Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Which date format to use?

There is an ongoing debate at the talk page for WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) as to whether to use day-month-year or month-day-year date format in articles with a strong tie to a specific country. The debate has reached the point where the choice is between the format actually used in the country, or dependent on the variety of English used in articles about that country. This is straightforward for countries such as the U.S.A. or the U.K., but problematic when considering countries where English is not an official language. With the removal of date autoformatting, editors will increasingly see dates presented in "raw" form, rather than as set in user preferences. The current proposal is found here. --Pete (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about AfD

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Territorial_changes_of_Germany_after_World_War_II has been 2nd time relisted after discussion did not take place. The AfD concerns Territorial_changes_of_Germany_after_World_War_II, input would be appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Removals and/or incorrect additions

A lot of historical information gets repeatedly removed or the wrong country entered, samples from September 6, 2008. Could someone please keep an eye on following items:

• Hans Georg von Arnim-Boitzenburg, 6 Sep‎
• Battle of Trzciana, 6 Sep
• Bartholomäus Keckermann, 6 Sep
• Academic Gymnasium Danzig, 6 Sep
• Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, 6 Sep

also Pomerelia, Johann Friedrich Endersch, Sztum, Ernst Magnus Dönhoff. Also someone please take a look at

• Kulmerland, the changes 19 Aug and the changes Aug 20, where it states that Kulmerland was dis-established in 1466 ???

Wikipedia should post a lot more Disclaimers and warnings about its inaccurate, unreliable, often downright weird content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.197.97 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Don't you get tired of doing the same useless edits over and over again and get reverted shortly thereafter? You should know by now that you are editing an article range where content and naming issues easily wage an edit/revert war. As long as you don't

• get an account,
• source your edits,
• use neutral language,

your edits will not withstand. You are repeating to do from what you know does not turn out the way you want without regarding changes in your behavior, please do not think this board is the place to call to arms fellows assisting you in this contraproductive editing - <nichtverkneifenkönn> although I have heard of related boards with this being feature if not function... </nichtverkneifenkönn> Skäpperöd (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sound advice indeed. Unsourced material can be legitimately removed even it is "the truth" - the threshold for inclusion is verifiability in reliable sources, not "truth". Getting an account means you can discuss issues about content with us in one place which we can know everyone will see. Taking the advice above helps other editors to help you. Knepflerle (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you two honestly believe that not showing an IP would keep said person(s) from constantly reverting, you must be very naive. Said person(s) are the ones deliberately removing maps, books etc all the time along with the reverts. So verifiability, reliable sources are removed as well. You seem to agree to the Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, absurdity from 6 Sep, or is your agreement to that, just because you did not read it too closely? Same goes for Kulmerland, where the categories now state, that it existed from 1226 until 1466.

Anyway, thanks for your 'sound advice' but I would really like someone else, (you two ?), to take over the fact-checking on named article range for a while. It seems, that just about everyone, who has tried it so far, sooner or later has given up in disgust. An Observer 7 Sep 2008

"everyone, who has tried it so far, sooner or later has given up in disgust." - all the more reason for us to try and help you help yourself. You seem more than capable and interested in keeping an eye on these articles yourself; we're just trying to help you edit in a way in which you're much less likely to get continually reverted. Ignore the advice if you wish (and there was more advice there than just getting an account) but your editing life will be easier and the articles better if you heed it. Knepflerle (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As just done, I often clean up messy edits by IPs. Yet, there are also users with very old accounts who have messy habits. This diff, taken from above's list, re-introduces "Gdańsk (Danzig)" which is against policy, tries to source the additional "Kingdom of Poland" with a Merriam-Webster book that does not say so, and with an Image:Rzeczpospolita voivodships.png made and uploaded by a Polish user. Also, the absurd claim about his grandfather being born later than Fahrenheit himself is re-introduced for the second time even though it had been pointed out earlier. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"and with an Image:Rzeczpospolita voivodships.png made and uploaded by a Polish user.". An unnecessary comment that speaks volumes; if the source is inaccurate it is not necessarily because of the nationality of the author. Knepflerle (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, inaccurate nationalistic claims are never related to the nationality of the author(s). -- Matthead  Discuß   20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily related is not the same as never related. See cum hoc and causal oversimplification. Knepflerle (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Confusion created by Wikipedia on Prussian Nationality

I just glanced at the discussions about nationality and all the different categories started by Wikipedia, see User:Olessi's questions on [Nationality and categories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:German-speaking_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_6].

