Talk:Masuria

comments on assessment

The history section is quite confusing, and definitely needs citations. Be sure to use numbers with commas, not decimals, or you confuse us English speakers. 35,000 does not equal 35.000. Thirty-five thousand does not equal thirty-five. Verstehst? Nice article and a good start. You might also find the geo boxes, etc., that are appropriate for this entry. Lead should be expanded. If you're not sure how, drop a note on my start page and I'll help you. Auntieruth55 (talk)

poland has occupied 150 000km2 of Lithuania's teritory

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)

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)

2001/2002 talk, old revision

Put this back up when it correct and not insulting to fellow Wikipedians

---

Masuria is the English name for Masuren or Masurenland (Polish Mazury) situated in the southern part of what was East Prussia, Germany. In the post-World War II redrawings of European borders, this territory was taken from Germany and given to Poland. The 'Masurenland' and 'Masurische Seenplatte' (Masurianland and Masurian Lakes Platteau), also called 'Land der Tausend Seen' , (Land of a thousand lakes) has a great many lakes. As in other parts of northern Germany from east of [[Hamburg on the Elbe river to Mecklenburg and Pomerania at the Oder river to the Vistula river one continous strech of lakes make it in our times a beautiful vacation paradise. These lakes are the remnants of the ice-age , when all north eastern Germany ,present Poland and further north-eastern Europe was covered with ice. By ten thousand BC this ice started to melt. Great geological changes have taken place and even in the last 500 years the maps showing the lagoons and Haffs (peninsulas) at the Baltic Sea have greatly altered appearances. The southern part of eastern Prussia , the Old Prussian lands Sudauen and Galindien (Sudovia and Galindia) had remaining wilderness areas longer than most of Europe. The deep forrests in these territories made it possible for Ostpreussische Elche or moose , Aurochs , bears and many other mammals to survive. During the Baltic or Northern Crusades native Prussian population also had the chance to survive in the remaining wilderness areas against the onslaught of mighty Crusader armies from all over Europe and from Asia.

During Reformation and Anti-Reformation times people from lands south of Prussia , fromMasovia, came north and took refuge in Protestant Prussia. Later it became customary to call the Galindia land of Prussia 'Masurenland' or Masuria in honor of the many people from Masovia , who had come to Prussia .Communist nationalistic Poland laid claims to Masuria at Treaty of Versailles , pointing out to the many Slavic sounding names of the Prussian Masurians. The League of Nations held elections in 1920 as to whether the people in Prussia wanted to remain with Germany or join the state of Poland. In West Prussia over 92% voted to remain with Germany , in East Prussia 98% voted to remain with Germany.

Poland never gave up trying to conquer this land, as they had conquered the land of Masovia years ago.

Prussian Galindia was originally much larger and reached further south and east , but since Masovians and Poles conquered much of this land the borders between Prussia, Lithuania and Poland were set in 1422 by the Treaty of Melno Lake .These borders between Prussia, Lithuania and Poland were unchanged until the military take-over by Stalin in and after 1945.

Polish sources love to claim all of East and West Prussia , Pomerania, Silesia , Eastern Brandenburg as regained original Polish land . The northern part of East Prussia, today Oblast Kaliningrad , taken by Soviet Union is at least spared that aspect of twisted history. Vast Polish efforts have shown great success with Westerners, where even learned history graduates can not tell the difference between Masovia and Masuria.

Masuria, or the Masurian Lakes Platteau is in the area of the cities of Angerburg, Loetzen, Nikolaiken (Mikołajki),Allenstein today Olstyn, Angerburg, Rastenburg (Kętrzyn), Roessel (Reszel), Rhein (Ryńsko), Sensburg, Ortelsburg (Szczytno), Johannisburg, Treuburg.

A map of 1660 Prussia showing above cities and to the south of it Masovia : http://wwwtest.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/maps/blaeu/prvssia-preview

same map larger http://wwwtest.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/maps/blaeu/prvssia (The many lakes are shown in brownish color on this map, Spirding See is the largest ).

A current website for travels to Masuria http://www.launer-reisen.de/reisen/masuren.htm user:H.J.

I have tried these links none of them seem to be current. How does Masuria translate? Mas- Marsh? Ur- Corner? ia-vicinity?

---

What is wrong with the entry? It looks pretty good to me. sodium

hi Sodium -- you have to go over a lot of wiki history to get this one...suffice it to say that a certain person finds it impossible to write an NPOV, historically correct article if it has to do with any part of the world that might once have been part of Prussia.

