Talk:Georg Forster/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why are quotes removed

They are sourced and show how contradictory his public views were with beliefs expressed in private life, also we should make clear distinction between his views being seen as supportive of inferiority of Poles during German Empire and his views being seen as supportive of the theory that Poles were subhuman in Third German Reich, right now the sentences combine the two.A distinction should be made.Also since we have the quotes, I see why they shouldn't be put into place.Seems to a bit of an effort to present him only in a way that won't mention his rather negative sides. --Molobo 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Also the terms describing his attitude in view of the quotes seem very light. Outright claims that Poles are on animal level indicate a way more serious beliefs then simple insults. --Molobo 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We are describing Forster's negative sides. The formulation used to do so can probably be improved. However, we should not describe his views as "racist". The concept of racism emerged only more than 50 years after his death. To give the quotes justice, they would have to be put in context, which would expand the section about his views on Poles totally out of proportion (among other things, we would have to include the good things Forster said about Poland). Since Georg Forster's letters were not used in a very prominent way in either the German Empire or the Third Reich, I think the current description has the right balance, since we do mention this problematic side of Forster's which, however, is far from being the most important part of his legacy. If the discussion about Forster's posthumous influence on anti-Polish sentiment is to be done in more detail, IMHO the better place for that would be Anti-Polonism. Kusma (討論) 01:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, we can for instance add an adjective "incivil" to underline the strength of the expressions. In order to add racism to the article we would need a wider support for the view - not just a side remark that his statements were "imbued with racist aspects". This statement of the Berleigh, Burleigh book is far from the evidence that Forster held the view that human species can meaningfully be divided into races. Note also that the Berleigh, Burleigh book is presented as a footnote in the article close to the place where the Nazi Germany is mentioned so everybody who is interested can read more about the issue. alx-pl D 14:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In order to add racism to the article we would need a wider support for the view We have direct quotes of Forster in which he views Poles as animals. --Molobo 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not enough in this case as this is a strong ideological accusation and this is an encyclopedia where the statements must be balanced, not an advocacy forum. alx-pl D 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We are describing Forster's negative side Why are you avoiding putting into text his famous and studied quotes portaying Poles as animals ? --Molobo 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

See the comment above. This is an encyclopedia. One should present facts in a sympathethic way, as WP:NPOV#Fairness and sympathetic tone states: If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. There is a descriptive information on his attitude to Poland and Poles + reference to the source articles. Mentioning the quotes would require a longer description of the context which would in turn be very out of balance. alx-pl D 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

However, we should not describe his views as "racist". The concept of racism emerged only more than 50 years after his death While definitions what constitutes racism might have been formulated after Forster died, it doesn't make them irrelevant to this person, as such views could have been held earlier even without proper ideology or definitions. Dehumanising other human beings (as seen by his quotes) is an obvious comment belonging within definition of racism. Burleigh book is far from the evidence that Forster held the view that [[Racism|human species can meaningfully be divided into races] Well Forster viewed that Poles are like animals.How should we describe Forster's belief that Poles aren't part of human race but more like pigs ? --Molobo 19:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How can you discriminate these private confessions he made from quite common educative approach of quite many adults in which they call some children "pigs" when the children eat in a clumsy manner. Or when a married couple has an argument, they also quite often call one another "you pig" (as for instance in this dialogue). Are these people racist, too? alx-pl D 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the word insults seems inappropriate-at least it should be negative stereotypes or prejudice against Polish people. --Molobo 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. We can for instance change "such contempt" into "his prejudices against Poles". alx-pl D 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Last remarks on cosmopolitanism

The passage:

The rise of the nationalist ideas at the end of the 18th and in the 19th century resulted in him and his cosmopolitan ideas being nowhere welcome. For Englishmen he was a proud Prussian who started conflicts, for Germans he was too unpatriotic being willing to give away part of his fatherland to France, and for French people he was not significant enough politically.

has been removed due to possible POV/OR suspection. Basically, the sentence

• The rise of the nationalist ideas at the end of the 18th and in the 19th century resulted in him and his cosmopolitan ideas being nowhere welcome.

is just a summary of the last paragraphs in the paper by Pauline Kleingeld which is mentioned in the bibliography (starting with With the exception of Friedrich Schlegel's version of international...) The content in the second sentence may be regarded as POV/OR, but still there is some evidence in the sources which can support that. It is the matter of good will to add the information. If you think it makes sense, I can gather the support for that and we will see if it's legitimate to include the information. However, I am not going to insist on reintroduction of that information. Still, the information from the first sentence is an information I consider to be crucial for the section. alx-pl D 12:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I put in back the first sentence. The rest needs to be polished a bit for style or (possibly) turned into a direct quote from the article, I think (I won't object into adding some part of it again). As we have a reference, and can cite that directly, the claim of OR is of course wrong, but to address Molobo's concerns we should make it clear that this is Kleingeld's research. Kusma (討論) 14:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all the placement of the sentence in question may be a little bit misleading after the sentence of cosmopolitanism. The first sentence introduces the context in which the second may be interpreted as if it describes his recognition after his death while the actual intent is to describe the way G.F. was received in his lifetime. This should be probably fixed. I will gradually provide the support for the consecutive parts of the sentence (it is very time consuming to find once again the evidence):

