Talk:Szczecin

lede too long, cluttered

The history related part of the lede is of disproportionate size relative to the lede as a whole. I've looked through some random articles on cities and see none that spend this much time on the place's history in the lede:

• Toulouse has a single history related sentence.
• Vilnius has nothing history related in the lede, though it's lede is only two sentences.
• Dallas just has the date of the founding.
• Cambridge (a very historical town) has nothing on history in its lede either.
• Dresden has like two sentences in a paragraph.
• Lviv has a whole paragraph, which is probably too much and which is still less than this article.
• Prague has two short history related sentences in the lede.
• Barcelona has a short paragraph in an otherwise pretty long lede.
• Likewise for Milan.
• Kolkata has a single short sentence.
• San Antonio less than a sentence.
• Suva has two sentences.
• Yaoundé has nothing history related in the lede.
• Lagos also nothing.
• Mexico city has a short paragraph.
• Buenos Aires has a single short sentence which could maybe, perhaps, sort of be interpreted to be history related.
• Zurich has two sentences.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

On the other hand, here we have two very long paragraphs in the lede, which just repeat information found in the History section below. It's undue for the lede and there seems to be no legit reason for this length.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the lead. Neither the article nor the lead were too long. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not a discussion or an argument. It's an assertion. How am I supposed to reply to a "no it wasn't" statement? With a "uh huh it was?" Please don't blanket revert me. I would also appreciate it if you ceased what looks like a wiki-stalking of my edits. Whenever I edit an article, you pop up and revert or start a unproductive dispute. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before: No other cities' articles get written this way. I've shown evidence. Additionally, the Wikipedia guidelines to writing a lede [1] state:

If the article is long enough for the lead section to contain several paragraphs, then the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, including its more important controversies, if there are any.

The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs. The following specific rules have been proposed:

... 15,000–30,000 characters --> Two or three paragraphs

So

• following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. - NOT an extensive summary of just one section of the article, largely duplicating information which is found right next in the article.
• As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than two or three paragraphs - here we have four paragraphs, the longest two of which are all about one section of the article. Cut'em down to one short paragraph.
• 15,000–30,000 characters Two or three paragraphs - currently the article is at 22k characters (a good portion of which don't belong in the article itself but in sub articles, the way I moved them before the revert). Even without that consideration the lede is still one or two paragraphs too long. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Since no specific objection has been made, aside from some kind of personal IDON'TLIKEIT, I've restored my changes. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made a specific objection. The article is not too long, neither is the lead too lengthy. There are plenty of FAs about places which have a comparable number of sentences about history in their lead sections: Ashton-under-Lyne, Bath, Belgrade, Boston, Carabane, Chadderton, Cheadle Hulme, East End of London, Little Thetford, Neilston, Sale, Shaw etc. And please cut the totally displaced wikistalking allegations. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it looks like even those articles' lede-history sections are shorter than here. Assuming that it took some looking, these are probably upper bounds. Regardless, this is a OTHERSTUFF argument - I know I made a comparison as well, but I also cited relevant guidelines about lede length. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

list of notable people way to long - needs own sub article

I think it's pretty obvious that the list of notable people is way too long in proportion to the article. There's 61 folks listed. Sixty-freakin'-one. Nota bene, I followed the example of Strasbourg in how it should be done. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If the article really gets too long, one could think about a subarticle, but the article is not too long atm. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the section is too long relative to the rest of the article, and it is likely to be of secondary interest to most readers. This means it makes perfect sense to split it off. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

etymology section

Is also overtly long relative to the rest of the article. While some readers may have a basic interest in where the name comes from, there's really no need to have such a long section here - a link to a sub article, along with a short sentence or two, would be sufficient. The length of this section appears to be due to some editors' obsession with naming that most other people and editors simply don't share. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

When the article really gets too long, one could think about a subarticle, but the article is not too long atm. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the section is too long relative to the rest of the article, and it is likely to be of secondary interest to most readers. This means it makes perfect sense to split it off. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

undue

This whole section [2] is essentially one big exercise in WP:UNDUE. The section is supposed to cover the post war history of the city but it's entire focus is on immediate post war years, 1945 and 46. In fact the section is so long now that expanding the other 63 years of the town's post war history would make it, and the article as a whole completely unwiedly. This stuff needs to be either split off or simplified without going into all the details. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The developments of the post-war years laid the basis for today's Szczecin's ethnic composition, cultural traditions, reconstructed sights, street names, urban design, memorials, etc pp. Despite the collapse of communism in 1989, its impact on today's Szczecin's layout is still omnipresent. For example: of course people know by now that Szczecin's brick gothic and Renaissance sights have nothing to do with the Piasts, and I guess the majority of Poles were smart enough to know that all the time, yet the post-war Piast and Griffin myths are responsible for the state these sights are in today, with all later alterations removed, selective reconstruction and all that. These sights represent Szczecin today, attract tourists and serve for identification of the population with their town. Or take the current stret names in Szczecin: If you exit the autobahn from Germany and go for the center, you drive through Miesko I alley, Piast alley, Kościuszki plaza, Boleslaw Wrymouth alley, enter Victory plaza at the crossroad with the Alley of the Polish Army and drive Independence avenue to the Place of the Polish Soldier. You can walk along the Oder on the Piast boulevard and the Boleslaw Chrobry boulevard. It is therefore not undue to include a paragraph about how Communist ideologies changed the town's layout.