---

Are there Moose in Europe? Or are they Elk? Honestly am ot sure, but have had this conversation in pubs in Germany and seem to remember that Moose are North American, and Europe has elk that are moose-sized, but don't have horns like Bullwinkle...???JHK

---

Apparently they are moose, although sometimes called elk in Europe. Antlers and all. I am more concerned with the poor Prussia being assaulted all those years by the evil Poles in the article. And the claim that the Polish-Prussian border never changed between 1422 and 1945. Stretches belief. --rmhermen Rmhermen (Talk | contribs) at 21:27, 8 November 2001.

2001/2002 talk

I took out "learned history graduates" and replaced it with "many". JHK you constantly write snide remarks to other wikipedians about my entries on subjects you don't know about . I am assuming that you are referring to this quote . If the truth of the article is too strong for your taste , then look at the Masovia entry, where "yes it was conquered by Polish dukes", was immediately proudly verified. If someone else objects to stating it like it is, let them "water it down".

Do me a favor , get enough sleep and do look at a map when I ask you to repeatedly. It does help and then you will not put Luebeck in the communist GDR again , you won't mix up Masuria and Masovia ( which a lot of other people do too) and you can stop sniping at me. We'll both appreciate it ( and thereby I can fully appreciate your fine contributions).

As with the Aurochs , all you had to do , is what Paul Dry did, state the site that gives the exact location and for the time being clarify the question I posted several times, as to whether it was Masovia or Masuria. And do not try to tell me again, that Masovia in German is Masuria. Konrad von Masovien and Cymburga von Masovien ,mother of Habsburg emperorFrederick III, are well known in German history (or at least used to be). user:H.J. 21:44, 8 November 2001

---

The Ostpreussische Elch , moose like has Schaufeln (shovels see Trakehner horses, whose brand is the Ostpreussische Elchschaufel (East Prussia elk/moose shovel)These Elch do go for a swim in the Baltic Sea user:H.J.

---

This is a very very bad entry. Many of the sentences are written in German (I'm guessing) and poorly translated into English. The editor does not follow standard typing conventions for spacing around punctuation marks (sometimes words follow periods with no intervening space). There is material here that is of no obvious relation to Masuria - is masuria in southern Prussia? If not, then what are the aurochs doing here? This is an example of why competent people despair of working here.

---

I tried a lot to make this entry into NPOV, then i forgot about it, and now, when i come back, i see that some 1/3 of my contribution is destroyed. First fact about plebiscite (that poeple were choosing between Prussia and Poland, not Germany and Poland), then about what happened about war, and when last Masurians left Masuria - first where turn into "intersting statement" then deleted. May i ask for explanation? I do not say that this deletion was wrong. I want only to know, why it was good, so in the future i could make better work. szopen

---

Hi szopen, I think it was me who did most of the removing (though it's hard to tell, because the article had been subject to so many anonymous revisions). I don't normally view your contributions as candidates for heavy re-editing, but on this occasion I felt the article's integrity was already pretty much gone, and there were points whose accuracy I thought was deeply suspect (I don't know if these were your points, because there'd already been an "automated conversion"):

1. "Polish colonisers start to appear here in 13th century." - I'm no advocate of Gossdeutschland, as you've probably gathered, but I think the word here should be "Germans". I've read elsewhere that Poles started arriving in significant numbers a couple of centuries later: I may be wrong, but the 13th-century date sounds suspiciously early.

1. "For centuries Polish speakers consisted majority of the area." - The language data suggest that there wasn't a linguistic majority in the late 19th century, so I'd doubt that Poles were a majority earlier, given that they'd only been entering for a few centuries and many doubltless arrived in the 19th century.

3. "The League of Nations held plebiscite in 1920 as to whether the people in Masuria wanted to remain within Prussia or join the state of Poland. In Masuria region 98% voted to remain with Prussia. What they were not told, was that Prussia would not be an independent state, but part of Germany. This is more than probable, that if they had to choose between Poland (which at the time was fighting? fot its life with bolsheviks), Prussia and Germany, majority would choose Prussia too. What's more, Polish government wasn't really interested with receiving these lands, and envoys from Polish local organisation, oppressed by Germans, heard even once from Polish officials that nobody really care about Masuria and Warmia." - I thought this section was particularly doubtful: (a) did the League ask people of plebiscite areas what state they wanted to be a part of within a country without mentioning the country? I doubt it. There wasn't a choice between Prussia and Germany because Prussia was a part of Germany, and separation hadn't been suggested as far as I'm aware. And I doubt that people who'd lived since 1871 in a Prussia that was a part of Germany would have been unaware of it.