There was only One Prussian Nationality for all the different Prussian groups, the One Prussian Jus Indigenatus was valid for

Altes Preussenland, Old Prussian, Prussia as the Teutonic Order Monastic State and the Political Divisions:

1. Prussian Fuerstbistum Ermland, Prince-Bishopric of Warmia and for the

2. Western part of Prussia, Prussiae Occidentalis by the 18th century also referred to as Royal Prussia, Westpreussen, West Prussia as well as the

3. Prussiae Orientalis or Duchy of Prussia, Ostpreussen, East Prussia and the later Kingdom of Prussia.

In other words the Prussian people at different times lived in different political entities, but the nationality is Prussian and not Ducal Prussian or Royal Prussian etc, just plain Prussian. An Observer 10 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.197.97 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The nationality issue is one that I doubt will ever be settled sufficiently here, because editors have various opposing views of how to combine past respective ethnic and territorial "realities" with their today's perception of nationality and citizenship. Same goes for territories, once noble A paid a tribute to noble B, noble A's territory and the people therein are perceived by some as integral part of the supposed "state" of noble B and get assigned a respective nationality, citizenship or whatever. Even the spelling of his name or town. You highlighted some of the territories whose inhabitants posthum became subjects to wiki edit wars. If you have sources for what you mentioned above, go ahead and add referenced material to the respective articles for everyone's benefit. If you just "got a feeling", abstain or you will end up like the flamers of the "cabal that does not exist". Look, you wrote in your statement above, that people of Royal Prussia have a definite Prussian nationality. Noone however can use this information because it is not reliably sourced ("must be true because anon IP said so on another talk page" is not a good edit summary).

Some technical and personal remarks: You keep signing your posts (if at all) with "An Observer" and let the bot sign your comments with your IP, something I feel annoying. You are not an observer, you are an active editor preferring to edit as an anon IP rather then getting an account. With an account, you will not loose your anonymeous status, if it's that you are afraid of. But even without an account, could you be so kind and add the four tildes to your comment (~~~~). If you want to introduce a reference after adding on "controversial" issues, add <ref>Author, ''Title'', page, (year, ISBN)</ref> and your edits will unlikely be immediately reverted. If you edit controversial issues (that is, issues that are not necessarily controversial in real life, but in wikipedia are frequently edited to present a certain POV), use a neutral tone and do not add unnecessary information increasing the edit war potential (eg Magna Germania to WWII-related articles). Regards - Skäpperöd (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick note to Skäpperöd, in a few days I hope to get some time to get back to this. An Observer 13 Sep 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.197.97 (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Skäpperöd, I am coming back to your discussion:

On Prussian Nationality Daniel Stone: A History of East Central Europe, 2001 write on page 65 Despite the different regimes in Royal Prussia and Ducal Prussia, common Prussian conciousness remained. Nobles and burghers who lived in one part were considered native of the other part as well.

Also see: Prussian Ius indigenatus, Prussian Native- Nationality

---

Referring to Magna Germania, that is clearly described since about two-thousand years ago as territory (Eastern Central Europe) from approximately east of the Rhine river (Lesser Germania to territory of the Vistula River and around the Baltic Sea, earlier Mare Suebicum or Mare Germanicum. There are plenty of maps showing this and descriptions , from Ptolemy to Tacitus, to Jordanes a first German map (?) by H. Schedel 1493 and many more.

I limit myself to corrections and add information only, when it is obvious, that a particular Wikipedia user does not know better or adds deliberately POV. Often it is general knowledge outside Wikipedia and should be known by wikipedia users as well. However many times I get surprised to read about the lack of basic knowledge by a number of wiki users or of the deliberate mis-representations.