• For Englishmen he was a proud Prussian who started conflicts,
  • Here under the headings "THE FIGHT OVER PUBLICATION RIGHTS" and "A PAPER WAR" is a description of the conflict between Forsters and Lord Sandwich.
• for Germans he was too unpatriotic being willing to give away part of his fatherland to France,
  • To make matters worse, Forster professed a kind of politics that was both revolutionary and antinational and thus was a hissing and reproach to the conservatives who dominated German scholarship in the nighteenth century, Gordon A. Craig, "Engagement and Neutrality in Germany: The case of Georg Forster, 1754-94", Journal of Modern History, vol. 41, no. 1 (1969), pp. 1-16
• for Poles he was too intellectual
  • In this article on a web page of Warsaw Oceanarium Foundation which is an independent research organisation, we can read:

    Należy dodać, że „Znakomite grono profesorskie”, które słuchało wykładu, poza nielicznymi wyjątkami, nie było w stanie właściwie go ocenić. J. A. Forster skarżył się w liście do ojca, że trafił w Wilnie „..na grunt wyjątkowo jałowy”. Nie dziwi to, ponieważ dystans między rozwojem intelektualnym między Europą zachodnią a Polską, która dopiero zaczynała podnosić się z upadku po fatalnych latach panowania Sasów- był zbyt duży.

    Rough translation:It must be added that "remarkable professors", that attended the lecture, not counting few exceoptions, were unable to properly esteem its content. G. Forster was complaining in a letter to his father that he met in Wilno "...exceptionally barren ground". It is not surprising, though, as the distance in the level of intelectual development between western Europe and Poland, which was freshly rising from the fall after the rule of the Saxons, was too big.

• and for French people he was not significant enough politically.

  • Two weeks later he mentioned [in a letter to his wife] the difficulty he was having in finding employment [in Paris] now that his original mission was executed [...] Gordon A. Craig, "Engagement and Neutrality in Germany: The case of Georg Forster, 1754-94", Journal of Modern History, vol. 41, no. 1 (1969), pp. 1-16

alx-pl D 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know an explanation why for Poles in later years his intellectualism that led him to deduct Poles are like pigs was too high to grasp ? The sentence doesn't after all speak about his experience in university in general, but about Poles in XIX century in general. As such your quote isn't connected to the issue I put up. --Molobo 19:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

New sentence disputed

The new sentence says his "cosmopolitan" ideas weren't welcomed. This is contradicted by Forster himself in his private letters, where he shows prejudice to other nations.Obviously his ideas about Poles were supported by nationalists in Germany, so the article contradicts itself now. --Molobo 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not with this regard. The sentence states clearly that his cosmopolitan ideas weren't welcomed, not his attitude towards Poles, or his disparaging descriptions. If you think there is something other which is misleading about the sentence, please make it more precise. Maybe you think that the context of the sentence is misleading? alx-pl D 19:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentence states clearly that his cosmopolitan ideas Except of course that we already have evidence in the article that his cosmopolitian ideas were just in public, and he held harsh "uncosmopolitian" ideas in private.The formulating of the sentence is misleading. It should write something like "his publicly expressed views often viewed as cosmopolitian weren't welcomed, while his negative stereotypes and insults towards other nations that he held in private were welcomed and supported by German nationalists." --Molobo 19:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the sentence back to something that talks about his relation with different nations and should be filled with the sources Alx-pl is providing. I have changed it a bit to say more about his unhappiness in and conflict with different nations. The part about Forster and Poles and intellectualism should focus on the reception during his lifetime IMHO. Kusma (討論) 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, I don't see the point. There is a statement a few sentences earlier:

Forster's disparaging description of Poland in his letters and diaries was often taken at face value in Imperial and Nazi Germany, where it was used as a means of science-based support for a purported German superiority

which conveys exactly what you propose. It states even more - not necessarily nationalists used that. What about the current formulation of Kusma? I find it quite OK (still the formulation for Poland has to be discussed). alx-pl D 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another contradiction within the article

We have two contradictory sentences : Said insults only became known after his death, when his private correspondence and diaries were released to the public. Since Forster's published descriptions of other nations were seen as impartial scientific observations, Forster's disparaging description of Poland in his letters and diaries was often taken at face value in Imperial and Nazi Germany, where it was used as a means of science-based support for a purported German superiority[7]. And later: In the Germany of Wilhelm II and even more so in the Third Reich, Forster's memory was ostracized. This two sentences obviously contradict each other. --Molobo 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see it contradictory. They might have used his opinions in the following context: Even this traitor Forster admits that Poles were swines. And here you have a piece of evidence from a scientific article about his reception in the 19th century Germany:

To make matters worse, Forster professed a kind of politics that was both revolutionary and antinational and thus was a hissing and reproach to the conservatives who dominated German scholarship in the nighteenth century, Gordon A. Craig, "Engagement and Neutrality in Germany: The case of Georg Forster, 1754-94", Journal of Modern History, vol. 41, no. 1 (1969), pp. 1-16