4. New Polish government and Poles don't known anything abouth differences between Masurians and Germans and treat them all alike, like spoils of war. Plans of making evangelical voivodship for Masurians were abandonend quickly. After war there was around 100.000 Masurians in Poland; in 1956-62 most of them finally leaved Poland and today there is around six thousands of them left." - The point about the Warsaw government not differentiating between Germans and Masurians is very interesting, but up to this point neither has the article! Who were these Masurians - not a post-WW2 invention, surely? But for the earlier reference to Masurian speakers, one would assume that Masurians were just inhabitants of Masuria. Clarification on this point would be most helpful.

I usually hold your contributions in considerable regard, and would be grateful if you could check up these points. By all means revise my revision if you still think it was destructive. Cheers, User:David Parker

Thanks for explanations, David.

ad 1) and ad 2) Most Polish settlements started there with conquest f teutonic knights. Teutons bring settlers from everywhere, from Germany and Poland too. Number of Polish settlers raised in 14th century, with conquest of Pomorze, Ziemia Chelminska and Michalowska, when Poles from this lands (and from elsewhere) started mass settling of sparsely settled lands.

in 17th century, during Potop (1650 and later) this region of Prussia was already called "Polish lands" or something similar.

Poles stopped to be majority there (Polish speakers to be more precise) in late 19th century.

ad 3). In questionaire there was question of choice between Prussia and Poland, not between Germany and Poland. This is a fact. I think this could have impact of plebiscite, since they were choosing between state and home region.

ad 4) Masurians weren't Germans, at least not all of them. Masurians weren't speakers of German language. This is case of all autochtones (non-German speakers, sometimes Polish patriots!), in Masuria and elsewhere - Polish government did much to awaken their national German consience simply by treating them as Germans (=enemy of the state) and sometimes expelling them just as Germans

2003 talk

The geogrpahic description of Masuria is outrageously wrong. Masuria and old GEast Prussia are not equivalent. Masuria only forms the southern portion of the territory. Though i dont know what poland calls the region for today, the historical import of Masuria makes the question irrelavent. Masuria never included the region inhabited by primarily germans or the earlier Balto-Slavic Prussians. It doesnt extend much farther than the so called "Masurian Lakes".

Plus, the explanation of of why Masurians decided for germany in the plebicite is simplistic and sounds defensive. user tridesch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.252.194 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 24 July 2003

The explanation why the people of masuria voted with 97 % for germany/prussia is outrageously simplistic and biased. "It had nothing to do with nationality" is claiming that 97 % voted only out of fear from the soviets and there was no other motive at all.

CHris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.2.85 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 September 2003

The problem is that this was no choice between Poland and Germany, but between Poland and Prussia, while nobody known whether Poland will exist at all. Large chunk of population gave their nationality as "Masurian", not German or Polish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szopen (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 September 2003

Well, i dont see your point, that the choice between Germany/Prussia is not the same. By stressing that again and again you are implying, that the vote would have been different if "Germany" would have been on the ballot. Which is, with due respect, very simplistic and even less true. Prussia was since 1871 Part of the official 2nd German Empire, and, even besides that, Prussia was always part of "Deutschland", as was Austria as well. I might further point your attention to the fact, that the German Empire 1871-1918 was a federation with ALL powers delegated to the member states, EXCEPT: Postal Services, Foreign Relations, War, Monetary affairs. Everything else was left to the states, for example: When an saxon officer received in WW I the St. Heinrich Orden of Saxony, this was regarded higher than the Pour le merite because he was a SAXON citizen. Or: There was no german citizenship per se, as you became german citizen only and automatically when becoming citizen of a member state of Germany. And, finally: You can be sure, that most Germans felt as such, but also and in many cases foremost, they felt as citizens of their particular state.

I would like therefore to sum up: There is IMHO no point in emphasising that the choice was Prussia/Poland and not Germany/Poland, as a) i tried to explain the historical reason why Prussia was an option on the ballots instead of Germany, and b) i also pointed out, that if Germany would have been put on the election ballot, the result would have been the same, as both were de facto the same, and, also regarded the same by the voters. c) a final reason might be, that it was not sure, in which form Germany would emerge out of the struggle around the Versailles treaty. Would it be a Confederation ? A central state ? Would it be partly divided ? That is IMHO yet another reason why Prussia was put on the ballot, as the status of Germany was not really clear. (Same for Poland, as you mentioned)

A last point: I cede, that indeed large parts of the population (hoch much ?) considered themselves to be masurians. Though, i do not think this is relevant here, except maybe as a means to devaluate the result of the vote. "But they were not Germans, though they voted for it" . Nice point, but they voted in this particular situation for Prussia, which meant Germany. So what ?

Again, i would like to stress that this particular paragraph is simplistic. I agree with tridesh that it sounds quite defensive.

