Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:42, 7 February 2006

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 ( July 12, 2005 to 21 November 2005 ):
• Archive 2 (next to start)

No insults, neonazis, devoted nationalists please.

UPA

In English, so nobody would "pyszczyc" Yes, I would be interested. I've read once few articles about Polnische Wehrmacht in 1944, not that long ago, and I rmemeber only that these trials were total failure.

BTW, Molobo,glad you are back. However i have one small issue. The naming. While I do not like the current compromise of Danzig/Gdansk, acting against it puts all Poles in bad light. Maybe we should work out our common Polish proposal for the naming scheme, which should be a/ simple b/ pragmatic i.e aimed at avoiding revert warc c/ be good for all Polish, German and English wikipedians. Involving in wars over choosing Torun over Thorn damages overall image of the involved editor and his reliability in the eyes of the other wikipedians, as most English users simply does not udnerstand the issue.

Szopen 13:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust

I am not trying to be biased. We can eliminate the paragraph on Poles, it appeared because some other user wanted to count all 1.9 million Polish deaths as being part of the Holocaust, which is debateable. This was the only sentence that satisfied that user, but I don't particularly like it either. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2 there were many sentences that satisfied that user. That was not the "only" one. 69.57.226.137 12:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence change

Fine, I will compromise with your solution, though I still think eliminating quotes in favor of our own summaries is a bad idea, it obscures the author and the research behind the sentence. --Goodoldpolonius2 10:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Molobo, I'm not going to get used to edit summaries like "restored information on persectution of Poles, deleted by user known for deleting information on persecution of ethnic minorities by German state" and since you're usually only saying that you restored any version and not really why, do away with edit summaries in general if you like. Sciurinæ 20:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Are you writing a reply or just waiting until someone reverts you? Sciurinæ 21:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Molobo, if you have any arguments against my version of Anti-Polonism, state them. If not, don't simply revert radically. Sciurinæ 23:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC) I have the same arguments I always do.They do not fit with historical facts.Your refusal to read or accept ANY historical study that portayals persecution of Polish minority by German state and insistance that Bismarck didn't persecute Poles sadly excludes any means of communications.Your constant attempts to delete any information on persecutotion of Poles indicates you are trying to push forward your heavy nationalistic POV. In addition you posses little or no knowledge in areas you complain-such as the lack of knowledge about uprisings in Poland.In short-you are pushing forward your own limited vision of history.Which is sad.

