the essence of the information. Furthermore I see no reason to separate this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacks by Nazis now named as "Polish minority activities"? 

message: Here I corrected the source which never said that many of Masurs believe themselves as German-it said that half of them see themselves as Poles and half as German
Here the information that half of Masurs see themselves as Poles was removed and changed to information that 50% see themselves as Germans.
Why is information about Polish identification of Masurians deleted and information from sources manipulated like this?
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really discuss wether 50 percent is "many" or not? That the remaining group regards themself Polish is rather obvious, but I'll include that. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That they are split between Poles and Germans is obviously different then claims "many are German". And the casual reader bombarded by cherry picked quotes(including ones claiming Poland is comparable to Nazi Germany)might be confused as to why Masurians should consider themselves Poles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is sourced information being manipulated and sourced information about the fact that Masurs concern themselves as Poles removed? 

message: This article needs to have various templated issues fixed, and is not comprehensive (it should talk about more than history and population, needs more on economy, culture, and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  20:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class review failed

message: This article is based too heavily on single source by Kossert  and too heavily slanted towards his views. Alternate viewpoints need to be presented as well as sources. It is also worth remembering that Kossert is far from neutral and his work has been criticised.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced 

message: This article is missing information about Germanisation efforts in XIX and XX century and repressions against Masurians who resisted Germanisation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information 

message: The section which is being removed here  is well sourced to reliable sources. A particular Wikipedia user's opinion that this is "propaganda" is of no relevance here in light of these reliable sources. The removal is simply a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Hence, undoing the removal. Volunteer Marek  19:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of sourced text

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Masuria. 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  tag to http://www.kalisz.ap.gov.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=596&Itemid=119
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319205053/http://www.kurekmazurski.pl/?art=10048 to http://www.kurekmazurski.pl/?art=10048
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040718035121/http://www.muzeum.ketrzyn.pl/palace6.htm to http://www.muzeum.ketrzyn.pl/palace6.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601114809/http://www.dkgoldap.fr.pl/publikacje/pliki/krajobraz.pdf to http://www.dkgoldap.fr.pl/publikacje/pliki/krajobraz.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730125021/http://strefamazury.pl/object_info/wm/3/przyroda to http://www.strefamazury.pl/object_info/wm/3/przyroda
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050406004346/http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/45810_1.html to http://encyklopedia.pwn.pl/45810_1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060628234805/http://ev-akademie-baden.de/buch/hf/hf22.htm to http://www.ev-akademie-baden.de/buch/hf/hf22.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060204231711/http://www.bialowieza-biebrza.org/ to http://bialowieza-biebrza.org/
*Added  tag to http://bialowieza.bialowieza.pl/serwer.map/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This lemma evokes some questions about the supposed Polishness of the Mazurians, in particular during the 1920 referendum. The massive preference for a remain to Germany will no doubt be influenced by a nationalized public opinion, controlled by influencial authorities and institutions. Can it be otherwise in those heavy agitated after war days? Polish preferences will be suppressed but otherwise, a 95 to 99% vote in favour of Germany, nota bene under allied supervision, cannot fully be explained as a result of German oppression. 
Mentioning several Polish written periodicals and pamphlets causes us to question the ability of the Mazurians to read Polish, as their dialect differed considerably from standard Polish and they did not receive school education in that language at least from 1848 on, which means for some 80 years. What is the relevance of these extensive references to publicly edited 'Mazurian expressions of Polishnes' if we don’t know the number of copies and their consumers? Perhaps they were obsolete!  
Kwaremont (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: The sections on "Kingdom of Prussia" and "German Empire" overly focus on the anti-Polish policies and Germanization, as if this would have been  the only problems at the time. Clearly, political focus has been put after 1945 on these evil policies, but these should not be reflected on WP. --Tino Cannst (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased sections