alx-pl D 20:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

They might have used his opinions in the following context: Even this traitor Forster admits that Poles were swines' This is your POV. Please provide scholary source. Forster professed a kind of politics that was both revolutionary and antinational and thus was a hissing and reproach to the conservatives who dominated German scholarship in the nighteenth century This only about his public views. We already have sources confirming Forsters acceptence among German nationalists due to his private views.--Molobo 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit confused now. There is a scholary source above which states that his memory was ostracised and there is a scholary source which states that his disparaging description were used in the context of national struggle. Both informations are mentioned in the article. There are many ways in which these can coexist in the reality, one of them was mentioned above by me just as an example (not necessarily of the factual kind) of such a coexistence. If you want to investigate what the reasons of the coexistence exactly were, please do, you can provide the sources which clarify that what an inconsistency is in your eyes. alx-pl D 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Forster professed a kind of politics that was both revolutionary and antinational Contradicted by his private views in higher and lesser nations-that is those who are like pigs and those he believed were more human then Poles. A clear distinction should be made between his public stated views and his private ones.We shouldn't confuse readers. --Molobo 20:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, he legitimized accession of the Mainzer Republic to the revolutionary France and this was his anti-German deed. And this is what he was ostracized for in Germany, and that's why his politics was described as antinational by Craig. alx-pl D 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest stating so, mentioning specific facts, without incorrect generalisations that contradict earlier information found in the article.--Molobo 23:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The current formulation by Kusma: being too revolutionary and antinational for Germans states so and will be supported by the reference to Craig. Is that OK for you? alx-pl D 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer the specifc information- -It will expand the article in positive way -It will avoid portaying Forster as unaccaptable to German people, since his views were supported by German nationalists. --Molobo 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I challenge you to find any source that says "Forster's views were supported by German nationalists". German nationalists may have used quotes from Forster when convenient for them, but they completely disagreed with his "views" in general. There is no contradiction here. Kusma (討論) 00:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I challenge you to find any source that says "Forster's views were supported by German nationalists" Both Bismarck and Hitler believed Poles to be animals didn't they ? The concept that Poles are inferior to such degree that they are almost animals is widely found in German nationalism. --Molobo 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Which would mean that you deny that either: -The German nationalists viewed Poles as inferior people, compared them to animals, viewed them as dirty, stupid people. -that Forster didn't held such views-easly proved by quotes above(of course he wasn't the only one among German scholars whose darker sides aren't researched so well, Weber had also similiar views, which aren't so well known). --Molobo 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

These remarks are relevant for the acceptance of certain aspects of Forster's views among German nationalists not Forster himself. Where is the source Kusma challenged you for that says about Forster himself? Another helper question: did also Bismarck and Hitler supported the ideas behind and freedoms promised by French Revolution? alx-pl D 00:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the source Kusma challenged you for that says about Forster himself? Where is the source claiming German nationalists didn't view Poles as inferior and animal like ? Or are you trying to say Bismarck didn't tell his sister that they are like wolves to be shot, or Hitler that they are subhumans ? Or Forster that they are as pigs ?

did also Bismarck and Hitler supported the ideas behind and freedoms promised by French Revolution? 

It would be enjoyable to write the article how the one firsts acts of genocide that was made in modern era during French Revolution and its totalitarian ideology influenced Hitler's totalitarian views as well as anti-catholicism.But this is not the scope of the article, like I said, views that were presented by Forster in public were different from his private ones, and currentely you aren't distinguishing between the two in many parts of the article, which makes it confusing. Furthermore you still didn't answer why we can't have quotes demonstrating Forster's private views in the article. --Molobo 00:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Poles wouldn't forget his malicious sayings and prejudice against their nation– the Germans couldn’t forgive his support for joining the Rhine region to France away from Germany, the English people – the fact that he was a republican, and the French viewed him as a foreigner.

--Molobo 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC) How about exchangin the POV sentence with this one ?

That would need to be in a different section: we are talking about conflicts while he was alive in this sentence right now. The Poles didn't know what he said against them, and I can see no proof of malice on Forster's part by the way. That is more POV than before. Kusma (討論) 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The Poles didn't know what he said against them, and I can see no proof of malice on Forster's part by the way Excuse me ? You see nothing wrong with claiming another nations is inferior on animal level, compering whole nation to pigs ? Sorry If you believe one can Poles like me in this way, and it isn't malicious then I am afraid there is a very big problem regarding your edits. You see nothing wrong in claiming that Poles are animals ? --Molobo 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think bitter is better, malicious is too close to malevolent, which is a POV you would need to prove, citing sources. And you are free to check all my edits, I don't think I have said anywhere that I approve of people calling other people animals. I don't want to defend Forster's statements, I am just trying to see them in context and judge them fairly. Kusma (討論) 01:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

malevolent, which is a POV you would need to prove, citing sources' Sure thing: The Poles are innately swine (Forster to Therese Heyne, 22-24 January 1785). http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/902/223books.html Czarna legenda Polski: Obraz Polski i Polaków w Prusach 1772-1815 (The black legend of Poland: the image of Poland and Poles in Prussia between 1772-1815), by Dariusz üukasiewicz. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk, 1995. Vol. 51 of the history and social sciences series. 183 pages. Illustrations, tables and indices of persons, localities, and topics. ISSN 0079-4651. ISBN 83-7063-148-7. Paper. In Polish with English and German summaries. The writers' generalizing helped to distort the picture: whenever they did not like something, they were likely to say "as is always the case in Poland;" but when they encountered a city they liked (Poznan), they commented that "the city was built according to German standards." German officials routinely compared Polish peasant farmers to the wild inhabitants of "Kamchatka and the West Indies," or to "Roman slaves and American Indians." Such scholars and travelers as Johann Georg Forster compared Poles to "cattle in human form" (in SŠmtliche Schriften)