--Molobo 23:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I said arguments, not a blizzard of untrue claims. Sciurinæ 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Look, here's the comparison between our two versions. The paragraph about Bismarck, believe it or not, is sticked so closely to a history book that I almost felt like I was commiting a copyvio. As for the rest, tell me what is wrong, I can't read your mind. I asked for proof of a handful claims and once you can deliver it, you can make claims again. Misplaced Pages is to be based on secondary literature. Sciurinæ 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As usuall you ignore at least dozen of books I already provided as sources.Not to worry-you will probably ignore my latest addition-almost word to word copy about persecution of Poles by Bismarck from Polish history book(correct that-you ignored it already I just remembered in previous discussions). --Molobo 00:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, assuming you are really what you say you are: a student of journalist, and as such you have to be able to distinguish between a claim, assertions, hypothesis, whatever - and an argument. Look, if I ignored something, then tell me what. I requested proof on Friday and still no one could come up with some, so verify it, or yield even if the text then mirrors less your point of view. I'm obviously wasting my time thinking discussion with you could be productive. Sciurinæ 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry-I am already entering information from history books. --Molobo 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm isn't helping anything. Now where's the proof? Sciurinæ 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Of what ? --Molobo 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours as you have violated the three-revert-rule on Simon Dach. When you return to editing, please avoid edit-warring. -Splash 18:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC) You are incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gdansk/Vote Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule. Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. Please use descriptive edit summaries. --Molobo 22:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I don't see any means by which this kind of diff is any way exempted by that red box up there. You cannot use that to make any other changes you like to an article and try to cover them with name changes. It is emphatically not a licence to edit-war which is precisely what you were doing. So no, I won't lift the block if that's what you're asking for. -Splash 23:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Splash here, Molobo. Admins have pretty consistently declined to interpret the Famous Red Box and its associated vote as trumping the 3RR at all, much less as a licence to revert anything else in the article you've happened to take a dislike to. Alai 04:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo evades block on WP:AN3 and Talk:Simon Dach, hence his block should be lengthened. His argument is not sound, as no local vote may overrule an official policy. The Gdansk vote (even in Molobo's faulty interpretation) was a local vote, the 3RR is an official policy. --Ghirla | talk 07:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you are plainly evading the 3RR block by use of an alternative IP address, I have blocked that IP for 24 hours, and reset your block too. -Splash 12:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternative IP address ? Hardly ? The same as ever only unlogged. Oh well I will return within 25 hours. They are a lot of vandalised pages in need of attention. Oh and please remove all notes about Gdansk vote since apperantly it is no longer valid. --Molobo 14:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean? Your revert war in the article can be considered as an attempt at demonstrating that the Gdansk/Danzig ruling can be abused in an interruptive way. You did this because you don't like the ruling. Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point. Your announcement that you will return because there were "a lot of vandalised pages in need of attention" reads like further planned edit warring to take vengeance. Sciurinæ 15:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you recall a single instance when Molobo reverted vandalism? LOL. --Ghirla | talk 07:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really-since Krolewiec was part of Polish rule then, Polish name should be given in the first line, as well as status of Prussia at that time.

reads like further planned edit warring to take vengeance. I urge you to assume good faith. --Molobo 16:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, just go on the way you do right now and I can't assure you won't end up blocked so you can cool down. Sciurinæ 22:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just go on deleting information on every Genocide by German state and adding POV tags to every article about them Sciurinæ and I wonder what your future will become... --Molobo 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hakata

Those were the days of Hakata, the German nationalist association with the aim of ousting Polish landowners and peasents from their lands, by every cunning trick and chicanery" Myth of the Nation and Vision of Revolution: Ideological Polarization in the Twentieth Century by J L Talmo --Molobo 15:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

5.5 Earth Masses!

Not quite Earth mass but still amazing. Thx for links. The Planet Hab page is experiencing a touch of orbital perturbance due to its appearance on the main page and may come out a touch differently. We do mention exomoons but not with a specific section BTW. It's 40+K which is part of my worry at the moment. Cheers, Marskell 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bismarck

F. Minority Problems (1) The Poles: Bismarck disliked the Poles as Slavs, as Catholics, and as a people determined to restore their national independence. Bismarck tried to destroy their identity by banning their language from public life Less Stress More Success: History (LC) Revision for Leaving Certificate by Desmond O'Leary --Molobo 21:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bismarck's Kulturkampf

