The old talk page of JHK
Just dropped by to welcome you to Wikipedia, and to say that you've gone way beyond the call of duty in certain historical discussions; in such cases you should feel free to change or remove material that is not up to encyclopedic standards. -- Stephen Gilbert
Hello! Thanks for joining us and staying on top of those questionable history entries. History is certainly an area where we need more solid hands like yourself. --LMS
No culpae necessary, J -- my outburst was directed at 207.X.X.X the Prussian Apologist. He/she/they/it copy-and-pasted in (again) her bizarre additions and really screwed things up. I think h/s/t/i is not opening the source text of the version she is trying to revert to, and that doesn't work very well....Yes, I just double-checked and it was version 21 from 207 that broke everything, not you -- Paul Drye
View revisions, and then view the particular revision you want. Amongst the links at the bottom is "Edit Revision XX of this page" (and a fanatical devotion to the Pope). Select that, then you can copy and paste the source of the revision, saving links and lists and my precious sanity :) -- Paul Drye
Just wanted to apologize to any non-cranks (normal, critically thinking, wikipedians), especially those of German citizenship and WWII buffs, for my bold oversimplification of the issues surrounding the Nazi era. Just trying to keep my sanity and hoping that Jimbo will come up with a "reach out and slap someone" button in the near future. JHK
- He won't; the traffic surge would crash the server. --KQ
That "reach out and slap someone" comment is hardly contributory, even if it's meant as a joke. Your own edits, such as the redirecting/deleting of Heimatvertriebenen after I had spent an hour or two researching the subject, to the Diaspora studies entry you wrote, which is confusing and poorly thought-out, was extremely piquing. --TheCunctator
So blatant that I don't understand the objection, J....I picked that particular word in order to highlight Frederick's motive: to force his way up the pecking order of dukes and kings. In what way is "feudal" an inappropriate description of his behaviour? Prussia needs to be changed too if the choice is inappropriate -- Paul Drye
Hmm, I will try to rephrase then, without losing what I see as the key point. The whole rebranding (no pun intended...ok, it was kind of intended) as "Prussia" makes no sense to the uninitiated without getting across the fact that it was all about technicalities. Come to think, I'll have to go back to my old entry on Savoy and see what I said about the whole Savoy-Piedmont -> Kingdom of Sardinia thing...same trick, different actors, after all. -- Paul Drye
Works for me. Fixed Savoy too, plus another instance of my earlier mental block that there's a "the" in "War of the Spanish Succession" too. Bonus! -- Paul Drye
We have quite a few minor wars around here concerning general policy and specific edits. Never take it personally; just make your points and listen to and consider your opponant's counterarguments (if any are made, of course. ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert
nice feudalism! I changed 'preached a story that said' to 'told this story:'. Other than that, my revisions were minor. I added headers to make the 2 models clearer to layfolks (I hope) and changed a 'former' to an emphasized homage and emphasized the following fealty. --MichaelTinkler
Hi , I see you are happily "slashing away' again. It is going to take me a while, to answer to your one note , that I came across ( the long one). In the meanwhile I found a word , that is all encompassing and no one has come up with a negative touch yet : Displaced persons . I believe if you start a section with displaced persons you have a chance of not getting it destroyed.
H.J.
Not slashing away, just putting things into proper perspective. Displaced persons is a great term, and should probably be cross-referenced with the entries in Diaspora studies -- have you looked at these yet? Otherwise, just updating those entries that have suffered from an over use of faulty methodology and misuse of sources to prove a personal POV... JHK
I know,
I really meant the slashers and all their "charming" comments.
The diaspora site is very good and you have put a lot of work into it. For me it is all too overwhelming , especially right now with that replay of yet another creation of another refugee group , and on and on it goes . I just wish that there would have been someone to start a study as to why and how all these situations arise in our times to cause all this. Alfred de Zaya called for a study chair on refugeees/expelles . I can tell you it is not wise for anyone to put too much time into this . All you get is abuse and worse. John Sack (Eye for an Eye), who documented 1200 prison camps in Silesia, where Communists killed and tortured Germans , was only able to do so because he is of Jewish faith himself and he is already very old. People are persecuted in Canada, for saying that they are refugees. If you are looking for a job, pick some frivolous pleasant subject. Displaced person is much more political correct. H.J.
