Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Ferdinand-Tönnies-Gesellschaft

My guess is this is an organisation of somekind. This needs a copyedit, and should at least cleary states what kind of an entity is it talking about (and maybe it has an English name?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Germany/Germany news

The News section of the Portal page could use some help to keep it updated. Currently we only use news from wikinews:Portal:Germany, Germany-related Current events and Deutsche Welle news, but we should probably expand our selection of sources to include at least the BBC. Comments are appreciated either here or at Portal talk:Germany. Kusma (討論) 20:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Style guide for translations from German

(See User:Staffelde's last comment above re. " a repository of agreed terms") Is there a conventions page for how to name German regions, along the lines of this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)? Would that be the right kind of place? Not sure if I understood what that page is for ... If not, how about a Style guide for translations from German? Saint|swithin

It would definitely be more useful to have all the German stuff together in one place rather than scattered around by subject - easier to check, easier to update. Staffelde 15:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the list in Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Translation guide and will link it from the main noticeboard page. Of course it could be reworked into a general naming convention style thing, but this should do for a start. Kusma (討論) 03:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shall we archive the whole discussion on the talkpage of the Translation guide? Agathoclea 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer a talk page archive here. I was planning to archive this stuff early next week or so, and to put a link to the discussion on the translation guide's talk page. That talk page should be used also to discuss additions to the official list, and not be filled with so much old discussion right from the start (IMHO). Kusma (討論) 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine. Really "Kerngebiet" (see below) would be a question of that new talkpage as well? Agathoclea 20:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think here is fine for now. We can still handle the volume of posts here, and we'd need more people watching yet another page. Kusma (討論) 22:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about the county/district problem that was "above" was moved to Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 2. Kusma (討論) 09:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kerngebiet

I am stuck in translating that term. see de:Naila. Agathoclea 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

They seem to use "Stadtgebiet" and "Kerngebiet" as synonyms. Maybe use "Suburbs" or "Outlying villages that belong to Naila" for "Ortsteile außerhalb des Kerngebietes"? I think a description of what is meant is more important than a precise translation of the term. Kusma (討論) 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the city, I've translated it as cityname (proper) (if it's a city that has grown mostly by annexation and district reforms) or center of town/historic center (Altstadt) if that's what is meant (i.e., the center of town of Bruchsal (proper) would be the old center of town, before the district reforms). Ortsteile/Stadtteile (mostly merged due to redistricting) I translate with "boroughs". In your case, looks like "borough" would be it, as far as I'm concerned. Different, less defined parts of town I've translated with neighborhoods and settlements (Hof), usually wouldn't have clearly defined areal limits. --Mmounties (Talk) 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd check our new style guide. Looks like the EU translates Bezirke inside cities (which is what Ortsteile are) as boroughs. It is my understanding that suburbs are, while geographically close, politically independent towns and cities. Villages would also need to be politically independent while Ortsteile and Stadtteile are politically part of the city even if they are geographically separate from the "Kernstadt". --Mmounties (Talk) 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - As far as villages are concerned I don't think they are independant. If they were independant they would be municipalities (ugly word), but you can have several villages in a municipality (and belonging to a city). Anyway looking at de:Kerngebiet it looks like de:Naila did not even use the legal term but used it in a more collegial sense. Agathoclea 10:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? I always thought villages are a slightly different kind of entity, legally, or a different status/level of a municipality (linked to size as they like to do in Germany). But that may be due only to how the word was used where I grew up. Oh, well... --Mmounties (Talk) 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but to my knowledge village means "Dorf" whereas town means "Ort" which is more or less a description by size. Therefore there are several villages in the area of a municipality. The one I am mainly working on atm Geroldgrün I still can't decide what I would call the main village/town - it used to be tiny, but it is growing. Agathoclea 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not 100 % sure of all the legal statuses, especially in Bavaria, but when I grew up in Germany there were plenty of "Dörfer" around and not one of them that wasn't an independent legal entity. Then came the district reform and a lot of them were either combined into larger towns and cities where each former independent village was now a borough or merged into already existing towns and citys where again the former independent village also became a borough. "Ort" I would translate as municipality (i.e., generic) and could be any size. Even Stuttgart is an Ort, same as one of the smaller towns. Ort can also mean just the geographic (not legal) structure of a community like in "vor Ort". That's how the words where used where I grew up in Baden-Württemberg. Regarding your challenge at hand, I'd refer to the main part as Geroldsgrün (proper) and to the other "Ortsteile" (just another way to say Stadtteil) as boroughs. Hope this helps. --Mmounties (Talk) 00:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Found de:Ortschaft today which seems to perfectly describe the villages in question. Just finding an English equiv of that seems daunting again. Agathoclea 23:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

dict.leo.org translates 'Kerngebiet' into 'business zone'. For me (german) that looks like what the article de:Kerngebiet describes: Municipal building land for central facilities of commercial firms, administrative institutions and cultural organizations, according to the 'Baunutzungsverordnung' (Land Utilisation Ordinance?). In most cities 'Kerngebiet' is the city center. Grmpf 22:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep. de:Naila had it wrong in its application of the term, which makes translating a nightmare. Anyway it got fixed today. Agathoclea 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Geography of Germany

