Talk:Prussian Settlement Commission

Whitewashing

You've got to know that whenever you try to rewrite history and downplay these things, I'm going to be right in there expanding and clarifying.

"In 1920 due to return of Polish provinces to Poland, the Commission ceaased to function. Subsequently, most of German settlers returned to Germany."

Leaving out the role of the war ending, and making it sound like the surviving German land owners just got bored and drifted off is definately whitewashing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwood (talk • contribs) 05:26, 20 August 2004

Events after 1918

I am of the opinion that the article should not mention events that happened after 1918, that is after the Commission ceased to function. The article contains descriptions of events such as: 1. Nazi expulsions and other Nazi crimes, 2. post-WW2 expulsions of Germans, 3. restitution claims. These events are not direct results of the actions of the Commission. This is not an article about Polish-German relations throughout centuries. I am of the opinion that this information does not belong to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.111.156.226 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 November 2004

How to allege something in a subtle way: Category Anti-Polonism and what it implies

"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category," says the Wikipedia guideline WP:CG.
Anti-Polonism is defined as "irrational fear or malicious hostility toward Poles". A wiki category implies that one thing is part of another, which means that the Settlement Commission had anti-polonistic aims.
I doubt that, for the simple reason that German nationalism is not necessarily anti-Polonism. If you support your team in a soccer match, are you anti-the other team? No, you simply want YOUR team to win. So I highly doubt that Bismarck, who you can judge as so Pro-German that when it comes to deciding whether Germany or Poland should have an advantage he'd prefer Germany, was anti-Polonistic and have therefore removed the category Anti-Polonism since it is at best controversial, at worst a misinterpretation, at any rate a case where the guideline above says it should be deleted.NightBeAsT 14:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Bismarcks speech was given to you in which he explains his actions are aimed against Poles.Of course you deleted it as soon as it was posted. --Molobo 17:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And an answer to it you can find on Talk:Kulturkampf and on my talk page.NightBeAsT 17:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

21,866 German famiies settled, 154 thousands colonists altogether.

The precise numbers are 21.866 families, 154,000 settlers altogether. Andrzej Chwalba - Historia Polski 1795-1918 page 461--Molobo (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

More precise statement

The number of Germans increased, but the Comission failed to Germanise Polish territories as it was not enough.--Molobo (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How / to what extend did the number of Germans increase (source?) Skäpperöd (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Source: Andrzej Chwalba - Historia Polski 1795-1918.--Molobo (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How / to what extend did the number of Germans increase ? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It didn't exist beyond 1918

So history after that isn't connected to its activity, however I think some of its members were very active Nazis, coming from the racist Pan-German League.--Molobo (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You deleted: The Settlement Commision failed to achieve its goals to increase German population and German property in Prussian Poland, neither short- nor long-term. In 1918, after the German Empire's defeat in World War I, the Commission ceased to function. By then, only the number of Poles as well as the amount of landed property owned by Poles had increased[6]. Furthermore, after the constitution of a Polish state in 1918, the German population in these areas declined by another 70%, and the land owned by Germans by 45%[7].

There is no reason for deleting the sourced short overview about the Commission's main goals and how they were (not) achieved. Also, there is no reason for deleting a short sourced mention about how these issues developed after the Commission was resolved. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That the Settlement commission failed to Germanise and take over Polish territories was not deleted by me. The reversal of Germanisation after Poland was freed from German Empire is seperate issue and needs to be described in detail. Blanke btw is just one side of the coin and his views have been described by reviewers as pro-German so basing it only on his statements doesn't constitute NPOV i believe. --Molobo (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you did not delete the above paragraph? Come on, this article page has a edit history. Please do not delete sourced information.

And again, it is common in articles about historical events to include a short mention of how the covered issue further evolved. If you are concerned about the sourced statistics, provide evidence that proves the source wrong.

In your above statement, you agree Germanisation attempts had failed, so what reversion of Germanisation are you talking about? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Full Germanisation was not achieved, but there is no doubt that Germanisation was attempted and conducted in parts of Polish territories--Molobo (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Laws to expell further 2,000 milion Poles and Jews to make room for Settlers were created in First World War

"In 1912 the first and only four Polish large estates with 1656 hectares were expropriated [5]."

Laws aimed at expelling circa 2,000 milion Poles and Jews to make room for German colonists were prepared during First World War.--Molobo (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course... since the population of Poland was obviously something like 2,000,000,000 at this time... *rolleyes* - WikiReaderer (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I will clarify Nazi propaganda literature

I will clarify that the claims that German settlers were native to lands they were to Germanise were used by authors listed as pro-Nazi and whose works are named as Nazi propaganda literature. We shouldn't consider authors praising Nazi movement and making racist claims about Poles are reliable sources of information regarding Polish-German history. --Molobo (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion was not about whether or not some of the settlers were natives of Posen/West Prussia, but about Baron Galéra being a Nazi. Thread is here

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion was whetever a Nazi publication is a reliable source. The main opinion is that it should be only presented as portayal of Nazi views--Molobo (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarified Nazi propaganda and made clains precise

Clarified Nazi propaganda. Blanke doesn't say "only the number of Poles increased" but that there were more Poles then in beginning. He makes no mention if the overall number of Germans increased in that period or not, as wrongly inserted sentence could imply. --Molobo (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems I missed a piece by the nazi author.--Molobo (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC) And another one. Will have to search Wiki if there is any other place where he is used. --Molobo (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting source

[1] Ethno-nationality, Property Rights in Land and Territorial Sovereignty in Prussian Poland, 1886-1918: Buying the land from under the Poles' feet? by Scott M. Eddie University of Toront

Will expand the article using this. --Molobo (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point to this sentence?