I *liked* the concubine thing (having written it myself!). What happened is that I've been distracted -- I mean to come back and write a little about Charlemagne and women - marriages, concubines, etc., and his daughters are a nice way into it. Oh, well. It can wait. --MichaelTinkler
We should ask for a cron job on most-frequently misspelled words. "Separate" would probably be up there (53 just turned up; I left a lot of the ones on Talk pages). But if we include incorrectly-used homonyms (and why not? they are different words) there/their/they're has it hands down. Maybe Malcom Farmer can write us a script. ;-) --Koyaanis Qatsi
- You can search on word combinations. In the vast majority of cases "their" is preceded by words like "with...", "of..." and "by...". "There" is usually followed by words such as "will, is, was". "They're" is usually followed by a gerund (...walking, riding, etc).
That's an idea. Actually I was joking; it's a bit more work than I'd care to volunteer for (though if the project were started already, I'd work on it occasionally). I think I'll just correct them as I find them. :-) --KQ
- <many giggles> I just people would realize that it really weakens an otherwise decent article...<sigh> But my good news for the night is that I've found a few decent sources on Siebenbuergen (all in German, of course), and will be able to write a good revision tomorrow. I anticipate that it may demonstrate that Siebenbuergen is not by nature German after all -- but, it seems that there's been a German-speaking group there since the 18th century (sorry -- it's just a really cool story...) -- or is that its a really cool story? JHK
________________________________________________________________
As you are demonstrating with your Siebenbuergen article , you need to know German language to find out history.
The same goes for the Albert I Brandenburg deal. Type in Albert I Brandenburg in www.webtop.com or altavista and you will get Albert of Brandenburg Prussia 1470-1568 or 19th and 20th century Alberts, all kinds of Alberts, like Albert Schweitzer etc.
But to get info on ( Albert I Brandenburg) you n e e d to know that he was Albrecht der Baer : Engl. the Baer ).
H.J.
Oh For Lord's sake, Helga! My German is actually fairly good -- it has to be, because the German government made me pass a test in order to study there and because I had no problem taking University courses (including turning in fairly lengthy papers and projects) IN GERMAN, and got the highest possible grades. I taught English in a language school, where the director offered to help me find work teaching German here in the states.
The articles I read on Siebenbürgen were in German -- and they said (in much more detail) what I said in my article. The fact that it shows that there is more to the story than your constant attempts to prove that anywhere Germans lived belongs ipso facto to Germany is not my fault -- it's just the facts. Strangely enough, I actually do have a clue here -- I've spent about 13 years now dealing with German historiography and sources. I've got a decent grip on the Orts- and Personennamenkunde that you keep trying to use to prove your points, and know that, while useful, historians the world over now believe that many of the sources you cite are to be taken with a large grain of salt. If I happen to present the prevailing theories, or note that some older theories that you happen to believe are in doubt, that's just basic scholarship. BTW, if you want to check sources, google Siebenbürgen -- I found most of my sources using that engine. If someone finds other sources that contradict what I've written, then they should edit the article accordingly. My only vested interest was in replacing the disjointed crank cant that you put up there with something actually informative.
Finally, I don't really give a damn what you want to call Albert. What I object to is that you continually write identicle articles under separate titles. If Albert the Bear is better than Albert I, fine, make it a separate article and correctly rewrite the one you mistitled in the first place. Don't leave it to the rest of us to clean up your inept English and weak (probably intentionally) scholarship. JHK
I know , that y o u can read it . I did not question your ability to read German. It was not meant for you personally, but in general .