The paragraph about the Brichah route is neither undue. Thousands of Jews were smuggled to the American zone that way, with eventual consequences for the treatment of DPs by the allies and, if one keeps in mind that the eventual destination of many of the DPs was not Germany, but Palestine, the influx of further Jews from Poland contributed to the creation of the state of Israel. Szczecin as the primary gateway from Poland to the West thus played an important role in post-war Jewish history, which warrants a paragraph.

Skäpperöd (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with VM that this section is undue and should be trimmed, especially since the attempt of genocide by Germany against Jews, Poles and others classified by German state as "untermenschen" is very small in comparision.We also need more on eradication of initial cultural Polish/Slavic identity by Germanisation and discrimination of original inhabitants.As to the rest:its natural that cities and countries remark their previous history and important events-I see no reason to dwell on this in the article. If that is seem as something strange in German/German friendly histography than perhaps it deserves to be put in article on that, rather being pushed here. In any case it is undue and not worthy of inclusion-we can of course add a sentence that some historians are critical of Poland remembaring its Polish past.

you drive through Miesko I all

I believe you mean Mieszko I not "Miesko"-the polish ruler whose monuments are in several cities. I would really welcome that if you are interested in writing about Polish history and cities of Poland, you would get the spelling right-I had to correct your spelling error in the article previously.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To propose an "initial cultural Polish/Slavic identity" in medieval Stettin is an overtly nationalist and factually wrong thesis. And no, it is not "natural" that a regime invents a past for a city and then goes on "remembaring" that "Polish past" by conserving Brick Gothic and Renaissance buildings that fit in that invented scheme while in reality they have nothing to do with it, reconstructing them so they'd "fit" even better, and levelling the rest, it is neither "natural" that the main places and streets are named according to the Piast myth or after events connected to Polish military etc, that was motivated by post-war ideology.

To claim that this is just "German/German friendly histography" (sic!) "critical of Poland remembaring its Polish past" (sic!) is in itself ridiculuous, since the "German/German friendly"-label you use for the historians has a completely displaced nationalist connotation, and since the historians evidently do not criticize the remembrance of a Polish past at all, but the invention of a Polish past and the "remembrance" of that myth. Who are the historians whose research you discard and whom you declare "German/German friendly" and "critical of Poland remembaring its Polish past" anyway? For one, the proposedly "German" historian is Musekamp, employed by the Polish-German Viadrina university, expert for Szczecin, German, English and Polish publications, awarded a price by the Polish foreign minister; and what you call the "German friendly" historian must be Wawrzyniak, expert for communism and WWII in Poland. In other words, high quality academic sources without national biases. Your intention to introduce the nationalist-communist myth into this article as a fact, remove the paragraph about the historical context of the creation of this myth and defame the historians cited as nationally biased is dangerous for wikipedia. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For one, the proposedly "German" historian is Musekamp-yes a German historian from a German funded insitution. His studies on Poland started aby accident as he himself admits, and his speciality is...railway lines[3] Your point?

but the invention of a Polish past-wait, are you claiming the city never belonged to Poland? That's a bold claim. So far every source I have seen confirms that in the past the city was part of Polish state.If you are in possession of sources that claim the whole history and every source about the city being part of Poland is a fabrication/conspiracy then I would welcome some quite strong sources.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Molobo, you claimed an "initial cultural Polish/Slavic identity" in medieval Stettin, which is a nationalist statement, and the nationalist connotation of your "German/German friendly" etc remark is obvious, too. Don't twist my words, withdraw yours asap instead. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what is "an overtly nationalist" thesis is this kind of irredentist territory-marking via the creation of undue sections which dwell on every little detail, for a particular year, in a section which is supposed to cover 65 years, all with the aim of proving that "Stettin is a German city!". The problem is not with the source being used, but, as often is the case with how the sources are being (mis)used. As far as this "natural" thing goes, you're equivocating again, i.e. using the word "natural" in a different sense than I think MMA is using it above. And in any case, I'm not sure why you should be the one deciding what is "natural" and what is not. "Szczecin", its architecture and its street names are no more "unnatural" than calling Lipsk "Liepzig", Drezno "Dresden", Budziszyn "Bautzen", or for that matter New Amsterdam "New York". Places change their names and there comes a time when, all nationalist pride aside, folks need to get over it (particularly given the underlying reason and the way that these places wound up in Poland in the 20th century - if Germany hadn't invaded Poland in 1939, I'm sure Ssczecin would still be Stettin). Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To articulate, the problem with the present history section is that a history section should cover the ... history of the city. For the post-world war part it should be something like "In 1945 this and this happened. In the 1950's this and that happened. Then in the 1960's this and this until the 1970's when this and that. In the 1980's it was this", etc. Right now we have all these anecdotes, completely torn out of context, for just one or two years, then a missing 65 years. It sort of reminds me of how history of Sweden is taught in American textbooks ("The Swedes were Vikings and raped and pillaged all of Europe. They then settled down, became Social Democrats and instituted an extensive welfare state. The end.") The anecdotes themselves belong in a sub article or something, but they have a tendency to grow disproportionately large within this article because someone somewhere feels really passionately about something and tries to use them to make a point. This is the essence of WP:UNDUE. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to rebutt my source-backed criticism of a nationalist statement of your wikifriend by calling my source-backed edit nationalist on the basis of my alleged motives, i.e. your speculation that this had anything to do with some "irredentist territory-marking" etc which is completely made up by you and does neither reflect my motives at all, nor is it supported by my edits in any way. Concerning your assertion that the invention of a Polish past for the city and the resulting changes in the city's layout, as detailed in the paragraph sourced to Musekamp and Wawrzyniak, is limited to a few post-war years is false. This process took many years, it was most intense in the first two or three post-war decades, persisited throughout the Communist era and its outcome is omnipresent even today. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Using personal remarks and calling other comments "nationalists statement" doesn't make your case for changes here stronger in my view.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think I'm having trouble understanding your English; what does "There is no need to rebutt..." mean? Why is there no need? No need for what? Whom are you "re-butting", yourself, MMA or me? And of course once again you prove yourself completely incapable of having a discussion without mentioning the EEML, no matter how irrelevant. Taken together this looks like a simple refusal to discuss your proposed changes and an assertion that you plan to bully your way through on this article - a violation of the "D" in the "BRD". That's not how Wikipedia works.