This article is a mess - it is basically just a collection of list-style information. It needs attention and should be considerably expanded, and a short form of it should perhaps appear on the Portal:Germany page. Kusma (討論) 03:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You want to tackle it? Or should I? --Mmounties (Talk) 04:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't stop you :-) I had originally planned to write a short introduction to German geography and other topics on the Portal page, and link Geography of Germany as main article. (Our recent changes to the Germany portal have made it more pretty and more fun for us, but it still should be more useful as a starting point for a browsing of Wikipedia's Germany-related content). But the main article is not in a shape to be linked from anywhere, but reads like copied directly from the CIA World Factbook. The German article de:Geographie Deutschlands is also not very good, inferior to de:Deutschland#Geografie if you ask me. Maybe we should just translate that and merge with the information from the current article. Or are there better ways to structure this information? Kusma (討論) 04:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The German article looks a lot better as a starting point to me. For starters it seems to have a lot more cohesive content. Heck, it's using real language rather than lists!  :) But I'd make sure that we'd also incorporate most of the meat that's in the English article right now (no sense in letting that get lost). Agree? --Mmounties (Talk) 05:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think that the structure as well as the content of de:Deutschland#Geografie is quite decent, and if you start with that, the rest of the information can probably be integrated easily. If you don't want to do this alone, I could try and help by finding all the relevant lists and subarticles that need to be linked from here (and make sure all of them exist) or of course anything else you need help with. Kusma (討論) 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it and hand it over to you for editing, how's that? I find I usually do a good job with the initial translation but then I need a fairly long time away from it before I can do a decent job copy-editing it. If you can do that, it would be great. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Just drop me a line when you're done. Kusma (討論) 05:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Beware that the page is interwikied to de:Geographie Deutschlands but not referenced from the main article which I think is an error in the German Wiki. Agathoclea 07:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Kusma, I don't think I'll be able to do it, after all. I'm going to have very limited time over the next two months because of work (they dumped another project on me) and a move to California. If the article still sits there undone at the end of April, I'll gladly do it. :) --Mmounties (Talk) 02:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for telling me. I'll try do it myself. All the best for your move! Kusma (討論) 09:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kondominat

Any idea what this might be? See de:Lahr/Schwarzwald, history section. --Mmounties (Talk) 04:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Kondominium (auch Kondominat) links to Condominium (international law), but probably "administered it jointly" works just as well. Kusma (討論) 04:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're good! I searched for it in the dewiki but didn't find a match. And here you just shake it out of your left pinky..... Thanks. --Mmounties (Talk) 05:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Schloss vs. Chateau vs. Palace vs. Manor

Please comment on the talk page for Chateau Schönhausen regarding which word best to use for small country Schlösser". Thanks. --Mmounties (Talk) 12:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to comment here that if Palace isn't chosen as a substitute for chateau, I believe using Schloss would be sufficient and appropriate. Charles 16:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Kultur

Can anybody knowledgeable about German culture look at Kultur? I find this article does not make any sense. LARS 13:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this just be redirected to German culture or Culture of Germany? Another (more inclusionist) choice would be to move this article to Frederic Austin Ogg's view on German Kultur (which seems to be the topic of the article) and then change the redirect to point to one of my suggestions. Kusma (討論) 13:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Help stop the war

Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Miko.C5.82aj_Kopernik_under_attack. Reasonable editors are needed before it becomes a troll revert war (again...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Internationales Forum Hansestädte

There is the proposal from Rostock for an interwiki-Project in English language on all issues and articles concerning the Hanseatic League, since it is an issue relevant to all countries and languages in Northern Europe. The link is: User:Hanseatic_League. --Kresspahl 16:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Germany portal: Selected article and picture for April

Please help decide on next month's article and picture at Portal talk:Germany. And write some featured articles that we can put there :-) Kusma (討論) 11:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

New article announcement page at Germany portal

I have changed the format of that page a bit: now there are two lists, one that is shown on the portal, and another one at Portal:Germany/New article announcements that can contain annotations, listings of stubs, praise etc. So please list anything you create that is related to Germany there! Kusma (討論) 04:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Kulturkampf

If someone with knowledge of or interest in Bismarck's Kulturkampf wants to end the long-lasting dispute, please feel free. I'm sick of it but the article gets only worse and worse. Apparently it was a fight mainly against Catholicism and Poles. So much for historical revisionism. Sciurinæ 18:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert on whether post-1880 Germanisation efforts in Polish-dominated parts of the German Empire are seen in the context of Kulturkampf, but I believe these issues are (while sufficiently related to be linked) separate enough to be in separate articles. That would shorten the "Poznan" section. Additionally, the article should be expanded with more information on the Old Catholic Church, the Brotkorbgesetz, the Jesuits etc. I think expanding the parts about Bismarck's dealings with Catholics could help against the current emphasis on the Polish issue, which is more than amply referred to in your version of the lead section. The Germanisation of Poles is just one aspect in this rather multi-faceted power struggle. Kusma (討論) 21:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the Danish citizens had a similar fate as the Polish, I would suggest bringing them together in one article. Information can be taken from the article Germanisation. I had toyed with the idea before but was dettered when I looked at the low quality related articles often end up. Sciurinæ 22:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mention could also be made of Döllinger. Olessi 22:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago I revised the Polish part, sourced it the best I could using as many English-language sources as possible. And I did that especially because it was related to Kulturkampf specifically and not Germanisation in general. While drawing more attention to the article and expansion of the non-Polish part (which currently seems the best described there) seems plausible, I doubt moving any part to a separate article just because Sciurinæ finds any vision of the world different from his own revisionist would be a good idea. But of course I'm only a Pole, so my comment could be disregarded. //Halibutt 11:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome and will not be disregarded (although an anon tried to erase them). As the article states that "Kulturkampf" refers to the 1871-1878 period, I don't see why moving the part of the "Duchy of Poznan" section starting with "In 1886" to "Germanisation" could be seen as revisionist, unless you assume everything Sciurinæ says to be motivated by revisionism. The first half of the "Duchy of Poznan" section (which seems to be mostly your work) looks good and seems to belong in this context. But I fail to see how anything that happened after Bismarck's death or the failure of the Germanisation policies are related to "Kulturkampf". Kusma (討論) 14:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