CHris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.2.85 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 1 October 2003

I still think that "Prussia" had different meaning than "Germany". "Poland" and "Germany" were nation state. Prussia was also common name for their "heimat" (for lack of better words in Polish). I guess it would be fair if the fact would be mantioned, with mentioning that it _mught_ influence the voting, but also explaining why decision to use "Prussia".

Again, majority of locals did not consider themselves "Poles" or "Germans" and they were not put in choice between Germany and Poland, but between their own heimat and Poland.

user:szopen 14:37, 11 October 2003

Of course Prussia has a different meaning than Germany. You pointed out correctly, that Prussia was more of an nation-mixed (sorry, didnt find a better word) than a national Germany, in the sense of "National State" would be. Nobody is denying this. Still, i would like to mention, that masuria was already part of such a "Nation State" since 1871, with the foundation of the German Empire.

Point is: An overwhelming majority voted for Prussia, and, let me make that very clear, aware that it would mean and meant since 1871, Germany. When you are stating that the voting resulted like it did because "Prussia" was on the ballots, you are implying that probably the voters would have opted in majority for Poland if Germany were on the ballot. If you, however, are not this opinion but think that nothing would have changed in the final RESULT (Masuria stayed within the german empire) but only in the numbers of the vote (maybe only 70 or 60 % for Prussia aka Germany) the mentioning of your arguments alone is distorting the fact that the majority voted not for poland.

Why ?

6 lines are devoted to the problem of voting and subsequently staying of masuria in Germany.

1 Line is neutral - "the league of nations held a referendum....."

0.25 line is stating the fact that 97.5 % voted for Prussia/Germany - this could be either considered neutral (fact) or pro-german, 'cause they won.

Whopping 5 lines however, are reserved for the explanations (of course, in the view of the author - not necessarily authoritative ! ) why the vote might have resulted like it did.

The last 1 line is not really to identify - disappointment by polish organisations, but also the mentioning of very strong polish organisations existing in masuria.

I dare to propose, that in every normal encyclopedia only the fact that masuria voted with majority for staying in Prussia/Germany, sometimes with %, sometimes without would have been mentioned. No explanation (which is necessarily not objective - who please knows exactly WHY the electorate voted like it did  ? ) would have been given.

I finally would like to point out, that if we are underscoring that the electorate voted for "Prussia" and not for "Germany", we (2003) are implying that they (1918) did not know that Prussia meant also Germany. Who are we to judge that in hindsight and consider the people more or less stoic beings who put the vote on Prussia just because it was, subconscious and conscious their "heimat" ? I would rather suspect, they knew very well about the meaning and importance of this vote.

Proposal: First line and result in Percent, if desired, is kept. Last sentence, if desired, as well. NO interpretation of the (potential/suspected/guessed) intention of the masurian electorate is made.

CHris

Then lets move on to the next paragraph, much to do there as well ;-)

I agree that there is too much interpretation and too much bias (POV) but at least some mention should be left of the location of the Russian army. Perhaps all the possible reasons could be condensed into one sentence. Rmhermen 21:10, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

If in 1914 peasans in kielce weren't sure whether they are Poles or not, i guess the same may be applied about Masurians. "Poland" was new concept to most simple people, probably the same as "Germany". "Prussia" was not. They were members of Prussia and 1871 uniting does not change it much.

I am claiming that change in wording could've changing results in means of proportions (mabe from 90 to 80% or so), and different political situation could change it as well (say another few percents). If you are against it, then you could move those sentences to "Polosh organisation were believing, that...."

Fact is that majority of population before WWI did not describe themselves as Germans. They were describing themselves as Masurians.

user:szopen 14:37, 11 October 2003

@szopen: I do agree, that in Masuria lived indeed many people, who called themselves Masurians ( i dont know, i just believe you and others ;-) ). Though, i do not agree with the implicit suggestion in your first paragraph, that if they would have been aware of the "Poland-Concept" and familiar to it, they would have possibly voted for "Poland". Can Masurians be considered Poles ? Many Poles would without doubt say yes. Just as many Germans would say, they've been living in Germany since 1871 and voted for it in 1919, so they're Germans. (Around Cottbus are living in Germany Sorbs, a slavic people. Guess, they would declare if you ask one, to be German and Sorb at the same time - though not polish. So not all slavic people bordering to nowadays-poland are automatically poles ) I would like to propose, that Masurians probably can not be claimed by either side absolutely as one of theirs. (This also refers to your last paragraph, "majority described themselves not as Germans" )

Okay, but that was'nt the point. Lets get back to the Elections. You and others pointed out insistently, that on the ballot "Prussia" was mentioned, and the red army was positioned in the east, waiting to attack. Okay, we consider that true. Now we come to the implications of these facts.

Question: Would the result have changed (much/decisive) ?