Likewise the statement that "its outcome is omnipresent even today" is both irrelevant (of course the fact that the border changed in 1945 has affected today. So has the fact that Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939) and original research (omnipresent? Really? You sure that's not a bit strong? I mean, God is supposedly omnipresent. This is just unnecessary and unsupported hyperbole). Restoring in absence of actual arguments and reasons. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've asked for a third opinion concerning the proper place for the long block of text on the architectural development of the city right after World War II: [4].

My argument is essentially made above: [5]. Basically the section on Post War history of the city is supposed to cover the 65 years from the end of World War II (1945) until the present. That's 65 years. As is now, the section focuses exclusively on 1945 and a few years right after the war, apparently for the sake of some kind of nationalistic POV pushing to say that "Stettin is a German city" (the section on Jewish emigration is a bit too long over all but it does belong here). That's one year out of 65 which obviously violates WP:UNDUE.

In particular the block of text on the architectural changes in the city that happened right after the war's destruction (from the words The Polish state and city authorities ordered... until ...were in part used as a quarry for the 'Bricks for Warsaw' campaign: with 38 million bricks, Szczecin became Poland's largest brick supplier) is almost as long by itself as the rest of the section.

So. We have a section which is supposed to be about 65 years of history but focuses on one or two years instead. And within those one or two years, the majority of emphasis is on architectural developments.

Rather, the block of text on architecture belongs in... well, the Architecture section which is much shorter and where the info would not be undue. Actually, quite honestly, most of the material in that text belongs in a new sub article on Szczecin's architecture but until that's created I'm fine with it being in the architecture section here.

Furthermore, Skapperod is also using the reverting of the block of text from the architecture section to the history section as a way of restoring several dubious sentences and claims in that block of text. In particular the claim that the "the theory of a Piast origin was later discarded" is at best controversial, and probably unrepresentative of what is found in the actual (German language) source. At any rate, such a claim is subject of historical dispute and this article is not a place to go into the nitty gritty of that historical debate. Hence it is best to just exclude this dubious claim. Volunteer Marek  03:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the 65 years argument: Communist ideology and its impact on Szczecin was not limited to "one or two years" as you assume, but lasted for more than 40 years. The remaining 20 post-Communist years may safely be regarded as "present" in a wider sense and make up for the stuff outside the history section.
• Regarding the architecture argument: the respective paragraph is not only about architecture, but about the general approach of the Szczecin authorities in the post-war and Communist era. Where it is about architecture, it is about a past approach to urban planning that is not representative of Szczecin's urban planning and reconstruction efforts today. It therefore belongs into the history section, not into the architecture and urban planning section.
• Regarding the line "the theory of a Piast origin was later discarded" with respect to the Griffin dynasty: This reflects the source, a full quote was provided (Musekamp, J. (2006), p. 31: "als man merkte, dass die Ableitung des Greifengeschlechts von den Piasten nicht mehr zu halten war.") The origins of the Griffins remain entirely unclear until today, not one historical remnant exists bringing these origins to light (cf. "Greifen", NDB VII, p. 29; Schmidt, R. (2009): Das historische Pommern, 2nd edition, Köln/Weimar:Böhlau, p. 117). The Piast speculation was upheld in the early Communist era for ideological reasons only, despite the complete lack of proof, and has been discarded lateron. There is no ongoing "historical dispute" about that as you claim.
• Regarding your claim that my edits were done "apparently for the sake of some kind of nationalistic POV pushing to say that 'Stettin is a German city'": That is again a personal attack completely unsupported by my edits, and as such a frivolous and false speculation. There is no way of reading anything nationalistic in my edits, your remark is pure slander. I expect you to withdraw that accusation asap.
• Skäpperöd (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Communist ideology and its impact on Szczecin was not limited to "one or two years" as you assume, but lasted for more than 40 years - of course, but what does that have to do with the text you're putting in? In fact this is precisely my point; the text in the section should be about 40 years+ not just one two cherry picked years - which violates WP:UNDUE. Writing about the impact of communist ideology would involve writing about how the events of 1956 (Polish October) affected the city, the role the city played in strikes and demonstration in 1968 (1968 Polish political crisis), the 1970 events (Polish 1970 protests), the developments in mid 70's and the organization of Solidarity (Polish trade union) in Szczecin, and the city under martial law - and I've tried to expand those parts but am constrained by the fact that the section is already too long. Instead we get a disproportionally large chunk of text on architectural developments in 1945.