According to an anon, this discussion has been taken to Talk:Kulturkampf. (He removed Halibut's comment three times and gave this explanation when I asked him, I am replacing the comment and leaving this note.) --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no mention of this on Talk:Kulturkampf (Note: an edit conflict or whatever caused you to erase my comment). Kusma (討論) 14:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, and that's not what 213.70.74.164 (talk · contribs) said on his talk page either. He said Halibutt should discuss it at Talk:Kulturkampf rather than here at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. Even though Sam wrote in English, the anon responded in German, perhaps because he thought Sam had also written Sciurinæ's comments above (which were in German). Angr (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmph. Should have read it more carefully. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Kusma (討論) 14:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Kusma! Ich finde Halibuts Beitrag ist an dieser Stelle eben gerade nicht welcome und sollte stattdessen an entsprechender Stelle im Kulturkampf-Diskussionsforum wiedergegeben werden. Denn das Thema, Revision des englischsprachigen Beitrags zum Kulturkampf, wurde insbesondere deshalb zusätzlich auf der Seite der DEUTSCHSPRACHIGEN Wikipedianer untergebracht, da es im entsprechenden Forum zum Kulturkampf bislang ergebnislos mit den Editoren "diskutiert" wurde. Es geht folglich also nicht darum, genau diese "Diskussion" hier (zB mit Halibut) fortzuführen, sondern - ganz im Gegenteil - vielmehr darum, möglicherweise in Zusammenarbeit mit interessierten Leuten aus Deutschland (denn es ist nun mal in aller erster Linie ein deutsches Thema) endlich mal einen qualifizierten und ausgewogenen Beitrag zu schaffen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.74.164 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 March 2006

Du bist noch neu zu Wikipedia und wir werden von gutem Willen ausgehen, trotzdem ist es einfach nicht angebracht, anderer Leute Kommentare von Diskussionsseiten zu entfernen. Da Sciurinæ das Thema hier angesprochen hat, hat auch Halibutt das Recht, es hier zu besprechen. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Angr, Sie können bei mir selbstverständlich davon ausgehen, dass ich im guten Willen handele! Ich befürchte aber, Sie haben nicht verstanden, warum ich der Ansicht bin, die Diskussion zum Kulturkampf sollte in dieser Form hier eben nicht fortgeführt werden. Ich bitte Sie daher, meine entsprechende Anmerkung ("Hallo Kusma") noch einmal zu lesen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.74.164 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wenn du einen Beitrag hier für unpassend hältst, solltest du ihn trotzdem nicht kommentarlos entfernen. Das machen wir noch nicht mal bei reinem Vandalismus, auch da ist zumindest ein edit summary angebracht. Halibutt kann (trotz seines sarkastischen Kommentars) verlangen, daß ihm ein Mindestmaß an Respekt entgegengebracht wird. Ich kann auch verstehen, daß er seine Beiträge verteidigt, insbesondere, da anscheinend von der deutschen Seite mehr gegen seine Beiträge gekämpft wurde, als daß die Artikel erweitert wurden, obwohl das (siehe oben) eine wahrscheinlich nicht allzu schwierige Methode gewesen wäre, um den Schwerpunkt des Artikels zu korrigieren. Kusma (討論) 15:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ich gebe zu, ich hätte Halibuts Kommentar nicht entfernen, sondern vielmehr dazu aufrufen sollen, diesen einfach nicht zu kommentieren, da es ja gerade nicht darum gehen soll, die Kulturkampf-Diskussion an anderer Stelle, nämlich hier, fortzuführen. Im Übrigen möge Halibuts Kommentar Zeugnis vom bisherigen Niveau der Diskussion geben; ich jedenfalls habe den Eindruck, es geht den Beteiligten gar nicht darum einen möglichst informativen und wissenschaftlichen Artikel zu verfassen, sondern vielmehr um persönliche Eitelkeiten und sich gegenseitig zu beleidigen.

Halibutt, please be critical of Molobo's "judgment" of me and make up your own mind. I didn't buy you're nationalistic, either, when you were accused of that in your RfA. No one here's belittling your comments because of your nationality. (I have no intention of comparing him to you, but) the same goes for Molobo. Witkacy "black book"'s "they all have stereotypes against Poles" outlook is just a stereotype as well. I'm unconvinced that the Polish question is part of the Kulturkampf when it is defined as fight against Catholicism. I don't deny that there was a struggle against the national minorities in the German Empire and that it coincided, overlapped and partly determined one another with the Kulturkampf. As another example there are domestic policies and foreign policies and they're interdependent in the same way: both are often taken into consideration, both are parallel yet partly integral to one another. At the same time, for instance, you don't categorise domestic policies as foreign policies, because, if connected, they're still something different. Not that I view the Polish question as foreign policies but to me it needs to be distinguished from the Kulturkampf and the proportion devoted to Poles in sources devoted to the Kulturkampf agrees: it should only account for a small part. Which does not mean that it does not deserve its own article. Molobo cannot agree with it of course. He still cites the Catholic Encyclopedia and Bartleby as "proof", while these two articles do not directly relate to the Kulturkampf but to Polish-related topics that mention the Kulturkampf in passing. This proves that the Kulturkamp is noteworthy in the Polish struggle, but not necessarily the other way round. Interestingly both the Catholic Encyclopedia and Bartleby also have their own articles on the Kulturkampf, neither of which devotes any large proportion to Poles. The Catholic Encyclopedia's article is even the largest I could find on the Internet on the subject of the Kulturkampf and it judged the Kulturkampf as something other than the Polish language struggle. I do not deny that some also see the Kulturkampf as partly motivated by the struggle against Poles, and the source [1] was not added by Molobo but by me into the external links section. While to me an unfair proportion means an unfair point of view, it may mean that the other side has to push some more of their material in it so it will be balanced and expanded at the same time. In my eyes it only encourages POV pushing (like on Otto Beisheim cherry picking the most negative statement from German wiki and putting it into the English knowingly there won't be a content addition in the near future anyway) while in yours it encourages an expanse of Wikipedia's content. One-sidedness means propaganda to me and a deletion for reasons of balance a quick and time-saving counteraction. I'm still sceptical to the "NPOV" that should result when allegedly everybody just tried to bring in and emphasise arguments in favour of their POV. Where was I? :-) ... To summarise the Polish struggle fairly in the article so it becomes in line with the general and undisputed view of the Kulturkampf and move the contents (which by the way lacks a why was there a struggle between the government and Poles?) to a separate article doesn't mean a cover-up. I hope someone here is interested in translating and/or writing about de:Sozialistengesetz and de:Sozialgesetzgebung because there are no articles about these surely significant points in domestic policies of the German Empire's first era in en-wiki yet. (Sorry for the lenght and lack of structure in my comment) Sciurinæ 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You should file translation/expansion requests at WP:GTIE and here at WP:GSWN so more people know that these articles are missing. Kusma (討論) 15:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To the as yet anonymous new user above: Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically add your username (or IP address, if you do not have one) and a timestamp. Secondly, although the use of languages other than English is formally accepted on user talk pages and "tribal" hangouts like this one, it is rude to discuss other people's opionions in languages they don't understand - as far as I know, Halibutt does not read German.