Unfortunately I am asked constantly by older Americans about any of the historical figures and any history . They do not know any of this. In a survey, it showed , that none of them received any instructions in German history at all. From what I am assuming ,this is somewhat better in schools today ?
That article on Albert I was already there.
I am happy that you care. Thank you . H.J.
Ummm...I noticed you have a new IP address -- are are there two of you, Frau Helga? It would be really good if you could maybe log in, since you already sign your stuff... or is this a hoax? JHK
- well, I use school and home IP addresses myself. --MichaelTinkler
- I used to have three -- but also want to be sure this isn't leg-pulling gone horribly astry...JHK
JHK, please see my request for help in nomenclature on the talk:Samhain page. This will lead to Catholic saints, purgatory, and relics, Muslim saints, Jewish saints, ghosts, Celtic death-stuff, Mormon dead-folk baptism, and whatever non-western things everyone else wants to start adding, so I think the initial name needs to be fairly clear! --MichaelTinkler
- BTW -- in the Allgäu, they still celebrate a festival very much like a combination of Samhain and the American Hallowe-en. It's one of the few European places I know of that has a "dress up to keep the ghosts from knowing who you are" day...JHK I will work on this more when I get home from the salt mines...
Errrr, you're welcome! (Looks puzzled). Good luck in the tree-grinding business, by the way -- my dad did that for a while many a year ago.... Paul Drye
Well, HJ's tooth-hurting punctuation beat me down for a while, but I thought if I rushed at it all at once....Paul Drye
- hey, the punctuation's the least problematic part -- it's when you combine it with missing words and coherent thought that it gives me a problem! JHK
- Better yet, HJ decided on a minor excursion into the field of Norse Mythology, with some bizarre nonsense about some alleged documents allegedly destroyed for some alleged reason... >>REVERT MODE: ON<< sjc
Message for Larry Sanger et al. Please check table in Old Prussian Language -- I'm fairly sure the table is lifted directly from a book or perhaps a non-public domain website.
Don't be shy about putting the above sort of message on my page; I might have missed this one...
Possibly this page? I don't know if that would constitute a violation, if so. Do you have a specific resource in mind? --Larry Sanger
Just wanted to say that your attempts to deal with the Collected Works of HJ are valiant. It feels like we're trying to communicate with an alien. --TheCunctator
Actually, it was horse breeding that I moved. But I'll go and get Horse Breeds now. :) --Stephen Gilbert
- Oh wait, you already moved it. I'll go do something else now. --Stephen Gilbert
We need to get active on the primary and secondary source entries, so that we can just refer. I'm getting tired of retyping arguments! --MichaelTinkler
- You're right -- feel free to add to my to do list...I am now going for writing and editing sans explanation, I think!
Alas, Boots!
- I'll send you pix one of these days, along with one of the gargoyle I got for my birthday -- still trying to come up with a name -- torn between Ambrose and Kenny, among others. Boots is/was definitely the best feline friend I've ever had, though. Beats the non-feline gargoyle hands down!
JHK: Purely out of curiousity, what does the "J" in your name stand for? -- SJK
Oh, there was no great emergency regarding Prussia this time. Larry Sanger was asking if "Old Prussi Land" should not just be redirected to "Prussia", and Stephen Gilbert and I convinced him that deletion was the better option.
Sorry about your cat. -- Paul Drye
SJK -- It's Julie, aka Jules. I think this means I'm still not a guy (for those who persist in thinking I am...). I do watch 6-8 hours of footie a week and change my own tires, though!
Paul Drye: Thanks for the kind thoughts. I just had this horrible feeling the page had been re-done!
Have a good day, all -- off to the stinky mill! JHK
Alan -- I'm not trying to be pain, but doesn't the Bos in the Latin name for Aurochs make it a Cow / Cattle / thingy, and not a Bison? JHK
Yay, Hanseatic League! So, hard at work on the Smalkalds? --MichaelTinkler, junior taskmaster.