"Publications in Nazi Germany made claims that many colonists were German natives from the region. [12]"
If so, finish it. If not, delete it. What is the relevence to *this* article? Bwood (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Rm Skäpperöd (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Nazi propaganda brought by Skapperod is notable. I will restore information that it presented colonists as natives.--Molobo (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Geiss quote

Why is half the section entitled "Political Background" filled with this quote during the last gasp of the Commission's existance? "Background" implies situations/events/etc that lead up to something. A discussion of the concept of Lebensraum would be more appropriate here, I think.

"German historian Profesor Imannuel Geiss in his scholary work on German designs for Poland during World War I, Der polnische Grenzstreifen 1914-1918. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Kriegszielpolitik im Ersten Weltkrieg, writes that legislation was drafted by German leaders in preparation for a larger colonization effort, wherein some two million Poles and Jews would be removed to make room for German colonists in annexed territories of Congress Poland, while Poles within the German Empire's Polish provinces, obtained in the Partitions of Poland, would be "encouraged" to move out if they did not accept Germanization."

Bwood (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Rm per WP:UNDUE- does not belong here at all. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Piotrus, before you restore this again, keep in mind that these plans were

• never executed
• based on the same ideologic background that led to the SC establishment, but else not related to the commission
• made in the last years of the war when the commission became obsolete anyway

The quoted plans are to be understood as telling the Germans "the harder your losses" (that's what they experienced) "the higher your future gains" - and therefore is in part propaganda to motivate a people getting tired of the war. The "real" part of the plans was the need to refill the treasure of the state emptied by the war costs. For that, it was presented as one option to annex territory in the east. For this article, the information is at least strongly overweight if not irrelevant at all. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost was never executed but we have a whole article about it. That the plan existed and was connected to Settlement Comission is noted and notable enough to be mentioned. As to the rest of your claims-they are unsourced.--Molobo (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That the plan [...] was connected to Settlement Comission is noted Noted by whom? Until now a more than very distant relation has not been backed by anything. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Except for Professor Geiss. --Molobo (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You did not back yet that Geiss connected the plan to the Settlement Commission. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh its on several pages. Page 32, 71...--Molobo (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Besides you ignore the fact of deleting information why the attempt started and what was its motivation as well as background, presenting only misleading information about about Prussian court temporary stop of expulsion law.--Molobo (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

German Empire's sources

Sources from German Empire claiming that colonists were natives must be portayed in neutral way as there is question about their neutrality.--Molobo (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do accept that a substantial German population dwelled in the Polish lands since the Middle Ages. You are the only one who disputes that. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That some Germans existed in Polish state nobody disputes. However this is about colonists brought to take over Polish territories. You adress the wrong subject.--Molobo (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you agree on the presence of Germans native to these territories, what is your problem to accept that some of them aquired land from the SC under favourable conditions? Skäpperöd (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. They were immigrants and colonists, not "natives". The question is about German colonists sent to Germanise Polish territories. Not about if earlier there was some other influx of Germans into Poland. Third German Empire which was an essentialy racist apartheid state for Poles isn't objective source of information about its treatment of Polish population.--Molobo (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

They were immigrants and colonists, not "natives". You are wrong about that. Please keep in mind that there was a substantial German population there since the Middle Ages, some were assimilated ("Polonized" if you like), others were not. You can't call those people immigrants or colonists.Skäpperöd (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is about German colonists sent to Germanise Polish territories. Not about if earlier there was some other influx of Germans into Poland. That is what you keep to confuse. They were not sent. The SC bought land (from both Poles and Germans, see article) and offered these lands at good conditions to Germans only, regardless of where these Germans came from. It is not very surprising that, besides Germans from distant areas, also locals took their chance. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Third German Empire which was an essentialy racist apartheid state for Poles isn't objective source of information about its treatment of Polish population. No "Third German Empire" is used as a source here. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Sadly all throughout information about political background is being deleted[2].--Molobo (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You one-sided added parts of the historical background (which is POV) in a section covering a different issue. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I added direct information from scholary work about the subject. One sided ? Care to write who claims German Empire's policy was not anti-Polish and didn't discriminate Poles ? Please remember to not use Nazi authors, as Baron Galera who you brought up earlier can't be used as credible source due to his admiration of Nazi party, racist comments and devotion to Hitler.--Molobo (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, let us look into the information disliked by user Skapperod.

• After Partitions of Poland and Congress of Vienna, Prussia acquired Polish majority provinces - impossible to argue with, a well-established fact,
• The "Polish question" has become one of the most important issues in German Empire - a referenced information, especially the government of Prussia was very concerned about its Polish minority. Please note that Poles were by far the biggest minority of the whole empire,
• Poles experienced religious, political and economic discrimination - a well-established fact, backed by numerous references. Tymek (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

@Molobo:yawn.

@Tymek: I do not "dislike" the information. The section the information was inserted to deals with the political background, not the historical one. It depicts administrative measures taken concerning the SC, please have a look. Maybe one should rename the section in "Political measures concerning the SC"? A coverage of the historical background (as a kind of introduction) should not imply that Germany was exceptionally nationalistic back than (I do not question she was). Also, "the Polish question" is phrased in analogy to "the Jewish question" and don't tell me this association was not made by purpose. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Molobo:yawn.