To Halibutt: Like it or not, you will have to accept that the Kulturkampf was, above all, aimed at German society at large. Although the overwhelming majority of Poles were Catholics, the overwhelming majority of Catholics in Germany were Germans. Thus, the negative impact that the Kulturkampf had on the Polish minority was a spill-over effect - not a wholly unintended one, to be sure, but still. That Polish historians should focus on the Kulturkampf as experienced by the Polish population is understandable and, of course, perfectly legitimate. However, one should be careful not to monopolize the victimhood for the Poles. To imply that millions of non-Polish Catholics were just the "collateral damage" of a campaign directed primarily against Poles is Polono-centric. Correcting such implications is not "revisionism", as you call it, but absolutely justified. --Thorsten1 00:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Thorsten1, firstly, I wrote in German BECAUSE I hoped that Halibut does NOT understand it, sic! By the way, I have not discussed Halibut`s particular contribution to this page at all but the general difficulties in connection with the topic Kulturkampf. Secondly, well, as you have already mentioned it ("tribal hangout"), this is the page of the German-speaking Wikipedians and in so far it appears somehow ironic to me that you ask me to write in English because someone might not understand German(, notwithstanding the fact that you are - with regard to all other Wikisides - absolutely right in general). Finally, I would like to stress that I do not have anything against Halibut and his Co-editors personaly but very much against the one-sided and stereotype manner by which historical events are displayed by them, leading e.g. at hand to the weird effect that one might think Kulturkampf was predominantly Bismark`s fight against the Polish minority in Prussia. However by contemplating Halibut`s obstinate, cynical and partly fatcatlike (großkotzigen) responses within the Kulturkampf discussion side I gravely doubt that he is really willing to cooperate for the sake of an informative and objective article but rather keeps on creating his own little Wiki-universe with Poland as its centre. (213.70.74.164 08:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC))

First off, thanks for clarifying this. On another formal note, you should place colons in front of each paragraph to create indentation steps. This will make the discussion easier to follow. You may also want to consider creating a user account.

Regarding the language used here, as I said, it is generally accepted to use German here. However, it is not always a good idea to do so, especially not when it collides with common courtesy. (By the way, I think I made the same point on the Polish equivalent to this page a while ago.) As you can see above, I actually share your concern about Halibutt's approach to Kulturkampf. But I do not believe that trying to shut him out from the discussion is a particularly effective way to resolve this disagreement. Neither is calling him "cynical" or "arrogant". Certain people really enjoy polarizing and try to turn factual disputes into national trench warfare (although I am positive that Halibutt is not really one of them). we should be careful not to fall into their trap, which I'm afraid is exactly what you are about to do. If you really need to "let off steam" in your own language, you can always communicate with other editors via e-mail without poisoning the atmosphere on talk pages. --Thorsten1 22:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Thorsten here. Halibutt is a very respected member of the community, and someone who is always open to intelligent discussion. This Talk page clearly mentions in its introduction that conversations in German may be requested to be translated in English; discussion in German is encouraged for ease of language, not for excluding non-German speakers. Olessi 05:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Du hast recht, am Ende lande ich sonst noch im Black Book... (213.70.74.164 16:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

It took me some time to get here and a lot has been said since my last comment, so I'll reply in points.

1. Kusma, it's the other way around :) . I had an impression that the "Polish" point of view on the matter (even if represented by entirely English sources) is considered revisionist by Sciurinae et al. I'm sorry if I was wrong.
2. Sciurinae, there are two main problems I have with your reasoning. The first is that I still fail to see what is the problem with the "Polish" section currently. It is really decently-sourced, well-written (hopefully) and explains the phenomenon quite well. It seems that it's the "German" part that should rather be expanded to the Polish part's standards, and not the Polish part brought down. If you find the article one-sided just because I expanded only one part and did not expand the other, then - instead of deleting large chunks of the article in order to make all parts of it equally bad, why won't you expand the other part as well? Such a competition might do this article good, I believe. And of course I agree that the German part of that article is the most important there as the policy was created by Germans for Germans and in Germany. This seems like a good reason to expand the German part and a bad reason to cut the Polish one.
3. Apparently we're in disagreement over the fact whether what is called by both Polish and foreign historians as Kulturkampf is part of the same phenomenon. If I understand you correctly, in Germany usually the "German" part is underlined, while people barely ever know of the "Polish" part. In Poland, obviously, it's the other way around (though in fact even in Poland the anti-Polish stance is taught of as a part of a wider all-German phenomenon rather than as a stand-alone policy). However, I do not understand why should we promote such ignorance by shortening the article. You mentioned Bartleby and CE (that indeed mention the Polish part only briefly), but somehow omitted the sources that do mention the Polish side of the story extensively. I agree that it's perfectly normal that in German historiography the German side of the Kulturkampf is better known. However, we're not a German wikipedia, are we. In Poland the anti-Polish part of Kulturkampf is equally a common knowledge and we shouldn't decide which POV is better here. Currently we have both described - and I believe that's fine. Especially that the "Polish" part is perfectly verifiable - contrary to the "German" one...
4. Thorsten1: I know that. In Germany the German part is better known while in Poland it's the Polish one. But we don't have to choose between them. And note that it was me to correct the thing you mention (compare the versions). Finally, see my note pon revisionism above.
5. As to the comments by an anonymous user - indeed, I don't speak German. If his/hers aim was to discuss my comment without me being able to understand what is being said - he/she succeeded. //Halibutt 10:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have not dıscussed your comment but pointed out that you should have rather contributed your comment to the kulturkampf side (as the reason to adress the kulturkampf-issue on this sıde was actually not to continue such discussion here).