FWIW, I've also run across encounters with the wilfully ignorant. I've decided that if someone insists on doing something I think is just wrong, after a few attempts to correct it, I leave it alone. It will not stand for long. Someone else always fixes it, and I spare myself frustration. :-) --Dmerrill
I took out "learned history graduates" and replaced it with "many". JHK you constantly write snide remarks to other wikipedians about my entries on subjects you don't know about . I am assuming that you are referring to this quote . If the truth of the article is too strong for your taste , then look at the Masovia entry, where "yes it was conquered by Polish dukes", was immediately proudly verified. If someone else objects to stating it like it is, let them "water it down". Do me a favor , get enough sleep and do look at a map when I ask you to repeatedly. It does help and then you will not put Luebeck in the communist GDR again , you won't mix up Masuria and Masovia ( which a lot of other people do too) and you can stop sniping at me. We'll both appreciate it ( and thereby I can fully appreciate your fine contributions).
As with the Aurochs , all you had to do , is what Paul Dry did, state the site that gives the exact location and for the time being clarify the question I posted several times, as to whether it was Masovia or Masuria. And do not try to tell me again, that Masovia in German is Masuria. Konrad von Masovien and Cymburga von Masovien ,mother of Habsburg emperorFrederick III, are well known in German history (or at least used to be). H.J.
Right -- the problem here is that generally I don't write something down until I've researched it. As I explained before, in this case, I had read three articles on the Aurochs, all of which specifically said Masovia, which we all agree is in Poland. I didn't notice that someone had changed the Masovia that I wrote to Masuren -- only that you were claiming that the event took place in Prussia. I don't generally check out links that people post, nor do I post them, because I generally looks at several sites and frequently books I own before I start writing. I don't trust the web in most cases, and will only take something from a web site if I can verify it on at least two separate sites.
I have spent so much time reading stuff you've written that ignores any good historical methodology and in which you refuse to accept well thought out arguments against opinions that you have not been able to support, most of which have to do with your inability to accept that Prussia was not always the same entity you believe it was. Unfortunately, this time I didn't realize that you were under a real misapprehension and not just trying to show again that something that didn't belong to Prussia really did. If you go back, you will see that I was talking about Masovia from the beginning, and didn't confuse it till you started speaking about Masuren.
I'm sorry that you don't like my "so-called" sniping -- so-called because I generally say flat out what I mean. Any sniping that does exist is an attempt to avoid being as blunt as I would be if I knew you personally. Early on, I tried to be tactful and help suggest ways you could write better history. That is something I do know a lot about. So do others who have tried to explain legitimate reasons for editing your stuff. You just ignore anything you don't agree with. I will be happy to stop trying to argue with you, because it's fairly soul-destroying for me. I will, however, continue to edit your articles, which are generally badly written, badly researched, and more often promote your personal agenda rather than an informative NPOV. I will also reserve my right to not explain my changes more than once. I hope that satisfies you, because IMO, it's more than you deserve at this point. JHK
To JHK . Ok, I accept your apology ( 1/2 apology ?), since you are still name-calling. You are welcome to edit my stuff and I apologize , that I do not write like you do your perfect American English language. I have never set foot in an American classroom, except just recently I took two beginners computer classes and I did get an A in both of them. I do not have enough time left in my life to reach your level of perfect American English language skills and I am therefore concentrating on substance rather than style.
(On one of your notes you did write "Masovia, which in German is Masuren" though). How many books on Prussian history do you have ? H.J.
Yes, I did write that, and because I'd been talking about Masovia, I assumed from what you were saying, that we were talking about the same thing and unthinkingly just figured that your Masuren was my Masovia. By the way, I don't ever recall calling you names -- just harshly criticizing your writing and arguments. No one expects you to have perfect American language skills, by the way. However, if you can write well in German, you can write well in English. If written in German the way they are in English, that is, a bunch of barely connected facts and spurious theories, they would also be written badly.