Thanks, I guess then that you have no arguments regarding my comment and agree with what I said.

"Also, "the Polish question" is phrased in analogy to "the Jewish question" and don't tell me this association was not made by purpose." Too bad for your argument that this was not made by me but the scholar I am using. And in fact occurs quite common as Bismarck used the phrase in his speeches:

• [3]

Bismarck and the "Polish Question." Speech to the Lower House of the Prussian Parliament, January 28, 1886.

• Bismarck and the Prussian Polish Policies of 1886

Bismarck stressed, in a letter to the German ambassador to the Vatican, that "the Polish question is solely one of nationaility"

• BISMARCK AND THE POLISH QUESTION

Canadian Journal of History: Discusses the political views of former German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck on Prussia's Polish minority problem in 1894

• CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Kulturkampf

"He laid great stress on this fact; as is well known, the Polish question"

• Bismarck and the Polish Question.

[4]

• Bismarck’s Speech to the Prussian House of Deputies on the Polish Question

[5]

Europe in 1848: Revolution and Reform by Dieter Dowe, Heinz-Gerhard Haupt

Has a whole chapter on page 174 titled Polish Question in Europe, defining it The long life of "Polish question" in the nineteenth century is a result of both the fact that each of the three partitioning powers of Poland had their Polish question, making the areas of the partition internally destabilizing factors fof 120 years, and especially to pan-European dimension. "The latter arose from the consequences(which lasted for the entire century) of Poland's "general, definitive and irrevocable dismemberment" for the European balance of of power and from cross-border attempts by Poles to reverse this partitioning and to restore Poland as an independent state"

"The explosivness of the Polish question for Europe was a consequence of the fact that maintaining the partition and preventing the re-emergance of a Polish nation-state were fundamental conditions for preserving the European balance of power and the system of states founded in 1815."

All the above are from scholary sources. The term Polish question is quite common term and not invented by me. In fact google books will give you circa 2000 hits for it. Which makes me think an article is in order btw.--Molobo (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC) A coverage of the historical background (as a kind of introduction) should not imply that Germany was exceptionally nationalistic You misunderstand the goal of Wikipedia, it is not to shape a picture of Germany you would like to see but to document facts. We are not here to shape views or to present our opinions. That the Poles were discriminated is undisputed and you haven't presented a single argument for your deletion of information about persecution of Poles. As to your claim about how Germany wasn't exceptionally nationalistic-this is not relevant to the article and your OR. If you have scholars claiming so-put their opinion in proper articles. On my part I read a great deal on Germany and will no doubt also contribute to its articles based on scholary sources.--Molobo (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained blanking regarding discrimination of Poles

Please explain blanking of the page regarding information about discrimination of Poles in German Empire [6]

The information is essential to make the reader understand what were the reasons for this situation.--Molobo (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Records of the Commission

Are the records of the commission are open to the public? The reason I ask is that my fathers paternal grandparents came to the US in October 1886 from Sztum County. I have always wondered if the commission purchased their land.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The records are partly lost, partly in Berlin, Posen or Bromberg. Look here for mor detail (in German): http://www.gsta.spk-berlin.de/schlagwort_posen_664.html Skäpperöd (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Major expansion

Major expansion:

• Added more on funds
• Added more on resistance of Poles
• Added more on motivation behind the action
• Added on actvity of SC leaders during First World War
• Added various other details.
• Added map.

--Molobo (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Article name

The name of the article has been moved without prior discussion or request to move. The current name doesn't seem to be encounterd in English sources besides Wikipedia. The Settlement Commission seems to be the most common name encountered. If somebody wants to change the name please use the discussion page and request for move. Regards,--Molobo (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move as proposed. JPG-GR (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Settlement Commission → Royal Prussian Settlement Commission in the provinces of West Prussia and Posen — Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers), use of unambiguous title, correct English translation of the German term — Skäpperöd (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Strong Oppose The name doesn't appear outside of Wikipedia(original research), a more acceptable name would be Prussian Settlement Commission or Settlement Commission(Prussian Partition of Poland). The proposed name uses German not English name of Poznań so it is not correct translation, also it is too long.--Molobo (talk) 09:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Prussian Settlement Commission. The name "Royal Prussian Settlement Commission in the provinces of West Prussia and Posen" is much too long, unnecessarily specific and has no results on the web. "Settlement Commission" on the other hand is much too general, creates more questions than it answers and there are many "Settlement Commission"s - check the web. So I'd go for "Prussian Settlement Commission", which is frequent, short, clear and specific. Sciurinæ (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me Skäpperöd (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the way too long name per Molobo, neutral on the one proposed by Sciurinæ.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Molobo and Piotrus. Nihil novi (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support "Prussian Settlement Commission". The current title is unnecessarily cryptic. Dekimasuよ! 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The article must be moved back to Royal Prussian Settlement Commission in the provinces of West Prussia and Posen for the following reasons:

(1) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) says: 1) All Wikipedia articles on public agencies/offices/departments etc. and political officials must effectively communicate the name of the jurisdiction involved within the article title. So we would have to include Prussia by adding S.... C.... (Prussia), if there was not: 3) Pre-disambiguation shall not be carried out in the event of the jurisdiction name being a natural part of the subject's name (c.f. [...] Royal Australian Navy, [...]), so we need to title the article with (the English translation of) the commissions natural name.