The relationship of the Prussians and their Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to the Poles provides insight on the effects of partition. Bismarck believed that a rehabilitated Poland would mean disaster for Prussia. He would not tolerate the prospect of any separatist movement in his drive to create a unified Germany. This was probably Bismarck's main motive for embarking upon the infamous "Kulturkampf,"--the "War of Civilizations," "Prussianism against Christianity." This war began as a Prussian policy against the interference of Rome in the unification of Germany. To Bismarck it became a personal matter of race and culture, especially where the Poles were concerned. In a conflict with Rome, he knew that Catholic Poland would be more difficult to control. The notorious "May Laws" of 1873 forbade the clergy from speaking about state affairs in church, made civil marriage compulsory, and demanded that the state supervise all school inspection. Other provisions of the 20 Laws were more harsh, and directly involved Polish Catholics. No priest could hold office in the Church unless he was German and educated at a German university. Bismarck underestimated Polish tenacity regarding matters of faith. The Church provided a great source of solace and a sense of unity to the Polish people. Polish Catholicism combines fervor with mysticism and nationalism. In May, 1874, German was declared to be the only official language of instruction. Because of their refusal to comply, many priests were imprisoned and the churches stood empty. For the Poles, the "war of civilizations" had become a war against them and their culture. New laws were enacted which infuriated the Polish people. City names were changed. Leszno was named Lisso, Chelmno became Kulm, Pila was ballooned into Schneidemuhl, and Krolowiec and Bydgoszcz were clipped and tidied to Konigsberg and Bromberg. Letters would arrive addressed to a town of the old Polish name and the Post Office would often conveniently lose such mail. Because of civil registration of births and marriages, German officials could, and did, arbitrarily Germanize Polish family names. Sometimes resistance was a very serious matter, but it had an occasional humorous aspect. Meetings were forbidden if Polish were spoken, so the irrepressible Poles simply used chalk and blackboard. They met without breaking the law. Prussian officials also recognized the value of attacking a sociopolitical problem by education. They hoped that by Germanizing the children through the schools they could effectively achieve 21 greater cooperation. Inspectors were exclusively German. The Polish language was systematically barred from all schools. The parents, however, retaught the day's lessons in Polish in the privacy of their homes. It was a tug of war for the minds of the young. By 1901, German was the exclusive language, even in religious instruction. Children were punished for praying or speaking in Polish. One tragic consequence of such repression was the decline of Polish literature in Prussian Poland. There were a few notable exceptions, for example, the novel Placowka (The Outpost), written in 1886 by Boleslaw Prus. It is a story about the resistance of a poor farmer whose land was threatened by German colonists. Economic Pressures Language was not the only battleground. Economic pressures built up over a number of years. A Colonization Commission was established by the Prussians in 1886 with headquarters in Poznan. Its purpose was to buy Polish estates and lease them to German settlers. Despite valiant efforts by Father Piotr Wawrzyniak of Mogilno who organized a Union of Cooperatives Bank to thwart the Commission's plans, the colonization process continued. Father Wawrzyniak's movement fostered cessation of bloody rebellions and salvaging what could be had by hard work and group loyalty. He led the cooperative movement for over forty years working legally through the system. The boycott was employed against non-Polish buyers. "Buy Polish" and "Sell Polish" became battle cries. 22 Germany took drastic action in response by investing even larger sums for colonization projects. Inexorably the battle for land went on. Suffering from such pressures and harsh conditions, thousands of Poles fled to America during the last quarter of the nineteenth century seeking a better life economically, but most important, seeking freedom. These events help explain why many Poles emigrated to America and why various gaps exist in Polish cultural development of that period. Hatred of everything Polish, attacks on Catholicism and the Polish language and poverty combined to make life horrible. Many of the same types of repressive elements were visible in the Russian and Austrian sectors, even though the Austrians were Roman Catholic and the Russians were themselves Slavs. As Americans, we tend to forget our own capacity to hate, and we tend to dismiss European antagonisms as archaic and incomprehensible. This process works similarly among Europeans who do not understand American history. American ethnic history demands a knowledge of nineteenth century values and attitudes, as they developed in the Old World and were often transplanted to the United States.

THE HISTORY AND CULTURE OF POLAND by Judith Zielinski-Zak --Molobo 21:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.dhm.de/ENGLISH/ausstellungen/bismarck/169.htm Bismarck had made his anti-Polish stance known in drastic statements written to his sister as early as 1861:

Beat thc Poles until they despair of living . . . I have all thc sympathy in the world for their situation, but if we want to survive we can do nothing othcr than wipe them out. The wolf cannot help it, either, that God made him the way he is, and one shoots him dead anyway for it if one can. --Molobo 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