And the "as you assume" in your sentence is a straight up purposeful misrepresentation of what I said. Nowhere did I assume this nor said anything to that effect. You are, again, trying to use the strawman fallacy to gain an upper hand in an argument.

• the respective paragraph is not only about architecture, but about the general approach of the Szczecin authorities in the post-war and Communist era - no, it's pretty much about architectural changes.
• The origins of the Griffins remain entirely unclear until today - "remain entirely unclear" is not the same as "discarded". There are several competing hypothesis and none of them has 100% support among historians. But that's different than one hypothesis being "discarded" which is false. If you're gonna put in a strong (and essentially untrue) claim like that in the text then NPOV requires that the entire debate on the origins of the Griffins, including different opinions of historians, are included. But that would be, again, UNDUE, in this section of the article. There is a historical dispute, contrary to your assertion (and you pretty much admit that in your "The origins of the Griffins remain entirely unclear" statement - so you're essentially contradicting yourself here)

Btw, one of the main "competing hypothesis" as to their origin is that they were Polish nobles from Malopolska who were made stewards (you know, like Denethor) in Pomerania by the Piasts. Not exactly in line with the POV that is being pushed here and not all that different from them being related to the Piasts.

• Once again you are trying to pretend that legitimate criticisms of your edits are "personal attacks". They're not. This tactic is getting really tiresome, and you've been warned several times about this by others. Repeated accusations of PA when none is being made are in fact violations WP:CIVIL. Neither are these criticisms "slander" as the evidence is right here on the talk page. And keep in mind that you yourself throw the "nationalist" accusation towards anyone who dares to disagree with you whether it applies or not - in fact, quite recently, just right here on this talk page [6]. Volunteer Marek  20:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the text is not being removed or anything, just being moved to the appropriate section. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The post-war/Communist policy of Polonization of the town's history based on myths did not only affect the way how buildings were reconstructed or levelled, neither was that limited to the few post-war years, this is made clear in the sources given.

Regarding the Piast-origin-of-the-Griffins theory: The expert source explicitly states that it was discarded even in the later Communist era, so what's the point arguing about that. I know that "'remain entirely unclear'" is not the same as "'discarded'" - the additional sources I gave above who state that the origins are entirely unclear were provided to verify that the Piast speculation was no more than pure speculation from the beginning, based on no evidence at all; that it was discarded is already sourced. There is no need to re-hash these old, overcome speculations here. The "Polish nobles" speculation falls into the same category and is irrelevant to whether the Piast speculation was discarded.

Regarding your PA: There is a difference between calling a nationalistic comment a nationalistic comment, as I once did [7], and calling the motives of an editor nationalistic w/o any evidence, as you did above. Instead of resorting to unfounded tu quoque, you should disassociate yourself from Molobo's claim that the inhabitants of medieval Stettin had an "initial cultural Polish/Slavic identity", and also distanciate yourself from Molobo's rant about modern historians Musekamp and Wawrzyniaka whom he described as "German/German friendly" and "critical of Poland remembaring its Polish past". Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The post-war/Communist policy of Polonization of the town's history based on myths did not only affect the way how buildings were reconstructed or levelled, neither was that limited to the few post-war years, this is made clear in the sources given. - no it is not made clear in the sources given, this is your personal OR. The text concerns immediate post war years. The post war history of the town, which spans 65 years, is about a lot more than the architectural developments in 1945 and 1946. The overemphasis on this period and this aspect is the essence of UNDUE. And since it is about architecture it belongs in the architecture section.

Regarding the Piast origin theory - does the source explicitly state the theory was "discarded"? Hard to tell since it's a non-English source and you have not been forthcoming with verification requests. At any rate, even if that particular source says something like that, there are other sources which state something different. So to represent the issue in a NPOV manner we would need to included all of these sources and get into a full discussion of the origins of the Griffins. This is clearly outside the scope of this article, and this section. Hence UNDUE, again, and should not be included since it is a dubious claim. Calling hypothesis put forth by respectable historians "old, overcome speculations" is again, just your own personal OR, as is the dismissal of the other historical theories found in the relevant literature (I know you're familiar with Rymar, so why are you pretending otherwise?).

There is a difference between calling a nationalistic comment a nationalistic comment... - I'm sorry but this is essentially an assertion that you get to call other people nationalists and engage in "personal attacks" like that, but if anyone else criticizes your POV then, gee, gosh, that's just so horrible. You don't want people calling your comments and edits "nationalistic", then perhaps you should start with Skapperod and refrain from such accusations yourself. Regardless, the nationalistic thrust of your edits is there, again, as evidenced by the over emphasis in violation of WP:UNDUE that you place on this section.

Also the fact that you refer to another editor's comments as a "rant", when it is anything but that, and is in fact an attempt at constructive discussion, does not exactly bolster your credibility here. (And the fact that the inhabitants of the medieval Szczecin had a "initial cultural Polish/Slavic identity" is pretty much indisputable among historians, both Polish and German - they were Slavic Pomeranians with connections to the early Polish state. Now THAT is agreed upon by historians, unlike the issue of the origin of the Griffin dynasty. So I don't see any reason why I should "distance" myself from it).