And no books on Prussian history -- why buy when I can use a library. Many books on European History from BC through the 19th c, though. Almost all of the Early Modern books are on Germany. JHK
I think you don't "suck" at wiki at all. :-) So you aren't perfect. A number of the Wikipedians who seem to think they are perfect come across as arrogant dorks. Keep on truckin' :-)
Hmmm, I wonder if the above was directed at me? :) Couldn't be, because I don't think you suck at wiki either. But I agree with you that your history is pretty darn good. --Stephen Gilbert
- <having an aw shucks moment...!> Thanks, guys! JHK
On Place-names and their problems, take a look at this: http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla65/papers/045-94e.htm Very interesting.
--MichaelTinkler
- That's a really good article, although I'm not sure the message would penetrate anywhere where these things are not already self-evident...! JHK
Was there a server problem this morning?? I don't see any changes between last night at around 9:30 and this morning at 5:30...
I'll let Jimbo explain rather than guessing myself... I believe I know the source of the problem and that it was, let's just say, a positive change and not indicative of a problem at all! So, please don't worry. --LMS
Hi, J! And Happy Holidays to you too. I'm around, I'm around, but snowed in (figuratively and sometimes literally), turkey-stuffed, present-tense, eggnog-laden, and busy like the Dickens. To answer your question more precisely: if I remember my Dante correctly, the holidays are the fourth circle next to the guys playing dodgems with the boulders; me and Virgil are the ones drinking fire brandy and singing "Abandon All Hope Ye Merry Gentlemen" in the corner. I'll be back on this hobby horse in the next few days I'm sure. -- Paul Drye
Hi, J! I'm a new Wikipedian and still have to learn. Thanks for your tips re talk pages, I'll follow them in future. -- Piotr
- Hi back Piotr -- it's great to have you here!
Question of the day:
Why the HELL does Phil Thompson make such weird substitutions? And what position DOES Emil Hesky play?
Random Observations of the day:
Jerzy Dudek is probably the best keeper in England at the moment. Sami Hyypia is great -- but damn -- what a mistake! I wish I had hair like Emmanuel Petit.
- JHK -- I have no idea what on earth you are talking about :) -- SJK
- I'm talking about football...Liverpool lost to Southampton 2-0 away. The English Premier league is an addiction for me -- like the wikipedia, but more expensive. If cricket were available, I'm sure we'd watch that, too -- but the last interesting series was something like $20 a game...
Sarcasm aside, HJ, He's right. Have you bothered to even look at the articles I suggested? Let me ask you something -- When you are ill, do you go to a doctor? Most people do. When you go to the doctor, you go because you know he has had a lot more training than you on things that go wrong with the human body. He has studied for years. You know that, even if a doctor is a specialist in one area, he has probably (because of all that study), a lot more knowledge about the human body and its workings than somebody who hasn't studied medicine.
I notice that you (and a lot of other people -- I'm not saying you are the only person) don't go onto the articles on philosophy or math, or the sciences and argue your opinion, and I ask myself, "why not?" The self-evident answer is that most people don't feel comfortable arguing with "experts" in those areas -- and we have people who are experts! So what is it that changes this rule when we talk about history? Just as a trained doctor may not know all the latest stuff on every specialization, but he still has the training to make generally sound medical judgements. Some of us have the training in history and how to approach it equivalent to a doctor's training in medicine. You wouldn't argue with a doctor -- so why do you feel that you have any grounds to argue when a trained historian says that your approach is invalid as far as writing history (which is what you are attempting to do) is concerned? Think about it, please. Your continued arguments against and willful ignorance of historic method is not resulting in good articles -- just generating a lot of debate. JHK
Ok -- I have a couple of comments. First, I have already discussed that the methodology regularly used by Fr. Jonat leaves much to be desired. Family History (or annotated genealogy) must still be seen within a wider framework of normal history to be at all valid.