Szopens answer, i agree with, : No. Possibly, say, 80 % instead of 97.5 in Masuria would have voted like they did. Maybe a few percent less, maybe more.

Well, as long as the result would not have changed ( and i call 80 % still an overwhelming majority ) there is no point in mentioning facts, which MIGHT HAVE led to SOME UNKNOWN percents less result than the final 97.5 %. The mention serves only one purpose: to distort the impression that the majority voted for Prussia/Germany. If a reader reads that paragraph, the number 97.5 % will not as much stick in his mind as the following 1,2,5 lines explaining (actually, trying to explain, interpreting !) like that: "Yeees, the result was like this, buuut: there are some facts which make this result not really correct.." and so on. These sentences serve no purpose in an encyclopedia, with such a clear result in the background. They are only mudding the view to the naked number of the result.

One example, where a mentioning of the background is warranted, is the election 2000 in the U.S. of George W. Bush instead of Al Gore. More than 50 % of all votes were Al Gore's, though finally the electoral college voted by a small margin (Florida) for George W. Bush. This is a situation which has happened several times in U.S. History, that the majority in terms of votes was on one side, tha majority of votes in the electoral college, which finally counted, on the other. Not much fuss about it. Though, this time, there have been lots of accidents or just strange things which surrounded the decisive voting in florida. You can bet, that in any major encyclopedia in 20 years, still only the fact is mentioned that Al Gore lost and Bush won. MAYBE, there will be a sentence about the circumstances which led to floridas vote for Bush. Maybe not. This is not done because they dont like Al Gore, it is done because if i say, "the voting procedure in florida was rigged" i have to have some evidence. If it is just my (by some facts justified, but not quantifiyable) opinion that the voting was rigged, i am not supposed to put that (though a reasonable guess in that case) in an encyclopedia. This es even more true, if we consider what was at stake in Florida: just a few votes to turn the tide for Al Gore. But what was at stake in Masuria ? A totally undecisive difference in percentage of 17.5 %. If there will probably no or few entrys in an encyclopedia about the decisive circumstances which led to Bush's victory over Gore, why entering a subjective (!) guess about only a few % difference which had no implication whatsoever for the final result in Masuria ?

CHris User:141.30.2.85 16:08, 11 October 2003

CHris i am not implying that they were (Masurians) Poles (even if they were descendants of Polish colonisers and were speaking dialect of Polish). They weren't, as they weren't probably Germans. And they had choice between "Poland" and "Prussia", They could identify with Prussia, while i argue that their identification with Germany would be much less. I am not author of original wordings on the page, although from the (roughly) beginning i am trying to get some non-controversial version.

What's more, explaining the votes sometimes is needed, as the result was really surprise for Poles. The explaining why they (we) expected better results I say could be addon to article, even if this would be "the results was shock for Poles, because they were expecting... since... different explanation were later found, such as...". I many times found formulations such as "allied commissions were favouring Germans" and "German terror", but I wouldn't attach it to article as long as i can't find anything more except for slogans. I also found mentions that they had distinct "eastern prussian" identity and that theere were their own national rganisation in 1935, but had to do more research. Until that, rework the article as needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szopen (talk • contribs) 16:31, 11 October 2003

From very nationalistic pro-polish site: (Bojowkarz - fighter???) http://www.narodowcy.host.sk/walka/walka6.html "German fighters were attacking Polish meetings, patriotic evenings, Warmiaks and Masurs admitting to Polishness, redactions of Polish newspapers. "Dom Polski" ... had to be patrolled by English army. Poles were fighting back. Many times fighters from "Sokol" were fighting with Germans fighters. There were victims too. In march 1920 brutally beaten by German fighters died Bogumil Linka. .... German propaganda was strenged. Clerks, priests, teachers,gendarms were agitating together. Right of vote had evryone born before 1905. That's how Germans received 157.000 additional votes by bringing emigrees from Reich, each of which had his travel paid. ... In July 1920 Soviets were on counteroffensive, thanks to which Germans could show cartoons (plaquets? plakaty...) with slogan "Bolsheviks close to Warsaw!".

The same site however admits that national movement there was weak... hmm...

szopen User:150.254.17.177 7:36, 11 October 2003

What was exactly the wording during referendum? While reading abot Masurian National Park i found mentioning that it was choice between (both words used: Polen - Polska, Poland) and (Ostpreussen - Prusy Wschodnie, again both words used, Eastern Prussia). Does anyone has any info about what was exactly the question during referendum?? User:szopen 12:53, 31 October 2003

Found a piece of information: "Ich wurde in Tilsit geboren. Meine durch Geburt erhaltene Staatsangehörigkeit war amtlich "preußisch-deutsch", im Anmeldezettel schrieb man deshalb in der Rubrik "Staatsangehörigkeit": -pr/dt.-" Translation later, i'm too lazy now.