We've made our arguments, how about we both shut up for awhile and let the third opinion come. Volunteer Marek  10:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request

I have read through the comments above, and the section in question in the article. There seems to be a rather verbose discussion between the two disputants concerning issues of "nationalism" and so forth that seems to me a bit peripheral to the actual content being considered. So, I will try for my part to be brief: I agree that this section needs to be pruned down. (Incidentally, this section also needs a lot of copy-editing for grammatical/language errors.)
I can see though that the immediate post-WWII years ought to perhaps be given somewhat more prominent coverage in this section than the years following that period, as comparatively more notable activity and development occurred at that time than in later years. That "The Polish state and city authorities ordered the 'removal of all German traces'" at that time surely had a lasting impact on the city, and so should be duly discussed here, albeit if possible in somewhat less architectural detail. I would not oppose discussing the architectural changes in detail in a separate "Architecture" section and do not see much need for argument on that point.
The other thing I would suggest would be perhaps to put the discussion of Bricha operations in/through the city in a subsection of its own. It merits the attention it gets in this section, but the section would be clearer overall if this material were moved into its own subsection.
I know this is somewhat vague, but I hope it helps, and if I have time I will try to help with the language copy-editing and if possible with more specific recommendations about content. If I am somehow missing some key point around this dispute, please let me know and I will try to make more specific comments about it.
In closing for now though I would only encourage the two editors involved to step back from this for a moment, try to assume more good-faith about each other, and work together to improve this article. I see no need for such insistent opposition to each-other's proposals – perhaps there is an underlying ideological dispute here that escapes me, but I do not see anything radically biased about either side's views. In any case: best regards, and happy editing! :) WikiDao ☯ 22:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiDao, thanks for providing a third opinion (I know how tricky that can be). Anyway,

Of course I'm fine with a sentence or two about the "removal of all German traces" right after WWII in that section. The whole long detailed block of text however does violate WP:UNDUE - my sense is that you are essentially agreeing with either removing MOST of that section and shortening the info, or moving MOST of it to the Architecture section, while keeping a sentence or two in there. Is that correct?

The suggestion for Bricha being put into its own section is a good one. Will make the change.

In regard to " the immediate post-WWII years ought to perhaps be given somewhat more prominent coverage in this section than the years following that period, as comparatively more notable activity and development occurred at that time than in later years" - mmmmm, this may or may not be the case. It seems like you're basing this opinion on the very UNDUENESS of the present section, but that is in fact what is under discussion, so the argument is circular. In fact, the parts about later notable activity and development are partly underdeveloped because the section is already so long, and pruning it will make expansion of info on later years easier. Volunteer Marek  20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the circularity of the comment you quote. I am not very familiar with the material, so I'm not sure I can assess exactly what is UNDUE and what is not. But if any editor feels an issue is important enough to complain about, then I think it is usually best that some accommodation should be made for those good-faith concerns.

I do think it is fair to say that the post-WWII section could use some pruning. Its length, level of detail, and range of issues at this point makes it less clear than it could be, though that could perhaps be fixed with just a thorough copy-edit of the material already in it, too. I do not think it would be unreasonable, though – and it may in fact be very reasonable – to discuss post-WWII architecture and urban-planning issues in the Architecture and urban planning section, which would seem to have much more room for that material right now and would be an apt place to put it. Is there a serious objection to that possibility at this point...? WikiDao ☯ 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I followed your advice and moved the Brichach to its own sub section. I moved the main portion of the post WWII architectural discussion to the architecture section but kept a few sentences to indicate these developments in the post-war section. I tried pruning the section and corrected the most obvious grammatical shortcomings. The writing could still use grammatical and stylistic copy editing so your help would be much appreciated. Volunteer Marek  08:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Verfication needed

"The anti-Slavic policies of German merchants and craftsmen intensified in this period, resulting in bans on people of Slavic descent joining craft guilds, or bans against public usage of Pomeranian language. More prosperous Slavic citizens were forcefully stripped of their possessions which were awarded to Germans."

Reference given: Tadeusz Białecki, "Historia Szczecina" Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1992 Wrocław. Pages 9,20-55, 92-95, 258-260, 300-306

This contradicts Piskorski, JM (2007), pp. 87-88 and Slaski, K (1987), p. 97 (full refs. in article): According to Piskorski, the assimilation of the Slavs in Stettin was completed by the 14th century, and Slaski interpreted a Wendenparagraph introduced by the tailor guild in 1514 as an indication that Slavic villages may still have existed by that time in the wider periphery of Stettin, not as an indication for Slavs in the city. Piskorski is a modern historian, Slaski wrote during the Communist era. I thus ask for an exact page number and a full quote verifying the statement and clarifying whether this refers to Stettin. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I've ordered the book from interlibrary loan and will check it. In the meantime, please AGF and allow some time for it to arrive (it's actually pretty quick usually so it's not going to take long).