I am just trying to see them in context and judge them fairly. Dear German collegue can I know what is the context that allows people to claim Poles are inferior animals that you are speaking of or the what is the fair judgment of the belief that Poles are inferior animals that you also mention ? --Molobo 02:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I added

Simpe information provided by Kusma-mainly that the focus on Forster's description of Poles was they were pigs. As of yet they were only slight sentences without any information that would inform the reader what the exact terms were. --Molobo 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Care to say why those quotes shouldn't be inserted or at least described by a simple sentence to an interested reader who hasn't got the references ? --Molobo 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've said what I had to say already, and am not interested in repeating myself right now. And I won't revert your edits again today as I have partially reverted you three times already. I still don't agree with you. Please try to be fair and try to use a better argument then "but he said Poles are animals" which misses the point. I can provide some good things Forster said about Poland if you wish. Kusma (討論) 02:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be fair and try to use a better argument then "but he said Poles are animals" which misses the point What point ? The case is clear he described Poles as animals ? Why are you trying to stop mentioning this fact in the article ? --Molobo 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC) I can provide some good things Forster said about Poland if you wish. That's hardly an argument. I got tonnes of things German propaganda said about Poles that were positive during the period of 1939-1944. Forster's antipolish stance is studied till these days, and that is what counts.I see no reason why we should avoid mentioning the exact statements made by him that led to such studies. --Molobo 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the point you mention here, you did not answer my question before: How can you discriminate these private confessions he made from quite common educative approach of quite many adults in which they call some children "pigs" when the children eat in a clumsy manner. Or when a married couple has an argument, they also quite often call one another "you pig" (as for instance in this dialogue). Are these people racist, too? alx-pl D 16:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please answer my question Kusme

Care to say why those quotes shouldn't be inserted or at least described by a simple sentence to an interested reader who hasn't got the references ? --Molobo 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to Forster, they should be described with more context. For example, we should add what Forster liked about Poland: "despite some deficiencies that an all-too free constitution brings with itself, I heartily rejoice at seeing the freedom that every noble Pole enjoys" (Forster in vol. 12 of his works, quote found in Bömelburg). Adding too much about his views on Poles is out of proportion with the rest of the article, since Forster is most widely known for other things. I think your way of putting the quotes attaches a too strong negative label to the person, which is not completely deserved. I still hope we can find a way to present the information we have gathered in a way acceptable to everybody. I will continue to think about it tomorrow (to qualify that: my timezone is GMT-6). Kusma (討論) 03:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but Forster's isn't studied as a source of good will towards Polish people but as creator of negative stereotypes. Adding too much about his views on Poles is out of proportion with the rest of the article Adding one sentence that shows what were the stereotypes and comparisions he used won't overshadow the article. I heartily rejoice at seeing the freedom that every noble Pole enjoys Huh ? This is a complement on freedom, it doesn't have to speak about Poles who he viewed as pigs. --Molobo 10:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the point you mention here, you did not answer my question before: How can you discriminate these private confessions he made from quite common educative approach of quite many adults in which they call some children "pigs" when the children eat in a clumsy manner. Or when a married couple has an argument, they also quite often call one another "you pig" (as for instance in this dialogue). Are these people racist, too? alx-pl D 17:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are confusing personal disputes with labeling a whole nation and classifing them as animals. Of course knowing your tolerance Alx I know you have no ill feelings when somebody calls Poles pigs or believes they are animals. But lest assured that most people are not as tolerant as you towards labeling their nation as such :)Anyway your point is easly discredited as such remarks are refered in study about German prejudice towards Poles. --Molobo 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no confusion here. We are talking not about prejudice, but about the notion of racism. Are these people racist according to your standards, sources, definitions? alx-pl D 21:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If anybody describes a whole nation as inferior animallike people-yes in my view that is racism. --Molobo 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not the answer to the question. Are these people racist? alx-pl D 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If they believe that a whole nation is inferior animal-like people-yes. --Molobo 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, still, this is another case. There was a link to a particular example. What about the example? alx-pl D 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, still, this is another case No, not really, Forster believes Poles are inferior and describes them as animals. Where is the difference between that and believing a nation is a an inferior animal-like people ? Or is just because they are Poles ? --Molobo 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Forster, but I do want to know what is racism and what is not racism according to your standards. As the dispute here is on supposed racism of Forster, this should help in shaping up the article. So what's your evaluation of the case presented in the link? alx-pl D 22:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Defining ethnic groups as animals seems pretty good example of racism Alx. As to personal relations between married couples this is hardly on topic Alx. Married people can develop a code of words which makes even insults intimate allusions-but enough of that and stay on topic please. --Molobo 22:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The way a word said by somebody should be judged depends on the context in which it is said (who is talking to who), whatever the word is. For example, there is a difference between public hatemongering and private bitterness even if the very same words are used. Kusma (討論) 23:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, there is a difference between public hatemongering and private bitterness even if the very same words are used Which is not the case with Forster, since he didn't addres some private Polish person whom he viewed as animal, but he addresed the whole Polish nation, nobody private. --Molobo 23:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He did not address the Polish nation, he wrote to his future wife. Also, he made exceptions and admitted the existence of Poles that he were sufficiently civilised for his taste, as shown in the context of the "swine" quote above. Which proves he was not racist. Do you want me to find other quotes that clearly show Forster viewed Poles as humans? He wrote many bitter, unfair, wrong, and insulting things about Poland, but to say he viewed all Poles as "just animals" is clearly wrong. Kusma (討論) 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He did not address the Polish nation, he wrote to his future wife. He described the whole Polish nation not his wife. Also, he made exceptions and admitted the existence of Poles that he were sufficiently civilised for his taste, as shown in the context of the "swine" quote above. Which proves he was not racist. All racist make exceptions when it suits them(that is when they have to face reality(, this is hardly an argument: At this moment we want to give the Polish soldier absolute justice. At many points the Pole fought bravely. [1] Adolf Hitler. I doubt his praise about bravery of Polish soldiers should convice us he wasn't an racist. Similar-Forster is studied for his negative attitude towards Poles not praises. --Molobo 14:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• We've already described his negative attitude to Poles.
• There are several reasons to omit the word racism from the article:
  1. The racism in the current understanding of the word did not exist in Forster's times so giving him this label is anachronic.
  2. The word racism has strong ideological stamp completely different from other Forster's views.
  3. He did not state the words in public.
  4. There is no clear mark that he wanted to state them in public.
  5. There is only one scholary source that associates Forster with racism.
  6. The WP:NPOV#Undue_weight policy states that: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article)
  7. The articles of many people mentioned above (like Otto von Bismarck), and not mentioned (like Oswald Spengler or Richard Wagner and many others), don't contain information on their (disputed or plain) racism although this issue is disputed in their context with much more attention compared to Forster's case.