(2) The use of "Settlement Commission" only is disambiguous, numerous other settlement commissions can be found at google search for "settlement commission", google books search for "settlement commission" and google scholar search for "settlement commission". Settlement Commission should be made a dab page. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(3) "Royal Prussian Settlement Commission in the provinces of West Prussia and Posen" is the correct translation of the full German name "Königlich Preußische Ansiedlungskommission in den Provinzen Westpreußen und Posen". The translation of the provinces' names Westpreußen and Posen should be West Prussia and Posen - not Poznan (which is the Polish name of the city the province was named after), as the respective Prussian province was/is known as Province of Posen. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your responce. However it doesn't seem to support the claim to your name which is not effective and actualy counterproductive to Wiki rules. The name you chose doesn't appear outside Wikipedia so it wouldn't be effective. If there will be more Settlement Commission articles we will create a dab page. For now that is not a problem. Furthermore your title is way too long and would have to include double naming for germanised names of Polish Poznań. A Settlement Commission(Prussian partition of Poland) is a better title. But for now that is not a problem since the Settlement Commission is the best known title for that organisation and no other articles of similar names exist. Also if they would be created it would be easier to give those less known commissions their own specific names rather then change this one. Also your title is not found outside of Wiki-it is clear therefore that it would be Original Research. After all the English name of Poznań is Poznan and not Posen, therefore the translation would be different. Regards--Molobo (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the shortened term "Settlement Commission" is widely used, however only in contexts that make it clear which commission is being talked about, that is the shortened term is only in use in works on late 19th/early 20th Prussia and the respective provinces are always mentioned. Here, we have a different case. Another settlement commission that has a wiki article is eg the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, others might be on wiki already or will come up. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As you yourself noted there are no other articles besides the two. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission is already in existance and has its own specific name, the name you propose is way too long for Wiki, doesn't appear outside of Wikipedia and uses German not English name of Poznań. More acceptable alternatives are Prussian Settlement Commission or Settlement Commission(Prussian Partition of Poland).--Molobo (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, other settlement commissions are also mentioned in en wiki without (yet) having an own article: Bill Dodd (Tidelands settlement commission) Henry Morgenthau, Sr. (Greek Refugee Settlement Commission) Wollert, Victoria (Soldier Settlement Commission) Skäpperöd (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you-as you can see all of those have short and elegant names. So how about Prussian Settlement Commission,Settlement Commission in Prussian Partition of Poland, Settlement Commission(Prussian Partition of Poland) ?--Molobo (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see you agree on the need of a title change because of the disambiguity of the current title. You simply oppose the use of thq=%22settlement%20commission%22 google books search for "settlement commission"] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100e English translation of the commission's German name. Yet, as I outlined in reasons (1) and (3) for the move request, we do not have another option without interfering with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers). Your descriptive proposals could be used for redirect pages. If however your concerns are all about the mentioning of the word "Posen" or the non-mentioning of the words "Poznan" and "Poland", please say so and have this discussion in a separate section. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't understand. Settlement Commission is quite ok with me. As to German, indeed this is English wikipedia we don't use German language here.--Molobo (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I see I understood very well. You don't want "Posen" in this articles title, since this is the only term in the English translation of the German term that resembles the German word. If you want to discuss whether or not the English term for the respective province is Province of Posen or not, do that at Talk:Province of Posen and do not have this discussion as a substitute. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to say you still don't understand. Also the English name of Poznań is Poznan from what I know, and in German Poznań is germanised to Posen. However I guess we already established that your title is nowhere to be found outside Wikipedia and thus Original Research. What can be sourced is The "Royal Prussian Settlement Commission in the Provinces of West Prussia and Poznania" which Scott Eddie uses. Who btw you used as a source, so you should know already. Still that is a very long term, and not as common as Prussian Settlement Commission.--Molobo (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A variety of translations of the commission's name can be found, one being the Eddie term ... Poznania, ... Posen and West Prussia are more common. But since you again made it clear in your last post that the only purpose of this straw man discussion is to introduce your "Poznan" stuff, I will abstain from getting deeper into a naming dispute that in fact is none - "Province of Posen" is the established English name of the former province, and all you add concerning that matter is displaced here. Yet, I am glad that you once again stated your motivation, so now everybody knows. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I can't see anywhere outside Wikipedia the title you proposed. Similar title is used by Scott but with Poznania rather then Posen. It seems your title is Original Research. However even Scott's title is very limited in use and outnumbered by other accepted names of the Commission that was to germanise Polish territories. Also please stop personal accusations and focus on the matter on hand. This will improve the quality of discussion. Regards--Molobo (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

--> Move to "Prussian Settlement Commission" requested at WP:RM Uncontroversial Moves following the consensus of the move debate. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of misquoting a source and OR

(first statement of Molobo copied from Skäpperöd talk)

You misquoted the text: There is nothing in the source you brought up about Scott Eddie. The pdf writes about specific and detailed legal situations which are mentioned in the text in detail. You made a cut and paste without mentioning that the statements is about a specific and very detailed legal issue and doesn't in any way connect to Scott's Eddie text. I am afraid this is Originall Research. Furthermore-as this is a very detailed text and information, full information could be needed.--Molobo (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The respective paragraph is:

The Polish state refused to recognize the ownership rights of most of the German settlers, about half of whom fled or were driven out of Poland[1:Source is S.Eddie]. These actions of the Polish state were condemned by the Permanent Court of International Justice, ruling out in 1923 "that the position adopted by the Polish Government [...] was not in conformity with its international obligations."[33:Source is worldcourt]