Second, the place names in this table are somewhat suspect. I'm not saying that they are incorrect (although some are abbreviations of Latin names that have been used as if they are the full names -- probably because of an unfamiliarity with Latin). Rather, these names seem to be the Latin names as used in a particular time period -- my guess is from the Early Modern period, specifically 16th or 17th c. As such, many of the names are Latinized versions of local names. They are not incorrect, but indicate that there was a non-Latin name in use, which was then given a Latin genitive ending to make it fit in with older place names derived from those given in Roman and Medieval times. The fact that there is a Latin name for something does not mean it existed as such in the pre-Modern period -- In fat, it's looking at history in the wrong direction -- taking a current thing, and making it causative to the past, instead of looking at the past and how changes then affect the present.
Third, since this is an English language encyclopedia, it is appropriate that attention first be paid to Latin-English, then to the translations to other languages. The only reason to focus on German equivalents is to propogate certain irredentist? views which are inappropriate to this site. JHK
Your ever-present overpowering optimism really shines bright again, as always JHK !!! The spellings are taken from actual recordings and I think all the different spellings one comes across should be listed , as I had started it(some were taken off), but then perhaps it would add too many , because spelling in German language was not standardized until the 20th century. Anyway we could add another column with current names and present countries, where applicable.
But your introduction text is very good . It is free of your behind the scene (/Talk section) "charm". H.J.
- I strongly believe that Wikipedia does not need a listing of every variant spelling of city names that anyone comes across. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is a gazetteer or geographical dictionary. I think you should keep your own list of every variant, HJ, and maybe even post them on your own web page, but there is no need to burden Wikipedia with them! --MichaelTinkler.
I'm happy to consider myself called out, but what now? Continue the general alertness, sure, but is there something more specific you'd like me to focus on? --Vicki Rosenzweig
Re Margrave/Elector thing: Hi, JHK, the dignity of elector went with the title to certain lands, so the margrave of Brandenburg was an ex officio one of the seven named in the Golden Bull of 1356. Before 1356 the electoral function had been assigned to different local rulers in turn, so it's doubly incorrect to speak of an "elector of" somewhere. After 1356 the holder's title remains "duke of" or "margrave of" (and never "elector of" wherever, so the rulers of Brandenburg (one of the electorates nemd in 1356) were "margrave of Brandenburg" until 1614 when they became also duke of Cleve (and four years later of Prussia, the ducal and later royal title which took precedence), just as the holders of electoral Saxony were "duke of Saxony" (originally of Saxe-Wittenberg) until they became king (1806).
I take it then that your preference is for "forename(s) (ordinal), M/margrave of Brandenburg" - should the "m" be upper-or-lower case? As soon as we're decided, I'll help you plough through correcting them all.
--- JHK: i would appreciate explanation why references to very popular myths about history do not suit to popular encylopediae? Kazimierz probably had relationship with some Jewish girl, mythical is her name and her influence...
About Casimir having illegal sons: it is almost sure that he had ilelgal sons. I bring it in entry because irony of that fact struck me: he died without the heir, having only legal daughters, and that's why later Poland united with Lithuania. But he _had_ few sons, just from wrong relationships... [[szopen]]
- Szopen -- I removed it because it didn't make sense in English. For example, instead of mythical, I think you mean legendary -- but then you need to say something like, "according to popular legend (or better, a legend originating in XXXX), Casimir was involved with a Jewish woman, who..." The legend may have been an explanation of why....
Legends are better left out unless you can explain how it fits into the history.
Also, you probably mean illegitimate, not illegal -- and then it needs to be clear that, "although Casimir had several illegitimate sons, his only legitimate heirs were daughters..." -- But then, you may want to discuss why Casimir's illegitimate sons were unable to gain the support to inherit (this was a time when illegitimate sons could occasionally inherit -- with the right support! -- but maybe not in Poland.