These are the points, so far, to address and reselve before the word racism can enter the article. alx-pl D 18:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

1. The racism in the current understanding of the word did not exist in Forster's times so giving him this label is anachronic. How shall we describe then racism of Forster ? Of course we can stick with stating simply with giving example "All Poles are swine" od writing simply that Forster "viewed Poles as inferior animals"
2. The word racism has strong ideological stamp completely different from other Forster's views. Other views are irrelevent to the issue discussed-that is the view of Forster that Poles are piglike animal creatures inferior to other nations. Of course I already proposed to distinguish Forster's private and public views.
3. He did not state the words in public. Like I said-I already proposed to write that he contradicted his public statements with private opinions.
4. There is no clear mark that he wanted to state them in public.
5. There is only one scholary source that associates Forster with racism. They are several scholary sources documenting his negative stereotyping of Poles though.
6. The WP:NPOV#Undue_weight policy states that: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article)" Of course-but within the context of Forster's attitude towards Poles his negative stereotypes are widely known, and even studied by a number of works and people.
7. The articles of many people mentioned above - Dear Alx-don't worry. I intend to enter that information in time. Including Weber's racism towards Poles for example.

--Molobo 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is an article about Georg Forster, not about Georg Forster's attitude toward Poles, and although this is a short biographical article, we are already mentioning his bad opinions about Poles, in harsher words than most of his biographies do in a whole book (actually, in words that are too harsh because they represent a compromise between your and my version already). None of his biographies describes Forster as a racist, so why should we try to do so? Kusma (討論) 21:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is an article about Georg Forster not about Georg Forster's attitude toward Poles Sorry but Georg Forster is known for his antipolish statements and he is subject of study when analysing negative stereotypes about Poles in German society. Georg's Forsters views on Poles are as appropriate as his views on other aspects of the world. --Molobo 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess we should then probably remove all mentioning of his "anti-Polish" statements until you find a couple of Forster biographies in English that give them the same level of detail that we do. Our sources for everything else are decidedly "general works", and the Poland stuff is the one where we have been digging into specialized sources (on your demand) to find out details. I think you need to find general works about Forster, in English, that give the Poland issue the same or more weight than we do, to prove that "Forster is known for his antipolish statements" sentence. Kusma (討論) 21:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No I don't have to. The mention of his antipolish views is only made in one or two sentences, and I have proven beyond any doubt that he expressed such views, In fact you agreed with me already that he did. The argument that I should find English sources fits exactly into the stereotypical http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_to_deal_with_Poles Rule number six: As soon as discussion is started, ask them for sources. Don't worry when they will provide you sources, they will be most likely written by Polish authors. Tell them that Polish authors are known by their dishonesty and bias. Demand English sources. In most unlikely scenario when you will be presented with English sources, you still have a chance. If the dispute is about history of, say, Germany, demand German sources as they will most likely know about history of their own country (and Germans are not Poles, so they won't be biased). If this is dispute about history of Poland, demand a book written by some totally neutral author, say, Chinese. English research doesn't cover every aspect of the world, and for example you can hardly find mention about atrocities of German units in English research on them, as they concentrate on other things. As to Forster's attitude towards Poles this is not a minority view but fact that isn't known well by western researchers. Thus there is no reason for delete it unless you can find that Forster didn't held such views. And I already presented several sources where they are studied. --Molobo 08:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I was never disputing the facts. I do want to present the "Polish" things in the article, and I have checked many sources to determine how important this aspect of his biography is in his overall reception. The answer is "not very important". If you want to challenge this view, you need to provide sources, that's all. In the Georg-Forster studies series of the University of Kassel, for example, just one article in over 60 deals with his relations with Poles (actually, with his time in Vilnius). In the English biography I'm curently reading, your favorite quotes aren't mentioned. If you want to show they need to be discussed more prominently, cite biographies that mentions these quotes and explain how much weight is given to them, I don't really care in which language. I don't see why I should have any less right to ask for sources than you do, and you ask for sources quite frequently. Kusma (討論) 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kusma if you believe racism isn't the right word, what other formulation do you suggest ? --Molobo 00:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A new formulation for what? Do you mean the part on Forster's letters from Poland? I have written that part. I will continue to edit it to make it fit the article better so Forster is given fair treatment, and I will probably clarify or remove one or two of the bad words or explain a little more that these statements were made out of his embitterment and disappointment with his treatment at Vilnius University, that resulted from a couple of issues in which both sides had fault. If you want to write about Forster's understanding of "race", you should research his debate with Kant about this matter. In fact, I encourage you to read more about Georg Forster, he is a most fascinating person. Kusma (討論) 02:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten the things a bit. Kusma (討論) 03:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed=Nationality