CHris User:141.30.229.146 01:11, 3 November 2003

My German is too weak to understand "I was born in Tilsit. My citizenship during birth was recorded as ??? prussian-german, in ??? was written ??? in the rubrik "citizenship" pr/ger" Is that right? Szopen 10:11, 10 March 2004

I have an impression that massacres of the pRussians weren't of so large scale as presetned in article. Teutons were brutal conquerors, but they were genocidal maniacs. I think that should be reflected in article, and "survivors" should be replaced with some more neutral term.[[user::szopen|szopen]] 12:02, 3 November 2003

2004 talk

Edited some stuff, mainly removed the [subjective] explanations for the outcome of the league of nations ballot. You may bash me now :-)

CHris User:141.30.2.85 12 February 2004

---

1. is contra used to be.

We have got 2004, not 1934. War is over.

2. Language of southern Prusia was "Masovian" dialect of Polish language. If regards its distribution you can have a look into the results of official GERMAN census.

3. Prussian immigrants from Masovia? - what is wrong with you?

4. Polish crown, at that time close Habsburg family members - were "close" to almost all royal families of Europe. Polish royal family used to marry the Germans, Ruthenians, French, Swedes, Hungarians etc. What do you want to prove?

5. southern (East) Prussia, which in 1818 was named Masuren(land) - the circumstancies of this were explained. Anyway the term Masuria was in common use long time before 1818.

Regards, User:Yeti 25 February 2004

Seems there is some edit war underway betwenn Yeti and an IP user. Anyway, what i want to say is that the last paragraph about the difference being in soviet Ostpreussen and polish Ostpreussen seems to me a bit euphemistic. I dont think there was such a big difference in the fate of the people living north and south of the new border, it certainly wasnt easy south of it in new Poland. Especially it sounds a bit biased, "all you have to do is to pass a citizenship exam and everything is fine".

CHris User:141.30.229.146 21:02, 9 March 2004

Prussian original population was not exterminated.. TO were brutal conquerors, but not genocidal maniacs.. they slaughter "only" to convince oithers to subdue. Szopen 11:14, 14 March 2004

Put some things straight. If someone could provide a map though, whis would be fine...

Chris 25 April 2004

"By the 15th century, the original Prussian population were exterminated and the Prussians language suffered a decline." -- Ha! I suppose a language would "suffer a decline" if those who spoke it were "exterminated"! I edited this to say that the Baltic- Prussians had been largely assimilated -- understanding of course that many Old Prussians were indeed killed prior to the 15th century in the Order's conquest of what became known as East Prussia. But as noted elsewhere, many survived, accepted Teutonic overlordship and Chistianity, and were gradually assimilated into the expanding German population.

User:sca 21:34, 4 October 2004

children

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))

Genetic tests

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))

For further expansion

German attempts to destroy Polish schools in Mazury [1] --Molobo (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Gisevius

He was author of book "Die polnische Sprachfrage in Preussen" and "Pieśni ludu polskiego". Note: "POLNISCHE", "POLSKIEGO", not "Masurian". He was almost arrested during preparation to Polish uprising in Varmia (finally uprising was not started, because Prussian arrested all leaders). Do not falsify history by pretending he was writing about "Masurian" language and that he was not Polish. IN early XIX, before Germans started "divide et impera" policies, Masurians were simply Poles. Szopen (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe - but Protestant Pastor is more precise than "Priest".(HerkusMonte (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

I changed it to Polish Protestant. Nothing wrong in that. They are plenty of Polish protestants.--Molobo (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Szopen, you are mixing up language and ethnic self-identification. In the early 19th century, Masurians usually spoke Polish. Nobody will dispute that. During the course of the 19th century, they progressively gave up the Polish language and became first bilingual, then monolingual speakers of German. This did not happen in other regions of Prussia where there were Polish speaking majorities or minorities. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not mix. Gisevius was Pole not just because he spoke Polish or because he wrote about Polish language.