So, it's not that the info didn't belong -- just that it doesn't belong as written. User:JHK
Thanks for explanations. And for copyediting entries and pointing my errors, too! [[szopen]]
"Hi szopen -- I can understand the non-neutrality problem for Poles -- unfortunately, a lot of those places are known to English-speakers mostly by German names, because English-language scholars (except people who specialize in Slavic things) more often researched in German. If the Polish name is listed in the first line as we have been doing, then it will come up in a search and there should be no problem. I fully sympathize with your feelings, and all I can say is that, since this is an English-language wikipedia, we should probably let English speakers who actually have a clue make final calls on the "correct" English name! Happy New Year! JHK "
To JHK One of the goals of the three partitioning powers (Russia, Prussia, Austria) was to erase Polish language, Polish culture and Polish historical names of cities, regions etc, from the history of Eupope and from the "General Knowledge". They have greatly succeeded in many areas, using the fact that Poland was not on the map for a century and a half. Those times are long gone. Poland was able to reclaim it's territory and it's time for the "English-language scholars" to update their terminology. The point about "the fortress of Kolberg" is so dumb, it hurts. Think of the Battle of Stalingrad. Everybody knows what "Battle of Stalingrad" was. And that name should be used for the article about the battle. But the name of the city is Volgograd, and somebody, who demands, that "English language name" for the city should be Stalingrad, is not a scholar, but an ignorant and a moron. Same with Kolberg. "Fortress Kolberg", "Fortress Breslau" would be correct names for the articles, but not for articles about those Polish cities. It's year 2002. Festung Kolberg fell more than half a century ago! If "scholars" have problems with that, they should write it on a piece of paper, and read aloud every day, before they go to sleep, until they get it right! Space Cadet
- Sorry, Space Cadet, but I can't agree. The simple reason is this: Encyclopedias are for people who aren't scholars. They are collections of general, non-specialist information. I understand your point entirely. In fact, scholars these days tend to use different terminology than a couple of generations ago. For example, today, we talk about Charlemagne rather than Charles the Great (the normal English usage 100 years ago); we say Basle instead of Baal; Frankfurt is no longer Frankfort; Danzig is Danzig for pre-Modern, but Gdansk for modern history. Congo became Zaire, but by the time it trickled down through contemporary scholarship to students, it was again Congo. My point is, even when scholars chage terminology to something arguably 'more correct', it often takes 10-20 years to filter down. Since this is an encyclopedia, it is best to use the most commonly used English name, and then put the more precise name in the body of the article. This way, people actually can find what they're looking for without feeling stupid because they didn't use the "right" name. When they read the article, the explanations within should point them in the right terminological direction.
- As to your specific problems with Kolberg and Stalingrad, please note that my objections have also been directed at German names that we no longer use in English. This is not in any way anti-Polandism -- just an attempt to let native speakers have the final say as to what the English-language norm is.User:JHK
No accusations of "antipolonism" intended! But, anyway, after reading your response 10 times, I still don't see, what you can't agree with. All my points were supported by you and none were really contradicted. Thanks! Space Cadet
- I agree with almost all of your sentiments on what should be (the ideal), but disagree that it makes sense to act on those sentiments in this time and place (the real), because it would be counterproductive to the purpose of an encyclopedia. User:JHK
Hello, could you maybe add a summary of the naming conventions for historical articles to Wikipedia:Naming conventions? Right now, the material seems to be pretty well hidden, and I noticed that you spend a lot of your time correcting other people's mistakes in that area. AxelBoldt
- Hi Axel -- wie geht's? I'll move the stuff from my user page to the naming conventions talk page immediately, and then do some editing on Friday, when I'm done with classes for the week...JHK
- Danke, es geht gut. Eine Woche noch, dann Freiheit! Anyway, I just noticed that your user pages are a mess: you have different JHK and user:JHK, and both of those pages have separate Talk pages. I suggest you merge the user pages and put the result on user:JHK, put a redirect on JHK, and dump all the talk into user talk:JHK. Cheers, AxelBoldt
Freiheit?? wieso? es gibt hier noch sieben woche, bis ich frei habe... :-(
I've been meaning to merge them -- i'll take care of it this weekend! JHK
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:JHK/Archive 1" page.