Why is he stated as German  ? The article again contradicts itself-he was born in Poland, with Scotish ancestors, never felt like Pole, yet Germans rejected him. Please discuss. --Molobo 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He is universally known as a German in every source we have. Nobody but you has disputed his nationality. I don't see anything worth discussing here. Kusma (討論) 15:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis on this opinion-was he not of Scottish descent ? Did he regard himself as German ? --Molobo 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ideed, for instance in the mentioned above article by Gordon A. Craig it is stated: Among the intellectual leaders of the German states during the period of the French Revolution, the political geographer and natural philosopher Georg Forster occupies a special place. Similarly, the source you used before reads: German officials [...] and travelers as Johann Georg Forster. Of course, the question of his nationality may be disputable, as the nations in our current understanding have not emerged at that time and thus it was not customary to confess nationality at that time. I doubt we can find a clear statement of his that declares nationality. The most convincing argument for the choice of his nationality is probably the language of his diaries. It was German which can be for instance deduced from the fact that they were published in the German series Deutsche Litteraturdenkmale des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts in Neudrucken (in English: German literature monuments of 18th and 19th centuries in new prints). alx-pl D 17:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion

Removed unsourced opinion : unhappy with the lack of intellectual stimulation he encountered among Poles Alx claims the staff was Polish-I would like Alx to provide a scholary resource proving that among people Forster encountered in Lithuanian Vilnius none were of German, Lithuanian, Russian, Jewish background and all were pure ethnic Poles. --Molobo 21:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a basic fact that the high culture of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was dominated by Poles and Polish tradition. You can find that in every history handbook. In particular you can read in Power and the Nation in European History by Len Scales:

The cultural influence of the Kresy remained powerful long after 1795; indeed, for their elites it was clear that the centre of Polish culture lay not in Warsaw, Cracow or Poznan, but in Lithuania and Ruthenia. (...) and it was in Wilno University that Mickiewicz, Slowacki and Lelewel all studied.

Of course, Mickiewicz and Slowacki studied there in 1820s, but they couldn't get their strong Polish education without professors. Similarly, in the wikipedia article History of Lithuania#Revival of Lithuanian Language you can read:

Because Lithuanian nobles were polonized and only the poor and middle classes used Lithuanian (but some of the latter also tended to use Polish for "prestige"), Lithuanian was not considered a prestigious language.

This is enough to make the statement that Forster's intellectual environment in Wilno was Polish. alx-pl D 19:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in the culture of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since this is not the source of dispute. Please provide source on ethnic background of the people who he met. Without that you can't claim they were Poles. Your sentence speaks about Poles-not about Polish culture, or the language used in the university. Furthermore Vilnius had different culture then for example Poznan or Kraków, the only thing that you need to do is to give example who he met that made him claim such things and why do you believe all those people were ethnic Poles. Unless of course you want to claim that Lithuanians, Jews, Germans had no identity in Lithuania and were all Poles. --Molobo 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to prove that Forster was frustrated by the lack of support for his scientific plans by the Polish elite at Vilnius, which did not give him the status he had wished. Kusma (討論) 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Polish elite ? I suggest then to prove they were ethnic Poles. For starters I recommend making a list of the people you claim were part of some alledged elite in his enviroment. Then point out which one made him do such comments. --Molobo 21:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about nations. Ecerpt from the article about nations:

The term nation is often used synonymously with ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.

Similarly, there are considerable examples of nations where there is no common ethnicity whereas there is some common cultural environment in which a single notion of the nation developed, the most notable examples are United States, Switzerland, Belgium.

This clearly indicates that you cannot devoid the dispute about nationality from the cultural aspects of the national environment. alx-pl D 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are claiming that there was only Polish identity in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ? This would be very hard for you to argue I am afraid Alx-pl. Anwyay you wanted to write that he was frustrated by Poles not by Polish culture-are you now trying to say he was frustrated by Polish culture ? --Molobo 08:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Where? alx-pl D 22:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand your current position is that it is right to name people at Vilnius univerisity as Poles because you believe Polish culture was the only option for them ? --Molobo 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The position is that the default nationality of people in the higher social ranks, and thus in the administration at the Wilno University (rector, vice-rector, deans of faculties), and Komisja Edukacji Narodowej was Polish (in the sense that people who encountered them considered them as Poles even though they might be of another ethnical background), and this is the common assumption done by virtually all historians, as exemplified above. If your position is that it is in this case otherwise, please give a source that states that Forster considered the heads of Wilno University and people in Komisja Edukacji Narodowej as non-Poles (still, one example is not enough in this case, we need an expert's opinion or statistics). alx-pl D 01:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If it debatable why not named it the climate at Vilnius ? Since calling Poles seems POV and would need to be explained, as even you agreed that that people who encountered them considered them as Poles even though they might be of another ethnical background, then perhaps a different wording would be better ? Or do you want to insist on Poles ? If so why ? --Molobo 01:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to insist on Poles. Definitely Hugo Kołłątaj, Jan Śniadecki and Jędrzej Śniadecki were Poles and they got into the conflict with Forster at the end of his stay in Wilno. Maybe the formulation and too demanding for Poles is OK? alx-pl D 11:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to insist on Poles. Why ? Such wording would be unfair, since you now claim that he got in conflict with inviduals. Why not name them if you got sources confirming this ? Your current proposed wording would suggest Poles in general ware intellectually inferior to Forster. Obviously this would consitute a very strong POV which would have to be corrected. Perhaps better wording would be such "because Forster viewed Poles as intellectuall inferior to him". Of course that is only if you insist on such sentence. But I don't understand why you want to do it since obviously this is very POV ? --Molobo 11:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Why ? As we have a sentence which summarises the attitude of other nations to him we should mention Poles there, as well.