The Polish government actions condemned by the court are, that this government did not recognize:

(a) Contracts having for their object the transfer of estates or of real or personal property where the property therein had passed or the object had been delivered before the parties became enemies;

(b) Leases and agreements for leases of land and houses;

This can be condensed and summarized into The Polish state refused to recognize the ownership rights of most of the German settlers, as already stated by S.Eddie in the sentence before. There is no need to accuse me of misquoting and OR for that. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Several additions

I made several additions. First of all Prussia wasn't 'tolerant' to Poles and pursued Germanisation efforts-this can be easly sourced by multiple sources if desired so. Least to say hundreds of Poles were sentenced to death by Prussia for pro-Polish activities and Duchy of Poznań was stripped of its autonomy very soon, German officials were selected instead of Polish ones to rule the region, Polish university was denied right to operate and so on.--Molobo (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You deleted RS-sourced information that Prussia respected Polish nationality and language before the advent of Kulturkampf. You cannot just do that, and you should know that by now. If you have RS stating something different, read WP:NPOV how to proceed. I reverted to the initial version. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Secondly the settlement did influce the ethnic structure. There would be 154.000 Germans less and that is much. Furthermore locally they were succesfull efforts to Germanise regions and to connect German scattered areas into larger concentrated ones. I will now work on the statement by the world court which needs additional expansion.--Molobo (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Of a population of ~4 million (PoP+WP) 150,000 of which a quarter was there already before is not really that much, is it. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You would have to lower that overall population number-since it contains German military, officials and previous settlers brought to Germanise Polish areas. But indeed 150,000 is a considerable percentage and is a large number.

--Molobo (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC) "If you have RS stating something different, read WP:NPOV how to proceed" I am sorry but you seem to be confused as to how sourcing works:we don't include every source we can find but the mainstream one and reliable-I am sure you can find source that say Bush is Reptile or Earth is flat, but rest asure they belong to minority view that is not represented in main articles. There is a considerable mythology behind Prussia and claims of its tolerance towards Poles would be fitting in that article. However if you insist on more background regarding position of Poles before Pussian Settlement Comission-that can be done. --Molobo (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Name does not appear outside of Wikipedia

"Royal Prussian Settlement Commission in the provinces of West Prussia and Posen" This name does not appear outside of Wikipedia.--Molobo (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't find the alledged sourced text in the book

Ferdinande Knabe, Sprachliche Minderheiten und nationale Schule in Preussen zwischen 1871 und 1933: Eine bildungspolitische Analyse,

Prussia had respected Polish nationality and language.

Where is that stated ? I couldn't find anything on page 118, but perhaps my German knowledge isn't good enough.--Molobo (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The update is continuing

It will be continued tomorrow, please have patience. --Molobo (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC) For now that is it but further expansions will come, rest assured.--Molobo (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Made minor style corrections

Made minor style corrections. --Molobo (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Nationalism" - minor but important change, for accuracy's sake

Quote from lead:
"The Commission's activities stimulated Polish nationalism and triggered Polish countermeasures, climaxing after World War I, when the Second Polish Republic was established, in the expropriation of Commission-owned lands."
Reaction to systemic oppression cannot be called - and pretty much never is in respectable sources - "nationalism". Nationalism is a completely different thing. And it should not be confused, it really shouldn't, with national identity. I sincerly hope you see the difference.
In its quoted form, this whole sentence is clearly of the implying-misinforming type. "Nationalism" has very negative connotations especially when applied to Eastern and Central Europe, I hope you understand this is serious. Giving room for misinterpretation is something that can be very harmful when present in the opening paragraph of the article, before the reader has any kind of grasp of the situation at all.
Read the "Polish countermeasures" section and tell me where you see the alleged "nationalism" described there(answer: it's not there. No mention of nationalism, nor any actions that could be described as nationalist).
The word "nationalism" cannot be used, as it has no basis in facts. (Were the Black Africans who fought against apartheid "nationalists" or - worse yet - "racist" against whites? Were anti-Nazi resistance fighters "nationalists" because they fought for their respective nations against another nation's interest? If so, then we all are nationalists, because most of us would start getting protective of our culture, property and peoples in the situation when this culture was under attack. For examples see the tight structures of Jewish communities in Europe and how their insistence on tradition and preserving of culture was a reaction to abuse as well as simply being outnumbered - and thus automatically at risk.)
I suggest, then, that the word "nationalism" be replaced by "national identity", or removed altogether, as it is not applicable to the situation described. "Strengthened/stimulated the strengthening of Polish national identity" is my proposition, and I will change it in the article for now (another suggestion could be "growth of national identity", I'm not sure which sounds more encyclopaedic). If someone wishes to revert - do so, but please explain why, and what definition of "nationalism" you are using.
Thank you.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a very good point. The section as it is now reads much better.VolunteerMarek 01:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Any HAKATIST would have defined the commission's aims as "strengthening the (German) national identy" of the region, that doesn't change the nationalist character of its policy. Contrary to your assumption, the Polish counterparts are called "nationalists" by respectable sources, for a good reason, as the "strengthening" of one nation in a multi-ethnic region is for sure a matter of nationalism. The subsection needs a less glorifying expansion on that, that's true. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, because there is a fundamental issue of asymmetry here. German policies, motivated by German nationalism, tried to squash Polish identity, but it back fired. If this was a Polish government trying to squash other nationalities in this "multi-ethnic region" then you'd have a point, But there wasn't. Resistance to oppression is not the same thing as the oppression itself.VolunteerMarek 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And the section which you refer to reads just fine.VolunteerMarek 18:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The HAKATA believed the region was Polonized because of the Ostflucht and thus the strengthening of the German element was a "countermeasure" (from their POV). It's a matter of your own perspective, what you consider "nationalist" or "normal". We should stick to what sources say and they surely call it nationalism. BTW, off course did the Polish government (probably the same people as involved in this pre-war conflict) try to "squash" the Germans from that region (after WWI). HerkusMonte (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