Anyway, have a nice day. An Observer 25 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.197.97 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Prussian parliaments

I've created an article on Prussian Estates; there is some confusion in sources and on Wikipedia as to what terms to use and how many notable political Prussian institutions there were. I've posted one simple question at Talk:Landtag#Landesrat, and a more complex one at Talk:Prussian estates. Comments appreciated! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Date format poll confirmation

There is ongoing discussion on the talk page for the Manual of Style (including a series of polls) aimed at achieving consensus on presenting dates in American (October 3, 1990) or International (3 October, 1990) format on an article by article basis. The poll gives full instructions, but briefly the choices are:

• C = Option C, the winner of the initial poll and run-off. (US articles have US format dates, international format otherwise)
• R = Retain existing wording. (National format for English-speaking countries, no guidance otherwise).

If you wish to participate or review the progress of discussion, you may follow this link. --Pete (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:German IMDB title

This Template:German IMDB title needs to be translated. - I ported the template from DE with some changes, but I don't know what to put in English. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to link to IMDb's German user interface? As far as I understand they have the same content, only provide German titles for movies. --Amalthea^Talk 15:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, if this is a useful feature then I'd extend the existing imdb templates by an alternative language parameter (de, it, fr) which generates the alternative language link at the end. --Amalthea^Talk 15:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea as well - then we can merge the "German" template into the existing one and add a parameter WhisperToMe (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Can you go to Template talk:Imdb title and explain why this is needed though, before the change is introduced? I'm still not quite convinced. And I'm not alone apparently. Cheers, --Amalthea^Talk 12:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Europa1937-1939.gif

Hi, there is a deletion request at Commons for this image which is used within this article on the ground of major factual inaccuracies. The inaccuracies are summarized at the image description, its talk page, and at the deletion request. It would be helpful to remove this image from that article or to substitute it or to express at the deletion request why this image should be kept. Thanks for your help. Cheers, AFBorchert (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Category for Nazi victims

Recently I've noticed a category on pl Wikipedia - pl:Kategoria:Ofiary represji Niemiec nazistowskich w Europie 1933-1945 (Victims of repression by Nazi Germany in Europe 1933-1945). On en Wikipedia, we have Category:Nazi concentration camp victims but nothing for Nazi victims who died outside the camps. We do have a corresponding category for Soviet victims (Category:Victims of Soviet repressions, with detailed subcategories - even Category:German victims of Soviet repressions). I think we could use a corresponding Category:Victims of Nazi German repressions, for people like (for example) Maciej Rataj (Polish politician, twice acting presindent, executed in Palmiry during the German AB-Aktion operation in Poland), Oskar Sosnowski (Polish architect shot during German invasion of Poland), victims of the Massacre of Lviv professors and others. I would like to ask here if such a category was discussed in the past (and perhaps rejected by the community for some reasons?). PS. I used Polish victims in my examples, but of course the cat is international, and would include many German victims as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

see de:Kategorie:NS-Opfer --77.4.33.144 (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A category for victims of National Socialism, I presume? It has interwiki to Category:People condemned by Nazi courts, but again it is not the same as proposed category (a lot of Nazi victims were never subject to court cases). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is a general category for Nazi victims. The interwiki should be changed to your new cat. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As there seem to be no objections, I'll create the category proposed, and interwiki link it to the most similar ones on pl and de wiki.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Regions of Pomerania - terminology

I would appreciate some expert feedback on Talk:Pomerania#Terminology_of_the_Pomeranian_regions - the current English naming of the Polish parts of Pomerania. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Ethnic conflicts in western Poland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethnic conflicts in western Poland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic conflicts in western Poland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Landesausbau

Can anyone figure out the most comprehensive English term for Landesausbau? I would appreciate proposals at Talk:Ostsiedlung#Landesausbau. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Polish-German relations during WWII - category?

Please see my comment here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

---

What are your thoughts on this name Paúel Benecke?

I posted the following message on discussion of Wikipedia article Paúel Benecke, an invented name, clearly not the most used in literature

Google book search till 1900:

Pavel Benecke Result = 7 books in German text with Pavel Benecke

Paul Benecke Result = over 700 books.