New Issue

I'm curious to find out if you agree to change all and any references to the "German occupation" of Poland, France, Norway, and all the rest of their occupations of territory in WWII to "German control" of these areas instead. If so, will you help me make the changes? If not, why not? Dr. Dan 02:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC) As it was established through war and over non-German population occupation is the right word. --Molobo 13:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

But Zeligowski's activities in Vilnius, and the establishment the Republic of Central Lithuania are not occupation, but Polish "control". Did I get it right? Dr. Dan 16:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/Occupation The periods of time following a nation's territory invasion by controlling enemy troops. As the troops were Poles that revolted against Poland and the territory was inhabited by majority of Poles this doesn't fulfill the criteria of military occupation as seen above.Had Poland taken control of all Lithuania-as for example Germany did over Czechoslovakia the term occupation would be appropriate-however those were independent from Polish government troops that took control over their own nation territory-thus control is more appropriate. --Molobo 16:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Allied POWS

Molobo, with all due respect, maybe right now is not the best time to start a revert war over the Katyn Massacre article. You have a point of course, but a revert war now will only interefere with the FAC voting process. Balcer 16:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is need for revert war-since I doubt anybody serious will dispute that Poland was part of the Allies since 1939. --Molobo 16:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that we have at least one user who is not serious. Balcer 16:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. You have been warned. --Ghirla | talk 15:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if he proves that Katyn was a CIA plot as he claimed (obviously they needed a time machine ;) ) then I think he can prove as well that Poland wasn't part of the Allies :D --Molobo 16:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you will enjoy this quote by Davies (Europe:The history): "On May 1940 Stalin signed an order authorizing the NKVD to shoot over 26,000 Allied prisoners-of-war." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Origin

Hey,

I couldn't help but notice that you take a keen interest in all things Polo-germanic. Might I ask if you are, infact, a pole yourself? Bobby1011 14:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am Ukrainian-Polish-Swedish-German in origins. My knowledge comes though from studying history not from blood :P --Molobo 22:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

So were are you from? Where do you live? Bobby1011 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Poland. Why those questions ? Do you believe I am a relative of yours ? --Molobo 02:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bobby1011, I think your inquiries are providing some valuable assistance to Molobo, contrary to what he suggests. Molobo - as much as anyone else - deserves to be judged solely by what he contributes to Misplaced Pages, not by what he claims his origins are or where he claims to have lived. --Thorsten1 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment on my talk page

You can't simply delete comments of mine when you don't like it and as I didn't insult you but expressed disapproval of hasty generalisations, which is not a personal attack, the removal of these comments can be considered as Talk page vandalism. So don't come up on my talk page with such comments. Sciurinæ 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I simply left you a note, you should read the Wiki's policies-to often you resort to emotional name callign. So please read http://en.wikipedia.org/Personal_Attacks I hope you will avoid Personal Attacks and name calling in the future. --Molobo 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad your hopes are with me but where do I commit emotional name calling? Sciurinæ 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, as for your first sentence, stop this constant drawing of Hasty generalisations. By the least amount of indicators, the most generalising, idiotic (yes, idiotic) conclusion. you insisted on for 5-7 reverts and a perfect example of propaganda via logical fallacies Just one of the cases. So please avoid this in the future and I am hoping you will delete this examples, as they don't serve the cause of good discussion.--Molobo 21:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what's wrong with labelling the sentence "I would be cautious as to Sciurinæ edits-they concentrate mainly on erasing all information about persecution of ethnic minorities under Germany," an idiotic conclusion? I was searching for personal attacks on the page but could only find "Actually its probable that he doesn't know.German history and teaching isn't interested much in Polish relations and German policies towards Poles from what I know.However I think his nationalism makes him delete any information that doesn't confirm to idolised view of pre-Hitler Germany that he believes in. --Molobo 21:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)" Sciurinæ 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This are not personal attacks but summary of your activities and presented POV based on your edits and statements. --Molobo 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I haven't found any evidence that Sciurinæ has an "idolised view of pre-Hitler Germany". However, I have found much evidence that you have a demonised view of pre- and post-Hitler Germany; in fact, you seem to have a demonised view of just about everything and everybody that isn't Polish, or even of Poles with a slightly more liberal outlook than your own (cue Michnik, Szymborska, Bauman).