From the point of view of people from Hakata and Nazis(who used remaining German settlers in 1939 to organize mass murder operations) Poles were inferior barbarians and untermenschen. But Wikipedia doesn't serve to propagate that view as neutral. It can be inserted in articles about these organizations. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

as the "strengthening" of one nation in a multi-ethnic region is for sure a matter of nationalism. It was only multi-ethnic in the sense Zamość was in 1942-1944-due to German military presence and colonization. Had there been no German colonization and colonists the issue would not exist. There was nothing nationalistic in resisting attempts to be eradicated either by German state, unless you claim that to be non-nationalists they should have welcomed their destruction with open arms.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The region was multi-ethnic a long, a very long time before the Commission was established (see e.g. Tumult of Thorn). HerkusMonte (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by multi-ethnic. That Jews, Scots and Germans were a minority in the region is true, but they never formed a majority groups. The efforts of German government were aimed at making the small minority of Germans the dominant majority in Polish territories. Hence resistance to changing the situation by forced Germanisation can hardly be described as "nationalism". Likewise the removal of German colonists-either from Zamość or Warsaw was hardly nationalism--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, "multi-ethnic" requires a majority and a minority, otherwise it wouldn't be "multi"-ethnic. And this wasn't "due to German military presence and colonization" but the result of centuries of coexistence. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

By that reasoning Warsaw in 1939 was multi-ethnic. And sorry Herkus but the presence of Germans in large number in Poland after partitions was the result of forced Germanization and military occupation not "centuries of coexistence". As the article clearly explains--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way. Your link to some religious conflict in Toruń(a Polish city btw) says nothing about demography of Poland. While there was heavy German presence in Toruń, this means nothing as overwhelming population of that time lived in rural areas not in cities, and Toruń was just one city. IIRC the German arrivals in Poland were in Greater Poland estimated at around 10% after Germanisation during Prussian occupation of Poznań till Poznań Uprising supporting liberation by Napoleon. Might be worth adding to the article. Cheers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Me again, the OP. I thought I made my point very clear, I explained it in a wider context. Right now the lead reads "The Commission's activities had a countereffect in Poles using "defensive nationalism"[4] and unifying "Polish nationalism, Catholicism and cultural resistance"[5]" and it sounds ridiculous to be honest. Such language is NEVER used in articles about cultural defence movements against oppression. It reeks of lack of understanding of sociology, power issues and how colonialism works.
So here's how you know it's not nationalism: we have an entire country, with complex organisations and an army directing and supporting the oppression of an occupied indigenous population, which population has no access to power. Against them you have a bunch of underground organisations and individuals (note the lack of an army) who are trying to counteract the CHANGES being created by the oppressors. There is nothing of nationalistic nature here. All it is is trying to prevent the destruction of something that exists (i.e. Polish culture and language here), and is not carried out from the hatred of the other culture/language. There was no reason whatsoever for Polish people to NOT want to oppose those anti-Polish measures, as they were basically racist. Resistance organisations didn't need to hate or think less of the German language and culture nor even the German settlers in order to be against their CHANGING of the already existing situation and taking all the power away from them on their land.
Land rights are real, and they have nothing to do with nationalism. Many indigenous peoples around the world are now fighting to get their land back, notably in South America and Scandinavia.
Now, I'm asking again: are attempts to revive/preserve indigenous cultures, such as those of Native Americans, in reaction to active attempts against those cultures, "nationalistic"?
Nationalism is the favouring of one's nation, often at the expense of others. There we have the favouring of the German nation at the expense of Poles by a STATE and on the opposite side we have the measures taken by small organisations to counteract nationalism.
If you still don't get it, I must assume malevolence because honestly, Polish nationalism had nothing to do with these people trying to not get wiped out/impoverished.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And another thing, (perhaps more important if you're so sure of your strange definition of nationalism), I checked the sources given for the unfortunate sentence, here are my conclusions.

One of the sources cited for the word "nationalism" is not even about Central Europe and as such I wouldn't say the author can be trusted to know what he's talking about (I mean, it's a book about Africa. The link given reveals that the person who added it searched Google Books for "Polish nationalism commission"... You'll find a source for every claim that way, but it is your responsibility as a Wikipedian to consider if the source is good enough for such a strong word to be used :)).

The other source says, quote: "The Archbishop (...) had initially been very willing to collaborate with the Prussian authorities against Polish nationalism" - so clearly the author uses the rhetoric of the occupiers, presenting the Germanisation as itself being a REaction against Polish ... "nationalism", while we know for fact that the measures taken by the Commission had nothing to do with Polish nationalism but with colonisation, and were not a REaction. The source, therefore, proves nothing.