Re2: "The first is that I still fail to see what is the problem with the "Polish" section currently." Deviating from the subject and undue weight. The Kulturkampf is represented as fight against Catholics and Poles - and not only indirectly because the headline is "Kulturkampf in Posen/Poznan", which means it is supposed to be part of it. It is connected to it but not part of the Kulturkampf. If you want to write on the subject of Germanisation, there's an article in great need of attention of unbiased contributors: Germanisation. Why not a fair and balanced representation by putting the Polish-related stuff into another, more fitting article, leaving behind only a fair summary which is in balance to the rest of the article?

After half a year of waiting to see an expansion of the other part happen - which of course was pretty in vain - and not having time to expand every article where Molobo enlarges information about aspects of usually smaller relevance in the context to emphasise these, the idea of de-monopolisation by waiting until the other contents can catch up with the enlarged part in regard of size, your "competition", is only one that opens the door to a kind of POV pushing. It distorts the impression that the Kulturkampf was a fight against Catholicism, making it look like it is known as fight against Catholicism and to a comparable extent as fight against Poles. While it may encourage the growth of Wikipedia, quality is more important to me than quantity and quality is also a balanced view for me, the right proportion.

And just because a book or anything else centred on the German Empire vs. Polish struggle (rather than the Kulturkampf) mentions the Kulturkampf en passant, doesn't make the Kulturkampf the Polish struggle for independece.

Apparently we have different concepts of mass and balance. But I fail to see that either is ignored when the rather separate topic gets its separate article, as no mass is lost and the balance of the Kulturkampf article kept.

Re3: Unless you enter "Kulturkampf anti-polish" reducing the horizon to a focus on Poles, you may see a different truth in the English-speaking world. Open your eyes also to the Danes and Alsatians. There were clumsy attempts to Germanise all the national minorities in the German Empire and the particularist Zentrum was attractive to them. (the party isn't even mentioned in the Kulturkampf article and nor are the National Liberals.)

Re4: see Re:3. And if you're still unconvinced, see what User:John Kenney wrote onto the talk page on 3 and 4 November 2005 Sciurinæ 16:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Open your eyes also to the Danes and Alsatians.

Is the antagonism towards Danes and Alsatians as strong in culture and policies of German state as that against Polish people ?--Molobo 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't share your view of traditional hatred against Poles in German culture and even if you were right, don't understand where you see the contradiction. There was also a crude Prussianisation in Hanover, Nassau, Hesse Kassel, Schleswig-Holstein and Frankfurt in 1867, which resulted particularly in Hanover in mounting hostilities against Berlin. Are you arguing that hate is required for Germanisation, Prussianisation, whateversation? Then you might as well argue that there was never a war against Denmark in 1864 or a German-German war because there was no antagonism towards Danes and Germans "as strong in culture and policies of German state as that against Polish people".

I suggest moving the conversation to talk:Kulturkampf. Sciurinæ 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. Olessi 20:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose. Let everybody see how Polish users and topics are dealt with.

--Molobo 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing that hate is required for Germanisation, Prussianisation, whateversation?

Traditional negative stereotypes towards other groups and past antagonism can make such moves much more harsh and intense then made against groups that aren't victims of such cultural backlash. Btw where did I write "hate" in the sentence ? Antagonism doesn't always equal hate, and although hate certainly has is its share of attitude towards Poles in German culture, there are also political issues(for example the existance of Prussia was in a way based on nonexistance of Poland), cultural ones(the feelings of superiority towards Poles felt in Germany) etc.--Molobo 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also a bit of often shown lack of awarness that despite the name Germany in fact contained milions of Poles, so history of German Empire will always include information about Polish issues as sadly they were forced of being that state also.--Molobo 19:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like to use the same word over and over again. Antagonism means "feelings of hate and opposition to" according to Oxford's Advanced learners. Cambridge dictionary has a similar definition[2]. Still I fail to see what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that the national minorities in the German Empire (mainly Danes, Poles and French) could not be compared? Because there were allegedly no anti-Danish or anti-French feelings? Is Germanisation worse than war? Sciurinæ 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Germanisation worse than war? One can wage a war with people that are well treated and respected etc. Are you suggesting that the national minorities in the German Empire (mainly Danes, Poles and French) could not be compared? Indeed I am asking if feelings of antagonism towards Danes and Frech were as strong and similiar to that felt towards Poles-mainly that Poles are barbaric, inferior people without culture etc. But this just may curiosity, anyway I encourage you to write an article about persecution of Danes in German Empire as well as seperate one on discrimination of French people. --Molobo 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Now we have started a discussion here which is comparable to the one already in operation on the Kulturkampf-side: resultless, unscientific, stereotype & polemic! This is exactely what I tried to prevent but, however, the community does obviously prefer to run around in circles... (213.70.74.164 08:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC))

Aleturkish

I can find no off-Wikipedia Google hits for this unsourced article about "a constructed mixture language of Turkish and German". Anybody heard of it? Kusma (討論) 19:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not under this name, though the phenomenon of German/Turkish codeswitching is real enough. I don't think they mean "constructed" in the sense of constructed language. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I believe everything the article says, and the name is reasonable. I am just a bit concerned that we might be helping to spread a neologism for a phenomenon that is usually not named or known by a different name. Kusma (討論) 20:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe everything the article says, but I believe its general gist. I don't believe there is an established alphabet of "Aleturkish", nor do I believe there are single fixed expressions for "Hello" and "How are you". That simply isn't the nature of code-switching in language contact. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone going to AfD it? Agathoclea 22:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not if no one objects to your PROD ;-) Angr (talk • contribs) 07:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Olympic competitors for East Germany and Category:Olympic competitors for West Germany

Hello. I have created these two categories in line with a motion at WP:OLYCON which passed 21/0 to keep East Germany and West Germany separate in terms of the Olympics, rather than merging, so that I think it is natural that there should be separate categories for those atheltes who represented east and west respectively.Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC).

Leo.org

I just put in a request for someone to make a userbox like this:

LEO	This user contributes at leo.org.