Returning to Germany, you said that "German history and teaching isn't interested much in Polish relations and German policies towards Poles from what I know." Apparently you don't know too much. Contrary to what you suggest, these fields have been, and continue to be, intensively researched and taught about, both at school and university level in Germany. (It is true that Polish Holocaust plays second fiddle to the Jewish one in the curricula, but that's about it.) The presentation of Poles as a nation of passive victims almost by definition - at the expense of any knowledge about the modern Poland and the rich Polish culture - is one of the reasons why many Germans are indifferent or even averse about all things Polish.

Unfortunately, your edits here are not helping this much - to be frank, the opposite is true. Of course, you may delete this post as a "personal attack", as you usually do - but even so, if you really care about Poland' positive image (rather than just the negative image of her neighbours or whoever you consider "anti-Polish") you might want to try and think about what I wrote some time. --Thorsten1 21:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

request your assistance

Hi. I have a concern about a situation in the area of the 9/11 attacks. I don't know if you are familiar with the fact that people who question the official story of 9/11 are often smeared because of infiltration by anti-semites and people who try to pair 9/11 research with holcaust denial (it's an easy way for average people to dismiss anyone who questions what happened that day when they are also associated with anti-semitic remarks). At the moment there is a 9/11 researcher who I feel should not be listed on wikipedia because his website links to what I consider antisemitic comments.

Please see the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11#Proposal_to_remove_a_9.2F11_researcher_because_of_offensive_links and please click on the links. Thanks.

Kulturkampf

The influence on poles is generally accepted to be a side effect. Historical review has shown us this. I'm not trying to further a vendetta against the poles, as I am well aware that it is unfair to say that it is not a polish affair; the poles didn't even have a state at that time and as such could decide whether or not they would remain an ethnic minority.

But it has been demonstrated that a concensus exists that the Kulturkampf was primarily directed against catholics reguardless of nationality. I would, however, see no problem with drawing paralells to germanisation in the article. I don't want to critisize your referencing or the work you put into this article and the topic in general, but the mention of poles in the article on Kulturkampf must be just that, a mention, and not the center of attention, when you consider what is accepted aboutt he subject.

Polish perception in general differs from that of the Germans, but both are clearly distingustable from the view of Kulturkampf in the Anglosaxon world. That being said, all relevant perspectives should be presented, but nobody is speaking for the French in the south west, or the Danish in the far north. This article is in desperate need of balancing, and people with a vested interest in their nations view being heared are damaging its credibility.

In the english speaking world the term Kulturkampf is used in reference to Bismarks sanctions against the catholic church, whereas germanisation is used to define the discrimination against the poles and other ethnic minorities. Believe me, I hate these differences in languages as much as you do. The germans define the begining of the second world war in the pacific as begining after Pearl Habour. That's after the begining of the rape of nanking and other signigant acts of war commited by the Japanese. But I digress. This issue at hand is what should be discussed in this article, and that can be derived from the meaning of the term in English itself.

From http://www.dictionary.com

Kul·tur·kampf Audio pronunciation of "Kulturkampf" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl-trkämpf) n.

  1. The struggle (1871-1883) between the Roman Catholic Church and the German government under Bismarck for control over school and ecclesiastical appointments and civil marriage.
  2. A conflict between secular and religious authorities: “The 1920s proved to be the focal decade in the Kulturkampf of American Protestantism” (Richard Hofstadter).