Paúel Benecke search result: by 2008 = 6 books , all based on similar old German language writings.

The 21st century English name as well as German name is spelled P A U L . That means the Wikipedia article should be name Paul Benecke. An Observer (70.133.65.7 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Improved and moved to Paul Beneke. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Matthead, for moving Paúel Benecke to Paul Beneke. (70.133.65.7 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Bundesarchiv as a source

There's a discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bundesarchiv_as_a_source on how to deal with pictures made in 1933-45 and the reliability of BA headlines. Please share. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Germanism (linguistics)

Germanism (linguistics) was listed at Pages needing translation into English as it needs copyediting - or deletion. -- Matthead  Discuß   18:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense--WerWil (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Not nonsense. Still many sections to do. --Cyfal (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This tag is nonsense:

This article needs translation into English.

This article is written in a language other than English. If it is intended for readers from the community of that language, it should be contributed to the Wikipedia in that language. See list of Wikipedias.

Perhaps the English is bad, I can not judge this, but im my eyes article is not in German.--WerWil (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yuck, there are sections in there (e.g. the one on Tok Pisin) that make me nauseous. Trigaranus (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The topic is relevant. Only few parts need tanslation, but copyediting is needed. Someone should check translation's quality. The Tok Pisin part was indeed incomplete, fragmentary and misleading in comparison with the German article. I have made some changes in few minutes to make it anyway readable. - Elysander (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

To WerWil: Ah, I see, yes it's the wrong tag (I didn't find a better one, however, but did no extensive search). Nevertheless, in it's first version the article was a bad machine translation, wrong layout, and also the machine translation translated all German words which are the base of the foreingn loanwords into English – that has to be corrected. See also WP:Pages needing translation into English#Germanism (linguistics). A large part of the sections are already corrected by me and other wikipedians. --Cyfal (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all references to Finnish from this article since all of the so-called Germanisms were actually loan words from Swedish. This article also suffers from a lack of distinction between words related between languages, loan words, etc., instead chalking each and every occurence up to the German language. Rather like saying that the English word water is a Germanism... -Yupik (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ernst von Pfuel

Ernst von Pfuel needs some updating, as the short English article is quite different from the German one. For example: Pfuel led the Prussian Army during the suppression of the Greater Poland Uprising (1848). That article, now nominated for deletion, claims this happened "after Polish victories in the battles of Miłosław and Sokołów". -- Matthead  Discuß   02:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No Germany before 1871?!

According to some users, there must have been a big hole in the middle of Europe before 1871: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_1#Categories_for_pre-Germany_years "as Germany did not exist between 1813 and 1849 inclusive". -- Matthead  Discuß   03:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A ridiculous discussion without sense and sensiblity! A master example for today's en:wikipedia's Irrungen und Wirrungen. Obviously the aim justify all means. ;) German history is a complicated one but it shouldn't be handled on this silly and clueless way. Elysander (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments appreciated

Regarding Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Gr.C3.BCssau_Abbey.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

List of terms used for Germans

List of terms used for Germans, created in 2006 by a user banned in 2007, is often criticized and had been nominated of deletion a year ago. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It could indeed do with a severe pruning of unsourced material. Are there any other specific modifications you have in mind? Knepflerle (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"West Germany" again

Besides the highly doubtful naming of the article West Germany, many categories have been created claiming to describe something "West German", as an opposite to both "East German" and "German". For example, here are some (not all) of the categories applied to the football player Arno Steffenhagen:

• Category:Expatriate footballers in the Netherlands
• Category:Expatriate soccer players in Canada
• Category:Expatriate football (soccer) players in South Africa
• Category:Expatriate soccer players in the United States
• Category:German expatriate footballers
• Category:German expatriates in Canada
• Category:German expatriates in South Africa
• Category:German expatriates in the Netherlands
• Category:German footballers
• Category:Germany international footballers
• Category:West German expatriate footballers
• Category:West German expatriates in Canada
• Category:West German expatriates in South Africa
• Category:West German expatriates in the Netherlands
• Category:West German expatriates in the United States

Its utterly embarrassing for something claiming to be an encyclopedia to have categories which insinuate that there was a German citizenship and a separate West German citizenship. Current discussions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_4#West_German_footballers and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#West_German_categories. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What it "insinuates" is that the Federal Republic of Germany of 1949-1990 was and continues to be referred to as West Germany in the vast majority of English language sources. Yes it's idiosyncratic, yes it's inconsistent but it happened.