... as I have no idea what to do with it. Perhaps someone here has more idea than me. I expect there are a few of us here who contribute to Leo(hello User:Sebesta!), but I couldn't find a userbox for it. I thought it might be a good idea in these hard times when we need to stick together :-) Saint|swithin 15:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the LEO image doesn't seem to be PD, or it would be perfect for the userbox. Kusma (討論) 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I've created a template (userbox) just now, using what you had already started. I've only modified the colors, according to the colors of the LEO Web site, and a few other things. I'm just wondering how to get rid of that arrow of the external link...

LEO	This user contributes at www.leo.org.

Anyway, what (nick)name do you use at LEO? Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You should rename (move) the template to something that starts with "Template:User " so it looks like a userbox. Unfortunately Template:User LEO already exists, how about User:UBX/LEO contributor? I can delete the redirect for you after moving. Kusma (討論) 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I've just realized that, too. It should start with "User." The name proposed is fine with me. I'll go and move it straight away. Yes, please, do delete the rediret afterwards. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kusma (討論) 17:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like Daniel and I (Archfarchnad BTW) have created a user group all of our own :-) Saint|swithin 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be true now. Hopefully we won't remain solitary for too long. I'm quite sure there are some other LEO contributers here, maybe with different nicknames, maybe working on some articles that we don't have on our watchlists... It will just take some time until they find us. :) Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The template {{User:UBX/LEO contributor}} has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User LEO contributor on the grounds of being unencyclopedic and providing free advertising. Angr (t • c) 19:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Unknown German acronym - N. N.

In de:Rippenqualle, in the section 'Systematik', the diagram at the bottom of the section contains a number of 'N. N.'s. Anyone knows what this means? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's probably Latin Nomen nescio. Kusma (討論) 15:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. No wonder it wasn't in my dictionary then if it wasn't even German. Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving of Saxon article names

While there is currently an understandable Move Request for Meißen porcelain, I would like to bring attention to the recent changes of Meißen to Meissen and Festung Königstein to Festung Konigstein.... Olessi 02:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Konigstein is silly, we generally use diacritics. When I last checked, the question whether to use the ß was disputed. I have reverted the Konigstein move but will leave the Meissen question open for discussion or a move request. Kusma (討論) 02:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Meißen has since been moved back by Markussep. I have registered my opposition to "Meissen porcelain" and explained why on its talk page. Olessi 16:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Margraves of Meissen is another article that was moved... Olessi 02:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Meissner Porzelan in the internet even look at the bottom of Porzelan from the Manufaktur in Meißen both print Meissen. But with Königsstein or Meißen should stay!!-Stone 06:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Düsseldorf

Some of you please add Düsseldorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to your watch lists, it recently remained vandalized for quite a long time (half a day). -- Curps 00:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

New article

Hi, I'd like to announce the new article on the Bode Museum in Berlin. Angr (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II

Could somebody please join the discussion on this article. We will not be able to reach consensus in a group of two. Thx ackoz 18:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

American German up for deletion

Another German pidgin dialect article up for deletion. Thoughts? Kusma (討論) 17:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard of this described as anything other than Americans speaking bad German with an accent? It isn't a pidgin:

PIDGIN: A simplified, limited language combining features from many languages and used among persons who share no common language amongst themselves. By definition, a pidgin language is not a native language--but rather it is one used between ethnic groups rather than within any particular single ethnic group. [3]

To be honest, it looks like someone wrote it as a joke. Saint|swithin 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Pity this joke has been around since August. Angr (t • c) 19:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Martin Buß

A Move Request has been started regarding Martin Buß to Martin Buss... Olessi 18:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Kenaz9 and the Wehrmacht

Grüß Gott everyone. I noticed there's a new kid on the block, probably a German speaker (judging by his edits rather than language) - Kenaz9 (talk · contribs). The guy/gal is rather interested in the Wehrmacht's role in WWII and war crimes. As I might be too biased myself to judge his/hers edits properly, could you possibly take a look at the list of contributions and tell me what you think? It seems all of his/hers edits so far were aimed at deleting info on war crimes of the Wehrmacht, SS and Waffen SS, but it might be that I'm simply overreacting... //Halibutt 22:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly seems the user is indeed trying to downplay the extent of war crimes, but mostly deleting only the unsourced ones, which is hard to argue with within Wikipedia policy. I have reverted the recent removal at Wehrmacht and welcomed the user and reminded him to not delete sourced information. As I have no interest in and no knowledge of individual SS divisions, I can't really comment very much there, more input would be good. Kusma (討論) 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the deleted information is, while true and probably verifiable from reliable sources, a bit too detailed to be in these articles (some of it is information added by Molobo about individual victims of wartime atrocities and how they died, not really notable enough). Kusma (討論) 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've German 1st Mountain Division on my watchlist. On that particular article, at the very least, there was no deletion but a good differentiation (check, yesss, spelt correctly). There should have been a deletion because what Molobo brought as source did not verify the alleged killing, as Jadger stated today. (And nor was the photographer noteworthy - a division contains ten to fifteen thousand soldiers. ... Have you tried the discussion page at least elsewhere or did you just revert? Sciurinæ 22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I added reference as asked. --Molobo 23:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the 1st Mountain Division they are two links in it with one confirming that the unit was engaged in killings:

• deathcamps.org/occupation/przemysl%20ghetto.html

Units involved in these killings (the so-called Aktion Tannenberg) were Einsatzkommando I/1 and I/3. Units of the 1st Mountain Division and groups of the HJ (Hitlerjugend) also took an active part in round-ups for forced labour and executions. --Molobo 23:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please discuss the individual articles at their respective talk pages? Thank you, Kusma (討論) 23:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Küstrin / Kostrzyn nad Odrą

Information about the formerly German city of Küstrin is currently split between Küstrin and Kostrzyn nad Odrą. The German WP has articles at de:Kostrzyn nad Odrą, de:Küstrin, and de:Küstriner Vorland. Input at Talk:Küstrin about where the information should be would be helpful. Thanks! Olessi 03:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Magyars of Burgenland