Bobby1011 13:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

History 1871-1939 Warszawa 2000 dr.Anna Radziwił prof.dr.hab Wojciech Roszkowski

Anna Radziwil-vicemnister of education in Poland, senator,history teacher, director of several Gymnasiums in Warsaw Wojciech Roszkowski-director of Institute of Political Studies PAN, lecturer in Main Trade School,Collegium Civitas, gives lectures in United States Universities, author of several works from history of Poland and the world.

Page 80. The fight against Polishness had a widespread range-it touched political sphere, national-cultural sphere, as well as economic one, and was led thru legal methods, by "law". You could process with Prussian authorities-something unthinkable in Russian part of partitoned Poland, where such an attempt would end in arrest or deportation. Intesification of the fight against Polishness happened after unification of Germany.(1871), when nationalistic(pangerman) feelings rose, whos representant was von Bismarck.This fight was led mostly in Grand Duchy of Poznan which was renamed Posen Province.Polish population had majority there(60 %) and had its own strong intelectual elites.On other lands of Prussian partition of Poland for example Pomerania Poles were minority and hadn't got strong intelectual elites.In Upper Silesia the few polish intelectuals for example Karol Miarka-who discovered his polish roots as an adult men-tried to preserve or even resurrect Polishness of the common people. In Poznan the fight with Polishness and about Polish culture took many forms.It was a fight over land, language and Church.In this fight the whole Polish society took part, both its upper classes, as well as peasents, which led to creation of GrandPolish ethos(etos wielkopoznanski)-which was made of interclass solidarity, strong connection to catholicism-the mark of being a Pole, and patriotic justified ability to selforganise and development. Centralne Towarzystwo Gospodarcze-existing from 1861, peasent circles, many forms of communes,peoples banks, and also Towarzystwo Czytelni Ludowych(Society of Reading for the Folk), singing societies-created an social infrastucture, which opposed the germanisation offensive.Gen. Dezydery Chlapowski,Maksymilian Jackowski, Roman Szymanski, priest Piotr Wawrzyniak were great patrons of these forms of national activity of Grand Polish society(...) Quite unexpectly a hero of the fight against german policy was to become archbishop of Gniezno Mieczyslwaw Ledóchowski, who at first period of his activity cut himself off from Polish activities.In 1872 however Bismarck started to pursue Kulturkampf policy.According to this priests were turned away from education for example.In schools german language was made compulsory apart from religion.Government wanted to have say in who will become who in church hierarchy.Civil marriages have become compulsory, and made of course only by german. officials.Ledóchowski who opposed this was arrested in 1874.This merging of fight against Catholicism with figh against Poles created in Polish society a feeling of identity between being a Pole and being a Catholic.It was then when the stereotype of "Polish Catholic" was created.Bismarck retreated from the most severe laws of Kulturkampf in late 70s.However antipolish legislation remained in place, and in 80s German government conducted another offensive. --Molobo 14:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Reckless issue

Molobo, as you love to stress this fact if something was Polish before, for example here, I wonder whether this shouldn't count for German and other cases as well. Or is it case-sensitive?

In the small biography section of the Erika Steinbach article, you claimed that as first sentence

She was born in the village of Rumia in Nazi occupied Poland (then named Rahmel by the occupying German forces).

was a "more clear description" than

According to the website of the German parliament, she was born in Rahmel in West Prussia (now Rumia, Poland).

Yes, the "According to the website of the German parliament" is clumsy indeed but as for the rest - if the strange formulation with ... well ... occupying words should be kept - why wouldn't it have to be:

"She was born in the village of Rumia in Nazi occupied Poland (then renamed Rahmel by the reoccupying forces)." ?

After all, Rumia had been a town of Prussia and later the German Empire by the name of Rahmel since 1772 and only ceded ... oops ... of course I mean receded ;-) to Poland in 1920, where it officially only stayed Polish for about 19 years, until 1939. So — according your definition — is it good or bad to gloss over the fact that the town was renamed and that the town became a German one again? It isn't limited to only when towns and their name become Polish, is it? What's to become of the formulation? Sciurinæ 00:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)