And Masurians were Poles before they changed their identity during XIX century. To quote one webpage I forgot, first Masurian newspapers bore titles like "Polski przyjaciel" (Polish friend). It was active German policy which changed their identity into first "Masurian", and then into "Polish". Szopen (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Slight difference: Masurians were Prussians for many centuries. Their ancestors came from Poland or actually from Masovia which was until 1524 an independent dukedom. It only became part of Poland, when the Masovian dukes died out. Perhaps that is the reason, why so many Masovians moved to Prussia away from Poland. Either way, they sought refuge in Prussia during Reformation times. Masurians remained Lutheran Protestants. If there were some Poles also living in Masurian part of Prussia, they would have moved there, when they did not want to live in Russia (Russian Poland that is).. So actually Huge difference - Masurians in general were not Poles. An Observer 10.6.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.68.253 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Szopen: I apologize, I misread part of your comment. To the best of my humble knowledge, you are rigth: In the early 19th century and earlier, Masurians considered themselves Polish (or maybe were indifferent, as were most people in rural Europe at that time). Unoffensive text or character (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal family history that may shed light on whether Masurens considered themselves German or Polish

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)

Double naming is used in historic context not in description of modern locations and regions in Poland

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)

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)

Double naming should be used then in proper historic content, not in regards to modern locations.--Molobo (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, Molobo. So everything's just fine as it is. Best regards. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dönhoff

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)

Indeed. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Attribution

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Volksliste

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

GD vote

[2] - 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)

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)

Double names aren't used for current locations in Poland, we don't have Lech Wałęsa striking Gdańsk(Danzig) or list of Masovia cities with Warschau in them. You can use the Germanised versions in historical context not in modern one where no double naming is applied.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Why are Polish bishops murdered listed as mentally ill victims?

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: [3] 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)

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)

Please kindly then change your edit from "further victims" which added after adding info about murdering mentally victims and moving the names of these people after that to the way it was before, so that no misconception arises.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Amateur site used as source?

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)

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)

Off topic

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)

She mentions overall actions in these territories made by Nazi regime in publication that concerns Masuria, apparently they were widespread and not limited to one region only. Do you have any source claiming such actions didn't happen there Wardzyńska publications writes?.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

actions against the Gazeta Olsztynka editors are not relevant for Masuria Of course they are since Seweryn Pieniężny, the chief editor of "Gazeta Olsztyńska" opposed Germanisation of Masuria as it stands clearly in the text. Did you miss that? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Attacks by Nazis now named as "Polish minority activities"?

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)

Lanc

Right now the text says that he died in his home of carbon monoxide poisoning.[23] The exact circumstances of his death were never clarified[24] but several Polish sources claim he was most likely murdered by local German nationalists. The "exact circumstances of his death were never clarified" is cited to this webpage [4]. The source does not say that "exact circumstances of his death were never clarified". What it says is Zatruto go czadem - "he was poisoned by gas". The form of the verb Zatruto indicates that it was "done purposefully by others". If it had been a suicide or an accident it would say Zatruł się czadem. So the source does not support the claim. Other sources, which do not directly state he was murdered use similar form, for example [5] this says został prawdopodobnie zatruty czadem, which again indicates that SOMEONE (not him) did it.

In this case since all sources agree it's also not necessary to say "Polish sources" say this. Attribution is necessary if there's disagreement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mixed up the sources (too many foreign language s.). "Kurek Mazurski" (2010) clearly writes: "Nazajutrz rano znaleziono go martwego w łóżku. Przyczyną śmierci był ulatniający się z pieca tlenek węgla. Okoliczności nigdy nie wyjaśniono. Przypuszcza się, że Lanc został celowo zatruty." which translates (acc. to Google): "The next morning he was found dead in bed. The cause of death was leaking from the furnace carbon monoxide. Circumstances never explained. It is believed that Lanc was intentionally poisoned."

According to Gazeta Olsztynska (2010) he was "probably poisoned by carbon monoxide" (Pracował tylko rok, ponieważ został prawdopodobnie zatruty czadem [6]), which actually says nothing about a possible perpetrator.

A more detailed version is given here: Lanc was found in his bed, the door was locked from inside and neighbors had to break a window to reach him.

It is, off course, possible that he was murdered by German nationalists. On the other hand the circumstances of his death aren’t that obvious and post- (and pre-) war propaganda needed "martyrs" of a Polish Masuria. Weimar Germany (1932) was still a state under the rule of law and murder was a crime.

What strikes me is that modern local newspapers are much more cautious than "traditional" Polish sources of the 1960s like the Encyklopedia PWN.

If attribution is only necessary in the case of disagreement - why did you insist to add "German" to a highly respected historian like Gregor Thum?[7][8] HerkusMonte (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What strikes me is that modern local newspapers are much more cautious than "traditional" Polish sources of the 1960s like the Encyklopedia PWN. Please present sources stating this, or is this your personal claim and thus Synthesis and Original Research? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Herkus, you have the translation of Kurek right - Circumstances never explained. It is believed that Lanc was intentionally poisoned., but your interpretation of the Gazeta Olsztynska Google translation is incorrect. As I point out above, the form został ... zatruty means he was poisoned by someone. If it was saying that he was poisoned accidentally or that he poisoned himself it would say zatruł siḙ. This is the kind of subtlety that Google translate is not capable of picking up but it's pretty obvious to anyone who speaks the language. Likewise the piastuno website, as I've also addressed above, states Zatruto go czadem - which probably translates best as "they poisoned him with gas", though, yes literally it would be "he was poisoned by gas". Both of these sources are in fact saying that he was murdered.