I would like to write about the small ethnic Hungarian minority living in the Austrian province of Burgenland. There are three villages with a historical Hungarian majority (Oberwart, Unterwart und Siget in der Wart), and I already wrote articles about them. They make up a small language island or microregion in Hungarian called 'Felső-Őrség' or in German 'Wart'. My question for the community of Austrian editors: if I create an article about the region wether I should use the German name, the Magyar or probably the English translation Upper-Őrség? The Felső-Őrség is primarily an ethnographic entity so it is absolutely unofficial (not a district or something like that). Please feel free to inform me about your opinions. Thanx! Zello 11:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen our Austrian editors here in a while, I hope some of them read this. Kusma (討論) 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for what's most commonly used in English literature... If there's any on it. If not, I'd go for "Upper Őrség" without the hyphen. —Nightstallion (?) 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a commonly used English name at all but Upper Őrség is acceptable for me. There is a tradition to translate the adjectives like 'North, Little, Lower etc' into English for example Little Carpathians for Male Karpaty and Upper Hungary for historic Felső-Magyarország. In this case we should consider Őrség an English name obviously lacking any other alternative. Zello 20:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about this case. I think the official name of the place should be used in that case, are there any homepages? My guess probably is to use the German-language name in that case. I am all for the protection of minorities and the usage of their language (I think the objections by German-speakers about the Ortstafelstreit in Carinthia is ridiculous, they should simply have it in both languages, what's the big deal?). But I am not convinced about "inventing" new place names in English. A Google search shows that Wikipedia seems to be the only one using the term "Upper Őrség", which is not good. I find more hits for the Hungarian name. Either have it in German or in Hungarian, but don't invent something, that would not be encyclopedic. Gryffindor 18:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn't any official name for the microregion because it is not a district or an administrative unit. Felső-Őrség is a Hungarian ethnographic entity ie. the remaining three villages where őrs (former Magyar border-guard communities) live. After World War 2 many German-speaking people settled in Oberwart that became a modern town but they are not really different from other Burgenlandians. There is not a similar German ethnographic tradition for "Wart" so the region is defined mostly by ethnicity in this case. Zello 20:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

West Prussia

Could an admin have Province of West Prussia redirect to West Prussia (currently the links are reversed)? Olessi 17:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kusma (討論) 21:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazism to National Socialism

There is currently a Move Request for Nazism to National Socialism. Olessi 00:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed map

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#A_false_map_of_German_population_is_being_spreaded_on_Wiki. Comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody have a better map? This one (note:it is not a map of German population, but of the extent of the "German-language area", whatever that is) doesn't give sources, and the map legend doesn't make it clear enough that many of the "German" areas might have been minority areas (depending on what year you use to compare with). An accurate modern map or at least a comparison of historical (pre-WWI ones should be PD now) maps would be great; at the very least we need something that shows the extent of German settlement areas during the pre-Imperial Eastern colonisation. Right now this map is the only thing we have that gives an impression of how far German colonisation and German areas extended to the East. In some contexts, using this map is better than nothing, but more sources would be better. Kusma (討論) 16:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

File:Heutige deutsche Mundarten.PNG

It doesn't give sources, but as far as I can tell it's consistent with dialect maps you find in linguistic publications, who are all similar. I don't quite understand what you mean y "Imperial Eastern colonisation"?

The same author made a second map of current German speaking areas (sorry for inserting it this big, how do you display the small version?) Anorak2 08:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC):

File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG

The author of the (green, to the left) prewar map, that started the dispute when used in the expulsions page, has now added a much more detailed explanation of the image. He has however given the english translation using some translation tool that is not perfect. Maybe someone who is fluent in German can try to fix the translation? Stor stark7 11:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The author has ignored massive settlement of Germans into Poland after 1939 (estimated by some at over 1 million with certain number of hundreds of thousands).The author doesn't explain why the same map is used for several different era's-1937, 1945 and WWII ignoring the fact of major population changes in WW2 ? The map doesn't show the exact date and as German population changed in very significant way during XX century in Central Europe it isn't neutral. It isn't clear what the map presents, if the map presents those Germans born in Poland or those people who spoke German as mother language ? Second option would indicate he counts occupation in his map. No mention is made that hundreds of thousands of Germans were settled into Poland during WW2 further adding to POV. The use of colours is very strange since it hardly shows significant populations of Poles in Silesia left after 1921.

• And finally the map conflicts credible scholary data on German population.

For example-map of Poles before WW2 [4] clearly shows that German settlement isn't as widespread in Poland as the author has shown on the map. Another example, a list of Polish areas with German minority listed: http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg In 1921 Pomerania 1921-18 % of population is German Poznan 1921-16 % of population is German This numbers obviously don't support the map presented here where the impression is that in those areas Germans made up almost total majority. And in 1931: Pomerania 1931-9% % of population is German Poznan 1931-9 % of population is German Upper Silesia 1931- 6 % of population is German

• Another data:

According to p.27 of the Reich Statistical Yearbook for 1941 the population of the territories annexed from Poland was as follows in June 1940: Province Ostpreussen: 994,092. Reichsgau Danzig-West-Preussen (not including Danzig): 1,487,452. Reichsgau Wartheland: 4,538,922. Prov. Schlesien: 2,603,550. General Gouvernment: 12,107,000 According to p.6 of "Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from East-Central Europe" Volume 1, (Bonn, 1954) the following was the German population of these areas when they were annexed from Poland in 1939: Polish Territories attached to the Provinz of Ostpreussen: 31,000. Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen: 210,000. Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Wartheland: 230,000. Eastern Upper Silesia: 238,000. Generalgouvernment: 80,000. --Molobo 14:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Earlier I've suggested to the author to use the lighter shades more consistently. He changed the map somewhat, but it's still inconsistent. Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, parts of Switzerland, Schleswig and probably most of the small enclaves in Poland, Czech, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania ought to be light shaded, as all of these territories are (or were) multilingual. Maybe he didn't get it, perhaps it helps if more people urge him to change it.

But please be polight and don't assume POV, most of Molobo's criticisms fail to see the point of the map.

1. It is a linguistic map, not ethnic.
2. The fact that one map shows Polish people in a given location does not refute that German speaking people were present in the same location, because the ethnicities used to mix in a large area (which ought to be light shaded precisely for this reason).
3. Many ethnic Poles were bilingual (as were Germans), so they figure in the "German language" map too.
4. The map is very much about pre-WW2 conditions. What happened during WW2 is not very relevant to it, and is probably not well enough documented anyway. From a German point of view the most relevant changes in linguistic spread occurred after WW2, this is probably why 1945 was chosen as the delimiter. Maybe it should be labelled "pre-1939" instead, but again this is probably due to sloppiness.