You now claim that he got in conflict with inviduals - were they not Polish?

Your current proposed wording would suggest Poles in general ware intellectually inferior I don't think that the statement that somebody is demanding implies that the person is intellectually superior to anybody. My one year old child is very demanding, sometimes too demanding when it screams as I deny it to climb on my desk, and the 30 years of my life experience certainly do not make me inferior to the child. In fact the proposed formulation suggests that the fault was on the Forster's side as it was him who did not know where the borders lay. Note also that the disapproving character of the phrase is also exploited in the following texts from BBC: fussy and too demanding, It was too demanding of teachers, young generation are too demanding. So I don't understand your criticism as in my opinion the meaning of the proposed words is just the opposite to what you're suggesting.

"because Forster viewed Poles as intellectuall inferior to him" - As I remarked, I should prefer something that characterises the attitude of Poles instead of the attitude of Forster. The latter is described in the previous paragraph.

I don't understand why you want to do it since obviously this is very POV? I think it is a good idea to present the attitude of the nations to him to make balance with the presentation of his attitude to the different nations. I don't understand what is the POV you are writing about.

alx-pl D 12:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Were they not Polish? I have no idea-as you are now talking about specific inviduals, do you care to give their detailed ethnic background ? Anyway you are now talking about his attitude to inviduals or whole Polish population ? You claimed fist that he was responding to Polish culture-which I found of need of proof since Polish-Lithuanian Commowealth was multiethnic
• "My one year old child is very demanding, sometimes too demanding when it screams as I deny " Excuse me ? You are now comparing Poles to one year old children in regards to Polish intellectual abilities of inviudals you mentioned ? I don't understand your sentence.
• "I remarked, I should prefer something that characterises the attitude of Poles instead of the attitude of Forster" Right now you aren't presenting any attitude of Poles but Forster's belief about Poles that he was superior to them. Frankly this is a very bizarre statement as it would suggest that Poles attitude to Forster was to become intelectually inferior.

--Molobo 13:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Do you care to give their detailed ethnic background ? - The nationality of the people is explained in the articles about these figures I gave pointers to. If you challange the nationality of the people, please do it on the talk pages of the individuals or maybe even better on the Polish noticeboard, as the figures are landmarks of the Polish culture. I can also make this a topic of investigation on the notice board myself if you will challange me with that question once more.
• you are now talking about his attitude to inviduals or whole Polish population - As I mentioned already twice, the intent of the sentence is to present the attitude of the nations to Forster.
• You are now comparing Poles to one year old children in regards to Polish intellectual abilities of inviudals you mentioned ? - The logical structure is the following: The logical value of the sentence Forster was too demanding for Poles according to you Molobo is

  Poles are inferior to Forster

  This is in parallel with

  30+ years old individual is inferior to one year old child

which would be the result inferred from the sentence A one year old child is too demanding for a 30+ years old individual. As you can see on the picture above, it is Forster who is compared to a child. Not Poles. The comparison with children is purely your invention. Should I now pose the question, are you comparing Poles to one year old children?

• Forster's belief about Poles that he was superior to them - The plain meaning of the phrase he was too demanding for Poles is that it presents attitude of Poles towards him. It is not an opinion of Forster in any sense. The basic rules of the English grammar state that. I gave also a proof based on external sources that it does not characterise Forster as superior. What's your proof to the contrary?
• alx-pl D 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• The nationality of the people is explained in the articles about these figures I gave pointers to. Please give a source and sentences that write about Forster's view of those inviduals who as you claim led to his opinions.
• As I mentioned already twice, the intent of the sentence is to present the attitude of the nations to Forster. Please provide opinions of those people towards Forster. However opinions of such inviduals seem hardly representive of whole Poles since they weren't for example democraticly elected leaders of the Polish state etc.
• he was too demanding for Poles It could mean either that they weren't able to satify his expectations, or that he expected too much of them, or that they believed that he expects too much of them etc. Too unclear and I suggest you change it into more clear sentence. I also hope you finally present your sources with proper quotes from Hugo Kołłątaj Jan Śniadecki Jędrzej Śniadeck, where they adimt that they neither can provide or posses the intellectual level of Forster that he demands from them.