I can't think at the moment what these kinds of grammatical cases are called but they are not present in English so I understand why google translate doesn't pick it up. It's roughly similar like in English you can't say "going to the store" but you have to say either "I am going to the store" or "he is going to the store". In Polish you can say "ide do slepu" or "idzie do sklepu" - no specific pronoun is necessary to indicate who is doing the going, rather it is handled by a change in the ending. Similar with zatruty vs zatruł or zatruto (this one indicates plural perpetrators) vs. zatruł.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and this Encycklopedia PWN was published from 2001 to 2005 (actually, technically speaking it's this Internetowa encyklopedia PWN, the internet version of that one). You're thinking of Encycklopedia Powszechna PWN. Different beast.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is sourced information being manipulated and sourced information about the fact that Masurs concern themselves as Poles removed?

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 [9]

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? [10] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

B-class review failed

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)

POV tag

Some of the latest edits really do border on bad faith POV pushing. For example, this sentence:

Polish resistance in Masuria was organised by Paweł Nowakowski "Leśnik" commander of the Home Army's Działdowo district[52] In August 1943 the Uderzeniowe Bataliony Kadrowe attacked the village of Mittenheide (Turośl) in southern Masuria, killing between 13[53] and 70[54] locals, including two children aged 2 and 6 years.[53]

1. Suggests UBK where Home Army units. They weren't.

2. Leaves out the reason for the raid - reprisal for killings of Bezirk Bialystok.

3. Leaves out the purpose for the raid - to execute a particularly brutal persecutor of Poles

4. This whole "2 year old child" is based on a single source which I have never seen: Irma Bartlick, Pochodze ze wsi Turosl. Can we have a verification here? The text etc.

5. Leaves out that apparently some of the killings were carried out by vengeful slave workers

and above all

6. singles out a killing of 12 people by a military unit in a time of war at a time when the Nazis where killing Poles and Jews by the hundreds of thousands. It is simply undue.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You should decide either to use a POVtag and keep the information or to remove both, the tag and the info. Currently you removed the info you didn't like, added the Partisan's view and kept the POVtag.

Offline sources are completely acceptable, to remove such sources shows an assumption of bad faith.

I have edited the Mittenheide article and had access to the source at that time. Bartlick is an eyewitness and reports a completely different version of the events - and, to avoid the usual prejudices, it's a Polish source which should be easily available in Poland (Znad Pisy 1998).

As the Mittenheide article claims, the raid had a significant influence on the local (Masurian) populace ("it was a shock") and caused reactions of Heinrich Himmler, it's also the usual wikipolicy to link articles (Raid on M. is rather an orphan), details however should be kept at the resp. article.

Concerning WP:UNDUE: How many deaths do you think are adequate to be mentioned here? 10? 100? 1000? Compared to the dimension of crimes committed in occupied Poland, it's always undue. But I don't think that's the appropriate way to deal with human fates. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

added the Partisan's view the information about reasons anti-Nazi resistance had for their operations aimed at Nazi Reich is important. Bartlick is an eyewitness, oh so it is not a scholarly source just some memories of person with unspecified credentials? I see this as not confirming to RS guidelines. Compared to the dimension of crimes committed in occupied Poland-you are forgetting that Masuria was part of these occupied territories and people were mass murdered and declared untermenschen also in the ones that formed Nazi Reich before 1939, including German controlled parts of Masuria.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced

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)

Missing information

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)

Removal of sourced text

The section which is being removed here [11] 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)

User:Corbynz, please discuss on talk rather than edit warring. And you can't claim something is "unsubstantiated" when there's like half a dozen reliable sources sitting right there. That's what "substantiated" means. Volunteer Marek  17:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no objective reason given for those reverts. I will restore the information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: [12]. The "claims" are "substantiated". There is a slew of reliable sources supporting the text, given by the inline citations. If Corbynz thinks that these sources are not reliable there is a place to bring that up: WP:RSN. Just claiming that the text is "not based upon any credible or respected historical sources whatsoever" is just some random internet person expressing their random opinion. Wikipedia isn't the comments section of some goofy website where you think that just saying something makes it magically "true". It's (or is supposed to be) an encyclopedia. And in this case we have text sourced to reliable publications. Volunteer Marek  23:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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 {{dead link}} 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 {{dead link}} 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.

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) 07:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Questions

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) Kwaremont, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Biased sections

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)