BTW, since we're on the subject of verification requests, it's been, what, 5 months? since I've asked for a clarification of a source here [8] and received no reply. I've also received no clarification in regard to this issue [9]. There's other instances of ignoring of verification requests for non-English sources, but honestly, I've lost track. Volunteer Marek  10:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And neither of your descriptions of Piskorski and Slaski contradicts the text in the article. You could also provide full quotes for them, just for completeness sake. Volunteer Marek  10:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's on page 95. "Polityka anytslowianska patrycjatu niemieckiego nasilala sie w sposob widoczny w wieku XIV (zakaz przyjmovania Slowian do cechow, podwojne cla dla kupcow slowianskich, a nawet zakazy uzywania publicznie jezyka rodzimego)." Next paragraph: "W Szczecinie czestym zjawiskiem staje sie przymusowe przewlaszczenie nieruchomosci ziemskich nalezacych do Slowian na rzecz Niemcow, glownie w danym podgrodziu pod zamkiem". It goes on to talk about slavic landowners and the fact that in 1321 Otto transferred some land to the mayor of the city underlying at the time that it was populated by Slavs. The section refers mostly to 14th century. It does state that "Ostateczny cios slowianszczyznie na Pomorzu Zach., zadala kontrreformacja w XVI w." Volunteer Marek  23:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Marek, I will change the text accordingly, since it is vertified. I am happy that we will have good access to books(I have only sporadic one).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

completely unsourced

This "the city's first recorded name is Stetin" is unsourced, but because there is a source at the end of the sentence it pretends to be sourced. This is misleading to our readers. Please undo this change.

Likewise this "Finally the permanent handover occurred on 5 July 1945." constitutes removal of sourced information (and I can't think of a reason why someone would object to this piece of information except some kind of irredentist belief that "Stettin is still German" or something).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Found a source for the "the city's first recorded name is Stetin". In the future, if you're making controversial edits, please source them. The second part of my comment is still applicable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnocentric, anachronistic nonsense

This article, like every other one on Wikipedia having to do with areas that are former parts of Germany that are now part of modern Poland, is highly problematic. The reality is quite simple. Before the big migrations of Slavic peoples into Central/Eastern Europe, these areas were settled by Celts and Germanic peoples. For several hundred years, there were sparse Slavic settlements in the area. Following the year 1000, more and more Germans moved into the area, built cities, towns, infrastructure, etc. and eventually they became the majority population. In the 18th, 19th and much of the 20th century, any Polish presence in these areas was minimal. These were core areas of Germany, plain and simple. After WWII, Stalin wanted to drive a wedge between the German and Polish peoples forever and in an act of ethnic cleansing and God-playing, had Poland rolled west - deep, deep into core German territories. Let's be clear, the Polish government in exile didn't even ask for this. These were alien territories. That said, they enjoyed inheriting lands that even in their war-torn state enjoyed infrastructure far more advanced than anything in the lands of pre-war Poland.

This is all water under the bridge, and we must all move on. That said, facts are facts, and the unsubstantiated revisionist fantasy imposed upon Wikipedia by a handful of ethnic-Polish males (some live here in the US) is absolutely relentless. In their version, these areas were Polish from the beginning of time, save for a few Germans who infested the area for a while. The Germans treated the Polish horribly, then things were returned to normal after WWII. It's all so absurd that it's almost comical. If only we had a time machine and could drop these boys onto the streets of Danzig in 1770, or Breslau in 1900, or Stettin in 1830 - they would see that their version of history has no basis in fact. Instead of finding themselves in Poland with a few Germans there, they would find themselves as much in German lands as if they were to step onto the streets of Munich today.

Their nationalist-revisionist fantasy would be harmless enough in its absurdity, except that it leaves Wikipedia a joke. Anyone trying to understand the history of cities, people, or events that have anything to do with former areas of Germany that are now part of modern Poland is not well served by Wikipedia. Instead of insight, what they are given is ethnocentric, anachronistic nonsense.Udibi (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not a place to soapbox or to post your own original research. There are other outlets on the internet for that kind of thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia pages themselves have become places for some people's soapbox and original research. Sorry, but pointing out those glaring issues does not make me a soapboxer. Rest assured,I will post citation after citation on these pages to try and gain a toehold for a more accurate historical view, but I already know what the response will be. For anyone trying to gain an accurate understanding of history, pages like this Wiki talk page are vitally important so that well-intentioned readers looking for more info can at least see that there is some debate.Udibi (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You're soapboxing some more. You've titled this section "Ethnocentric, anachronistic nonsense" - where is this "Ethnocentric, anachronistic nonsense" that you refer to in the article? What, that there was a Polish organization in the city at the end of 19th century? This well sourced, single sentence, notable info, is supposed to be this "ethnocentric nonsense"? What are you talking about? Rather than making general indictments against real or imagined wrongs in the article, point to something specific.

You keep making baseless accusations, make speeches about what you think the history was - without sources, but sounding a lot like 19th century Prussian nationalist propaganda - implicitly insult all sorts of people, completely misrepresent the contents of the article, never mind the intentions and motivations of many editors (simply because they are of a particular ethnicity) and then... you expect to be taken seriously?Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig vote

This edit [10] violates the Gdansk/Danzig vote which states that for places which share a Polish/German history, for the period before 1308, the Polish name should be used with the German name used in parentheses, the first time a particular place name is used.