  --Molobo 16:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  Why should he quote these people? He only explained why the sourced scholarly quote he already gave is plausible. Please do some research of your own about Polish attitude towards Forster during his lifetime and contribute to this debate in a more constructive way. Kusma (討論) 17:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but Alx didn't present any quotes about Polish attitudes towards Forster, but only about Forster's attitude. I am waiting for sources and quotes. --Molobo 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC) And contribute to this debate in a more constructive way I am contributing in constructive way, without my help, Forster's full image wouldn't be presented and the hypocracy behind his public and private statements wouldn't be known to reader. Of course we still need examples, since the reader isn't informed in what ways Forster did insult nations he considered animal-like. I still don't know why you are refusing that the article should have examples. --Molobo 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is one more source (at last it is on-line) on the attitude of Poles to Forster:

Nie rozumiał kosmopolitycznego podejścia Forstera, który wobec interesującej propozycji wyprawy badawczej, zerwał umowę i pozostawił Katedrę Historii Naturalnej na kilka lat pozbawioną kierownictwa. Podobnie ostro ocenił postępowanie Ludwika Bojanusa, który na czas wojen napoleońskich wyjechał do Petersburga,

Rough translation: He did not understand Forster's attitude, who broke a contract, due to an interesting proposal to conduct a research journey, and left the Natural History chair without its head for a few years. Similarly, he laced Ludwik Bojanus, who left for St. Petersburg during the Napoleonian period.

This is a description of Stanisław Bonifacy Jundziłł's (a student of Georg Forser and a professor of Natural History at Wilno University at a later date) opinion on Forster. The description is done by Wanda Grębecka (PhD, habilitation in history of science, particularly about the Wilno scholars) and published in the book: Stanisław Bonifacy Jundziłł (1761-1847), Warszawa-Lida 2003, Retro-Art. I'll propose a new formulation based on that. alx-pl D 13:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Resolution

I have made a request in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal to resolve the dispute. This is the first step to take as Wikipedia:Resolving disputes suggests. alx-pl D 19:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nassenhuben, Danziger Niederung records

Nassenhuben records were removed from article, therefore posted here: Nassenhuben Official Records of Inhabitants

Georg Forster was born in Landkreis Danziger Niederung in a small village, named Nassenhuben in Prussia (aka Royal Prussia). Nassenhuben was the property of the noble family of Schwartzenberg [2] until its annexation by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1772. Earlier Nassenhuben was known as Mutterstrenz.

In 1660 Professor Daniel Ernst Jablonski was also born in Nassenhuben, Danziger Niederung. MG 4/8/2006

---

Those are the records of the Protestant church, so almost by definition German and using the German name. (Catholic records would probably be in Polish). What does this prove, though, and how does this really relate to this article? You should get an account and write an article about Mokry Dwor if you want to present this. Kusma (討論) 21:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are all the churches in the area Danzig Stadt and Danzig Land(kreis):[3]

Only Danzig seems to have had some Catholic churches [4] The overwhelming majority was Evangelisch- Protestant. Polish language was not used, why should it have been? It was not Poland. Danzig Landkreis , several hundred towns included, changed from Low-German language in 1566 to High German. This Royal Prussia stuff in Wikipedia does not reflect factual events.

It was Poland according to de:Teilungen Polens and according to Georg Forster's own words. (in a letter quoted in the article by Bömelburg, he says "Ich bin ja in Polen, bei Danzig, geboren"). Kusma (討論) 21:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The de: German Wikipedia copies much from ENglish wikipedia, it is about as reliable as the English wikipedia.

And when and if Forster said something like this (which I have not seen any original copy, and therefore cannot confirm) then he referred to what became known as Polish Prussia or Royal Prussia about the time of the Imperial Kurfürsten August the Strong and August III.

I have looked at a lot of old maps and I have never seen anything other than Prussia for both parts western and eastern Prussia, before 1700's. I have several times asked Polish editors to post anything , that shows the term Polish or Royal added to Prussia before 1700 in connection to the Copernicus debates, but no one has posted any earlier reference. Therefore I believe, the western part of Prussia should not be referred to as Royal or Polish Prussia, until it was actually started to be called that.

The earliest possible time it could be claimed by Polish as Polish Prussia, would be 1569, when the Polish sejm one-sidedly declared western Prussia Polish, against the wishes of the Land and people involved. But at that time it was Lithuania-Poland-Swedish, married to Habsburg royal dynasties.

When Danzig and Elbing (which were Hanse cities, since 1477 city states, while in some connection to 'Polish' crown) were occupied by Saxon and Russian troops, the king of Prussia, Frederick II , called the Prussians 'Russians'. because under occupation they had to submit to the Tzarina. Does that make them Russian for the time they were occupied by Russia, same for the Swedish occupations?

Perhaps from 1945 to 1990 in what is today Bundesrepublik Germany, there were no German, but only British, French, Americans and Russians in British Germany and French Germany and American Germany and Russian Germany . After all, Germany was under the highest authority of the Allies. right? Following this 'logic' that has overtaken this Wikipedia, a large number of Germans or Prussians, actually everyone east of the Oder-Neisse or better yet east of the Else-Saale and why not East of the Rhine river were actually all Polish, right ??? MG 4/8/2006

Your point in relation to this article being...? Kusma (討論) 23:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

GA

You'll need better inline citations to get featured, but looks good enough for a GA tag. Keep up the good work. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 10:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why examples of remarks against Poland made by Forster aren't presented to the reader. --Molobo 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)