Anorak2 10:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Again i fail to see how 100,000 Germans in Pomorze dominated the whole region on the map, but 530,000 Poles in German Silesia are hardly visible.

Many ethnic Poles were bilingual (as were Germans), so they figure in the "German language" map too. Wrong comparision-more Poles used German then Germans Polish language since till 1918 many of them were forced to live in German state where usage of such language was necessary. If they are pointed on the map as Germans it further contributes to the map being misleading. --Molobo 14:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Further using gray and green is unfortunate-such colourse should be contrasting, in this situation green will give impression of dominating. I express such opinion based on my reading on manipulation of ethnic maps in publication regarding mapping of ethnic groups in Silesia where such tricks were often used. --Molobo 14:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC) # It is a linguistic map, not ethnic. It was used to portay territory of ethnic group not spread of language. --Molobo 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC) The map is very much about pre-WW2 conditions Why then 700.000 Germans out of 31.000.000 people in Poland are dominating whole Western Poland on the map ? Furthermore the map was used on several articles as describing situation in 1945. --Molobo 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be labelled "pre-1939" instead, but again this is probably due to sloppiness. Scholary data and maps contradict the map's presentation of pre-1939 German population. --Molobo 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If the map presents people who speak German rather then Germans as you claim, then it has no place on page regarding population transfer of Ethnic Germans as it doesn't portay ethnic groups if what you said is correct. --Molobo 14:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Furthermore if the map presents the spread of German language rather then Germans it is further misleading since the second map of post-1945 certainly doesn't reflect the percentage of people using German language in Poland. --Molobo 14:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo has copied his postin above from what he has written on the Polish notice board, to which this topic already points. Bad manners in my opinion. Besides, his comments relate to before the author of the map provided extencive sourcing, making most of the post redundant.

Just to add to the discussion I'd like to point to the discussion in the German Language article. Talk:German_language#The removed Maps --Stor stark7 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote Balcer: I thank the author for providing the rather long list of sources he used to construct the map. However, if this map was not simply drawn using data from a single reputable source, but was instead constructed by combining data from many books published over many decades, this really sounds to me like a perfect demonstration of original research, which is not allowed by Wikipedia policies (see Wikipedia:No original research).

Let me quote the key principle of the policy in full: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

This map clearly falls under "synthesis of published data". Balcer 03:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As to my comment

Instead of source we have a lengthy speach unconnected in several parts to the map and full of error's combined with attacks on Polish state. Not to mention the absurd usage of votes to indicate presence of German's. It seems author doesn't know for example that hundreds of thousands of Germans were moved to Silesia in order to vote.And of course using data on presence of Germans in 1919 in Poznan when German Army was moved there isn't POV at all. --Molobo 17:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand the patent nonsense description on commons, the sources are mostly from before WWI. I don't quite understand the shading of Silesia vs. the sprinkling of green in West Prussia (maybe the author wishes to indicate that one had mixed population, the other "German" and "Polish" areas?) but apart from that, the map seems to be pretty okay with Molobo's early sources. I also don't think that there is no other published map like this, just perhaps no other map that is under the GFDL (if there is another similar map in published sources, which there is according to the author, this map is not original research). Now that we are getting closer to understanding what is depicted on the map (1914 census plus 1937 borders), we should be able to address the neutrality concerns by a neutral and accurate caption for the map. I would prefer the 1914 borders with the 1914 data, but if this map is all we have, it should be fine at least for the German language article. Kusma (討論) 19:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't think of them as the 1937 borders, think of them as the 1919 borders (only five years later than the data). And the language distribution is an important reason why the 1919-1937 borders look the way they do. Angr (t • c) 19:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

@Kusma: There are many similar maps around, it is the usual map you find in textbooks about German linguistics. Even modern books often include pre-WW2 linguistic distributions as that way they can show dialects lost after WW2. Unfortunately I know of no such map in the public domain, but I can assure you it's not original research.

@Molobo: Once again the map is about linguistics, not ethnic distribution. If someone used it to draw conclusions about ethnic majorities in a given area, they'd be misusing the map and drawing false conclusions. But that is not the fault of the map itself and it doesn't make it wrong. Anorak2 22:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again the map is about linguistics, not ethnic distribution Contradicted by the author himself in the second map. Anyway is then map of people who are able to speak German regardless of their ethnic roots ? --Molobo 22:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Anorak2 06:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody in Poznan in 1990s speaks German ? I find that hard to believe. --Molobo 11:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC) but apart from that, the map seems to be pretty okay with Molobo's early sources. It is not. How come 9 % of population suddenly cover what looks like 60 % of territory in Pomorze for example ? Furthermore I clearly presented map that shows the authors misleading vision is completely false and contradicts scholary sources. Furthermore cenzus from before 1914 were falsfied on regular basis by German authorities and took into account the military presence in those areas. Untill a clear source, and in view of authors emotional attacks against Poland on commons a scan of the map he was basing his map is provided that corresponds with scholary presentation of presence of German settlement in Polish territories is provided then the map is unnacceptable. Further more I don't believe Poznan was called Posen or Warsaw Warschau in 1937. --Molobo 20:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This how German census looked like in regards to Poles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_census_of_1895 Also, the accuracy of the population figures published from the 1895 German census for the Polish territories was "adjusted" to show that the ratio of ethnic Germans to ethnic Poles was much higher than it actually was. This is attributed to the official push to germanize the areas and to legitimize the century of occupation. Also, the Polish language was banned from usage in administration and education and the data for numbers of Polish speakers is also lowered. Anybody who uses these German census from era of Imperial Germany is extremely dishonest or ignorant I am afraid if he accepts them as true. --Molobo 20:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore I believe the last cenzus was made in 1910, its the first time I hear about a cenzus made in 1914. This is confirmed by German wiki. It seems there was no German census in 1914. --Molobo 20:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)