There's also no consensus for these changes, they have not been discussed or brought up on talk page, and really no seeming reason for them except to stir things up. Note that the Gdansk/Danzig vote also says Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. (there's an exception, but it only applies to newcomers. I don't think User:Skapperod is a newcomer to this area).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is the very definition of a "blind" change. Not only did Szczecin become Stettin, without justification, but Skapperod's changes also turned blue link into a red link, changed the name of contemporary neighborhoods, and he even changed the word in google book search terms linked WITHIN references. It's obvious he just went through and changed every instance without even paying attention to what it was he was changing - quite pointlessly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I mean, what's the point in changing <ref(>)Jean Richard, Jean Birrell, "The Crusades, c. 1071-c. 1291", Cambridge University Press, 1999, pg. 158, ([)http://books.google.com/books?id=KszvJSv7t30C&pg=PA158&dq=Szczecin+Albert+the+Bear&lr=&as_brr=3]</ref(>)

to

<ref(>)Jean Richard, Jean Birrell, "The Crusades, c. 1071-c. 1291", Cambridge University Press, 1999, pg. 158, ([)http://books.google.com/books?id=KszvJSv7t30C&pg=PA158&dq=Stettin+Albert+the+Bear&lr=&as_brr=3]</ref(>)

unless you're really hardcore about this "Stettin not Szczecin" thing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, changing the name into Germanised form even in google books hyperlinks? Either that indicates obsession or blind revert. Both cases are bad. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Couple of issues

• First of all the article regarding this city in Poland is based very heavily on solely German language sources which diminish Slavic and Polish history, we need to add more Polish sources.
• Second of all the history section is getting too big and should be condensed to vital points-Slavic and Polish origins, German conquest and Germanization, continued existence of Polish minority, Genocide in 20th century, and final restoration to Poland, 20th and 21st century development.
• Thirdly-the style of the article is in bad shape and needs to be improved.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Polish origins? Dou you refer to the Piast conquest in 1121, the almost-invasion of 1127 or the Polish contingent participating in the Wendish crusade? In any case, these are not the origins, but episodes of war between the Pomeranians and the Piasts.
• German conquest? You sure know that the Germans moved in because they were invited by the duke, nobles and clergy to settle, and granted far-reaching privileges to assure that anyone would even come? Or do you refer to the German-Danish-Polish Wendish crusade decades earlier, where an army showed up before the walls, negotiated, dissolved and left? That's not really a conquest either. And with rare exceptions, the German-Slavic antagonism of the Middle Ages is a modern invention: back then it was a social/law matter who was a German - regardless whether he had Saxon, Dutch, Danish or Wendish ancestry - and who was a Wend; the Wends during the 'Germanization' era were those who were still under ducal law, which was about the lowest social standard you could have the bad luck of being born into, and that was not the fault of "the Germans", but the fault of the duke.
• continued existence of Polish minority? Do you refer to the small industrial workers' colony whose role was exaggerated by the post-war nationalist/communist propaganda?
• final restoration to Poland? Hm, because a Piast duke had defeated a Pomeranian duke a millenium ago, and made him his tributary for a few years, the lands of this long deceased duke eventually belong to a nationalist/communist regime that a millenium later claims to be the rightful heir of that Piast duke? And had the "finally restored" area anything in common with the area Bolelaw conquered 1000 years ago, except for the geographical co-ordinates? Why not a restoration to Denmark or Sweden, who held this area much longer? And could you elaborate whether Germany does hold any claim on Jerusalem? Emperor Frederick II was king of Jerusalem I believe, when will that renegade town "finally" be "restored"? To answer that myself - never, I hope. No modern state can base any territorial claim on what happened millenia ago, today's Germany must not even base any territorial claim to the areas her predecessors lost in the wars some decades ago.

Skäpperöd (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

the lands of this long deceased duke eventually belong to a nationalist/communist regime - actually, they currently belong to a democratic, Western oriented republic. And if immediately after the war they had stayed with Germany... err, East Germany, they would have belonged to a .... nationalist/communist regime.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Time to clean this up

This article needs clean-up. It is far too long, with the history section out of proportion. The lede is a mess. The information on the modern city is far too short and fragmentary.

There is a separate History of Szczecin article. I propose we move the history content to the Talk page there, intact, and leave a stub here. History should be no more than one short paragraph in the lede, if that. Jd2718 (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally agree.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is 31407 characters long. By my count the number of history-related characters (I'm including the demographics and etymology sections which are essentially about history, as are two paragraphs of the lede) is 25775. So the proportion of this article devoted to history is more than 80%.Obvious WP:UNDUE (and within the history parts some things are undue as well).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to start and stop. The medieval stuff needs a clearer head than I have right now, but I will return to continue. Jd2718 (talk) 02:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please continue, I made some minor edits today but most of the heavily biased History section needs to be trimmed to main page about history where it can be later discussed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Verification/confirmation

I returned the Piskorski book to the library but I can always get it again. Regarding this edit [11] - does Piskorski mention Szczecin specifically? From the quote provided it appears that it does not. In that case, this is Original Research, particularly since there's numerous other sources which state that Mieszko did take control of the Szczecin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

For example [12] [13] etc. "Estuary of the Oder River" probably refers to area around Swinoujscie. But that's just a guess - as is any connection between that passage and Szczecin being constructed by Skapperod.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary of history in the lead

Version 1

The city's beginnings were as an 8th century Slavic Pomeranian stronghold, built at the site of today's castle. In the 12th century, when the surrounding settlement had become one of Pomerania's main urban centers, it subsequently lost its independence to Piast Poland, Saxony, the Holy Roman Empire and Denmark. At the same time, the Griffin dynasty established themselves as local rulers, the population was converted to Christianity, and first German settlers arrived, gradually assimilating the Slavs in the following centuries. In 1237/43, the town was built anew and granted vast autonomy rights, it subsequently joined the Hanseatic League. Szczecin's oldest, Brick Gothic buildings date back to that period.