Again, if the countermeasures were nationalist, then anti-apartheid fighters were racist against whites for wanting them to STOP being racist. It's as simple as that. Any actions taken by native population against the occupier/colonist are nothing but resistance, and have the goal of preventing/reversing CHANGES forcibly caused by the attacker. Colonialism(s) are caused by nationalism or racism (+economy), resistance is defence of the original order of things. I can't say it any simpler, sorry. I feel this entire essay was unnecessary because the person who keeps adding "nationalism" has an agenda, along the lines of "if you can't blame the victim, at least smear them a bit". Maybe I'm wrong in my reading between the lines, if so, then the arguments provided by myself and the others should be more than enough to stop their apparently quite strong insistence on using a word that does not belong here. (Thanks and congrats if anyone actually reads this far, I need to work on my verbosity ;))--109.196.118.133 (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence now reads "The Commission's activities had a countereffect in Poles that led to the strengthening of Polish national identity and triggered Polish countermeasures, climaxing after World War I, when the Second Polish Republic was established, in the expropriation of Commission-owned lands and reversing Germanization". Here the changed bit is in italics. Please discuss before changing/reverting. --109.196.118.133 (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Several reliable sources clearly call it "nationalism", this is WP:NOTAFORUM to discuss our personal opinions on what is nationalism and what is not. Just a general remark: the Polish National Democracy has its roots in the struggle against the Commission, the nationalist character of that movement is hardly arguable. Also, calls for a boycott of (all) "Germans and Jews" (what the hell have Jews to do with the Commssion's activities) are obviously nationalist. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the anon IP is correct. Resistance to German attempt of eradication of Poles can hardly be defined as nationalism, and giving it primacy in description of the reactions of Poles disturbs the neutral language of the lead. Reactions to German attempts to destroy Polish existence can be detailed in appropriate sections. Thus I support IP's author in this regard.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The word "nationalism" is of evaluative type, this needs to be stated. A good point raised by MyMoloboaccount which I hadn't stressed sufficiently is that the sentence is present in the LEAD. Which is the only part of the article that many users will read. And HerkusMonte didn't address my questions about the reliability of the sources. Nowhere in Wikipedia did I see citations given simply for the use of a single controversial word (as opposed to a discussion within the article of whether or not such word can be used and presenting varying views of scholars and so on). Please address 1) what one of the sources has to do with the topic in a broader sense, and 2) why you don't seem to notice that the other source uses the word "nationalism" with agreement to the rhetoric of the Prussian side (which is what I pointed to before but you didn't bother replying). Re: not a forum - nowhere did I talk about my opinion, I talked about the reasons for my edits. For every scholar (here 2) that talks of Polish nationalism as being so important to the resistance to the Commission (since it's in the lead, it must be important, right?), there will be tens if not hundreds who don't.
Since I did go to the above two users' talk pages I now understand that this discussion is not so much about the socio-linguistic framework within which words like "nationalism" are used, and much more with the respective users' ongoing feud. I feel that BEFORE a word of such strenght as "nationalism" is re-inserted to the article, an opinion from another person is needed. The lack of the word in the lead for now doesn't harm the article nor the knowledge of its readers, the insertion of it can. So we need 1) the insistent user who inserts the word to actually address the criticism, and possibly 2) someone from the outside to maybe join in on the discussion. Number 1 is essential, just to be clear.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the truth but about verifiability. The term “nationalism” is used by at least three reliable sources: Andrew Zimmerman is a Professor of German history, his book was published by the Princeton University , Bideleux[7] and Jeffries[8] are Professors at the Swansea University and Catherine Epstein[9] at Amherst College. Your claim, that Bideleux uses the "rhetoric of the Prussian side" (the "occupiers" as you prefer to call it) is unsubstantial and rather absurd. If you think, these sources aren’t reliable you might take the issue to WP:RSN .

The commission had a substantial effect on Polish-German relations in the late 19th/early 20th century and the Polish public opinion, I don’t think this is a matter of dispute. Thus this effect is important enough to be mentioned in the lead in a way reliable scholars do. HerkusMonte (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Please use an account.

Common sense and order of importance are welcome too, on Wiki. The quote used as reference that assumed (not in the sense of agreeing, just language) the Prussian side clearly implies that the Commission acted in REACTION to Polish... action, which is not historically true, as even this article states. As for your earlier claim of what, in your opinion, constitutes "nationalist" action, a boycott of German businesses seems a very reasonable strategy not for nationalistic reasons, but for the purpose of hindering Prussian economy as well as reversing the negative effects Prussian politics had on Polish population's economy. You seem not to get the linguistic framework in which re-actions to colonisation are generally spoken about, but more than enough words have been written on this above.

As for "truth", Wikipedia is supposed to be a resource for people seeking information, not a place to insert any claim you can find 2 sources for and highlight it as much as possible. As I said, matters of importance and overall effect/balance apply.

As for verifiability, sorry but as you simply googled "polish nationalism commission" to support the use of the word "nationalism"; it would be hard for me to search for a VOID that is in place of the word "nationalism" in many sources. How does one search for a lack of something? :) (I still find this googling "nationalism" thing highly amusing tbh)

I pass, because I can no longer be bothered. Other users will take up the discussion or not. Hopefully readers will check the talk anyway, I can't be the only one who does it.

P.S. There's a reason why Wiki allows for not signed-in users to contribute, and I'm going to use this option as I please.--109.196.118.133 (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

3O request

Dispute is about these two versions [10]

Discussion copied from VolunteerM's and HerkusMonte's talk pages: Added by User:HerkusMonte at 05:49, 19 March 2012 [11] HerkusMonte (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

(Above comment by Herkus)

The link you're looking for is here [12]. Otherwise, please don't copy my comments from other places to make it look like I commented here.

Furthermore, 3O is completely NOT the appropriate venue for this. 3O doesn't get to decide whether something is a copyvio or not. I suggest you ask someone who has experience in working with copy vios like User:Moonriddengirl, or folks at WP:CCI. Which I have ALREADY suggested.VolunteerMarek 05:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

VM just removed [13] the (copied) discussion from here. For details of the discussion please tak a look at User talk:Volunteer Marek#Re:copy vio HerkusMonte (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I removed the copied discussion because I did not make those comments here - I made them on the talk page. And I already linked to my talk page.VolunteerMarek 06:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page and have reviewed the issues thoroughly. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of uninvolved eyes. I have made no previous edits on this page that I am aware of and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. If you feel that my answer is not appropriate, or not thorough enough I may be contacted to add to it, or an additional third opinion may be sought by replacing the {{3O}} template. I hope this reply is of assistance and I am expressly open to feedback, barnstars, kittens, or trout slaps on my talk page! This is obviously just my opinion, so if Moonriddengirl (or whomever) would like to comment, the more the merrier, as far as I'm concerned. In any case, as with my copyright issues, there is a lot of room for arguing either side of this particular edit. This just doesn't appear to be one of those instances where the edit is clearly allowed or clearly prohibited. So, my suggestion would be to edit it to a point where all parties are satisfied with the result, if possible. I've reworked the current draft, tweeking the language and only directly copying a snippet from the leaflet (which I think provides important flavor for the article.): Polish Nationalists accused the Settlement Commission of being run by Germans and Jews, and distributed a leaflet in 1912 that warned "any Pole who buys from Jews and Germans undermines the existence of the Catholic Church and the Fatherland." Local newspapers attempted to intimidate residents who purchased goods from German and Jewish merchants by publishing their names in the paper and accusing them of "betray[ing]...their country."—JoelWhy (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is why I have a problem with this being handled via 3O. Whether or not the passage in question is a copyvio or not is a purely technical question. Since it is a purely technical question it should be solved by someone with a bit of expertise in those matters.

However, EVEN IF the passage is not a copyvio it MAY STILL be violating OTHER Wikipedia policies for other reasons, like WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. In this particular instance, the purpose of including the passages seems to be to try and give the reader an impression that while this commission took land from Poles and gave it to Germans, this was "okay" because the Poles involved were these evil "nationalists" and "anti-Semites". It seeks to justify colonial practices by blaming or smearing the victim (and yes, sometimes the victims aren't crystal clear innocents). It uses a single, cherry picked source, and cherry picked quotation, to support this.

Hence, I would rather than someone who's familiar with CV decides the copyvio issue, and then once that settled we move on to the NPOV and UNDUE issues - which are still very important. So first, we need to agree on a paraphrasing of the text which does not violate copyrights, then we can talk about whether its inclusion is justified or not. But these are two different things.VolunteerMarek 23:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your answer shows that you are in fact using WP:copyvio to remove things you don't like from the article (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). You are not addressing your concerns, instead you follow salami tactics if consensus on one of your issues is against you. I think this is a matter of WP:GAME.

Your assumptions on "the purpose" of this passage are absurd and actually not worth an answer. Do you seriously believe Andrew Zimmerman tries to give the reader an impression that the Commissions (SC) actions were "okay"? Do you seriously believe Princeton University would publish such a book? The nationalist character of the SC is one of the main topics of the article, to mention some criticism towards "the other side" in a few sentences is in fact a matter of NPOV. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No Herkus, the problem is that there are multiple concerns here and my point is simply that it's best to tackle them one at a time. The first concern is that the original text version was very closely paraphrased. That's a purely technical issue which has to do with WP:CV. However, even once that is addressed, the other issues of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE still remain. This isn't "gaming" anything it's just trying to navigate a particularly complex situation. It's not my problem if the text you're pushing violates several, not just one, of Wikipedia's policies. You're making it sound like because the text in question is problematic along several dimensions and I point them out one at a time, that's somehow my fault. To put it in other words four wrongs still don't make a right.VolunteerMarek 01:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit closely paraphrased, but a small passage and hence, in my opinion, highly unlikely to exceed the de minimis threshold. It's pretty easily resolved by tweaking the language. There are no paraphrasing concerns whatsoever with JoelWhy's able rewrite above. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Just for the record: It wasn't an "obvious" copyvio, copied "verbatim", "word for word" or 99.5 percent of it. Maybe closely paraphrased, but not in a way that would violate WP:copyvio. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this terribly cherry picked. The Commission served German ethnic group, and we shouldn't pick up isolated statements to give false impression that Jewish population was cause or beneficiary of German racist policies. "to mention some criticism towards "the other side"" Excuse me? I don't understand what you are telling us. Why should Poles be criticised for resisting German attempt of eradication of their nation.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"racism" cats

Please check Category:Politics and race, which has sub-cats related specifically to ethnicity. I'm not an expert on categorization at Wikipedia and often times it leaves me scratching my head, but perhaps the question of whether an article such as this is covered by the relevant cats would be better discussed at the category's talk page? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130209170528/http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1923/1923.09.10_german_settlers.htm to http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1923/1923.09.10_german_settlers.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)