In the following centuries, the Griffins again erected a castle in the town and made it one of the Duchy of Pomerania's main residences. After the town became Swedish, it was fortified and remained a Swedish fortress until 1720, when it was taken over by Prussia and became capital of the Province of Pomerania. In the late 19th century, Stettin became an industrial town, was de-fortified and vastly increased in size and population. During the Nazi era, the city's Jews were deported, Poles were subjected to repression. After Germany was defeated by the Allies in 1945, Szczecin became part of People's Republic of Poland. With the remaining and returned Germans expelled after the war, Poles rebuilt and resettled the city, which became capital of the Szczecin Voivodeship. It played an important role in the anti-communist uprisings of 1970 and the rise of Solidarity trade union in the 1980s.

Version 2

The city's beginnings were as an 8th century Slavic Pomeranian stronghold. Over the course of its history it has been a part of Poland, existed as an independent Duchy, was ruled by Sweden, Denmark, Brandenburg-Prussia, was part of the Holy Roman Empire, German Empire, Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. It was the residence of the Griffin Dynasty from the 12th until the 17th century.

While the city was part of Nazi Germany the Jews, Poles and Rroma were subjected to repression and finally during World War II classified as untermenschen with their fate being slavery and extermination. After Germany was defeated by the Allies in 1945, Szczecin became part of People's Republic of Poland. With the city emptied of its German inhabitants who either fled or were expelled, Poles rebuilt and resettled the city, which became capital of the Szczecin Voivodeship. It played an important role in the anti-communist uprisings of 1970 and the rise of Solidarity trade union in the 1980s.

Discussion

Version 2 does give an accurate overview over the city's history:

• (1) The list of political entities is misleading and in part false. Misleading: It gives no context or time period at all for either entity except for the Nazi and post-WWII eras. The list suggests that the city changed hands numerous times, when in fact that only happened in the 12th century struggles and the 20th century border change; the German entities listed there are all successors of each other, and even during the Swedish period (1630/48/53 to 1720) Stettin remained part of the HRE. The city never existed as an independent duchy as it is claimed.
• (2) Version 2 omits the medieval German settlement and assimilation of Slavs, instead, it suggests that Slavic Pomeranians inhabited the city up to WWII, when suddenly the Nazis appeared. That the city was inhabited by a German population from the Middle Ages to WWII is vital for an understanding of the city's history and belongs into the lead.
• (3) The Griffin castle did not exist from the "12th until the 17th century." In fact, Stettin was a member of the Hansa, had autonomy rights, and its merchants tried to keep the dukes out. The castle was razed, only later the Griffins became powerful enough to erect a new one (which was razed again, and then again built new). There is no need to detail that in the lead, but neither is there a need to simplify it to the point where it becomes false.
• (4) Version 2 omits that Stettin existed in its 1243 shape (modern Old Town), fortified during the Swedish and much of the Prussian era, until the 19th century, and only then expanded to the size it (approximately) has now. The changes in layout which occurred in 1237/43 and the late 19th century are landmarks in the city's history and belong into the lead.
• (5)Version 2 equals the fate of Jews and Poles during the Nazi era. This should not be done, the Holocaust is singular in nature, and while Stettin's Jews were deported altogether (and most were subsequently murdered), this is not true for Stettin's Poles. Neither is the lead of this article the place to discuss general Nazi ideology.
• (6) Roma?
• (7) Version 2 suggests that the city was "emptied of its German inhabitants" after WWII. This is misleading, as tens of thousands returned once the fighting was over and were only subsequently expelled. It is also the only time Germans as such are mentioned in the lead at all, see (2).

All these points were addressed in Version 1, which should be re-instated. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

First, this has already been discussed [14] Second, can you respond to my comment in the section right above? Third, The purpose of the lede is to summarize the article, not to go into detailed explanation and nuances. (1) If you want to replace Brandenburg-Prussia, was part of the Holy Roman Empire, German Empire, Weimar Republic and the Third Reich with various German states that's fine with me. It is also not true that changes in political control only happened in the 12th century struggles and the 20th century border change - as the history section clearly indicates. The fact that it remained part of HRE is irrelevant. (2) It does not suggest anything. Also your suggestion is too detailed and undue for the lede. The list of German states already suggests a strong German presence. No need to repeat the same thing in ten different ways just to make some kind of a point. (3) It was the residence is not the same as a "castle" - maybe, just maybe, if you really want to be picky, the word "residence" should not link to the castle. Other than that this is an empty complaint which doesn't really favor your Version. (4)Yes it omits it because that's too much info for the lede. It's already dwelled upon extensively in the text itself. (5)Your claim seems to be that the present text suggests that Holocaust was not singular in nature. It does not do this. It just states that both Poles and Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. Which was true - though, yes, many of the Poles were "only" used as slaves by the Germans. (6)I believe that is actually in Piskorski and is cited in a related article but I'm not sure. At worst, just remove it. (7)Again, the fact that they left, then came back then left again is too much detail for the lede. Also, while we're here, is there any reason why almost a whole sentence was linked to "Flight and Expulsions"? I realize that some editors think that this entire article should be one big blue link to Flight and Expulsions but there really is more to the city than that. In the same vein, we don't need to get into all the details of the change in population in the lede.

So, rather than version 1, (1) suggests shortening further, (2) (4) (7) seem to miss the point of what the lede is supposed to be, (3) (6) are nit picking which at most suggest fixing the present lede rather than changing it and (5) seems to be a faulty inference on your part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Repetition template

Can the user who added this template please state what he thinks is redundant or repetitive? Skäpperöd (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)