Look at this - even Helmut Schmidt writing in English for a special report for the Times referred to the then inhabitants of the FRG as West Germans. He obviously must share the same confusion on the issue that all English speakers do. Knepflerle (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We're still quite inconsistent -- List of German foreign ministers assumes that the FRG was "Germany" even before 1990, and the GDR some other country, while our sports coverage usually pretends that Germany, the FRG and the GDR are three separate countries. But as Knepflerle says, it is general English usage that is inconsistent. Partly to blame may be the word "reunification" for "the states of the GDR became states of the FRG". Kusma (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

And the inconsistency has no easy solution, that I can see. When I studied the government of the FRG in the 1970s in the US, we were taught (incorrectly) that Article 146 would "kick in" in the event of reunification, and that a new state would thus be created. I was quite surprised when the FRG basically annexed the GDR, but as User:Kusma points out, this is the crux of the problem. In colloquial usage, nearly everyone sees this as a "two became one" event, which it was not, at all. Unschool 05:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There's something else going on. Some users attack the concept "West Germany" on formal grounds (with a rather bizarre line of arguments), they would prefer to see the terms "German" and "Germany" used instead in all places. This is highly problematic as not only was "West Germany" used colloquially in English (and even "Westdeutschland" in German), but it also is highly confusing as there would be no distinction to united Germany, and ignores the fact that the then Federal Republic only covered part of the territory we know as Germany today. Anorak2 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Like any other country which over the years has undergone territory changes ie Poland. Agathoclea (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

False analogy. Germany was divided into two states, each of whom used the label "German" in its official name, each of whom had a German national identity and each of whom strived to incorporate the other state at one time. It is illogical to reserve the term "Germany" only two one of these two entities, even though they appeared and behaved rather symmetrically. Anorak2 (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does reflect reality, not construct it. As there never was a country "West Germany" separate from "Germany", we can't invent it for what ever purpose. Of course, the part of Germany that was covered by the authority of the German government from 1949 through 1990 was called "West Germany" for various purposes, but it still was identical with "Germany". So we can't have a separate category-tree for it. --h-stt !? 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't identical with Germany. In this time Germany consists of the FRG, the GDR and West Berlin. Similar cases with Korea, Vietnam, Yemen. --Obersachse (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Can we learn anything from Wikipedia's treatment of Vietnam versus North Vietnam? Too lazy to do my own research, Kusma (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with constitutional and international law? I presented the universally accepted formal situation above. --h-stt !? 12:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean there never was a country "West Germany" separate from "Germany". What the hell is that supposed to mean? West Germany was part of Germany, but not all of it. What is so difficult to understand? It is you who is trying to construct something. There were two German states during a period of time, both of whom explicitly claimed German national identity for themselves. How do you suggest to reflect this fact in their names? I suggest to call both of them "Germany" and to attach prefixes according to geographical directions for distinction. Other suggestions? Anorak2 (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does reflect reality, not construct it.

Yes, this is true. But the reality that we reflect includes usage. It is clear that much of the English-speaking world (and at least some of the German-speaking world) refer to the FRG from 1949-1990 as "West Germany". To obliterate such references would constitute a backwards-form of original research. Unschool 07:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"West Germany" was only a label for the state "Germany". Used for convenience, to distinguish it from "East Germany". But as there was and is an unbroken continuity of the German state from 1871 until today, it would be lunatic to create a separate category tree for this "West Germany". --h-stt !? 12:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I am confused. Between 1949 and 1990 there were two German States. How could one of this be identical whith the whole? --WerWil (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The United States of America did not control the territory of the Confederate States of America in 1861-65. Nevertheless, the USA between 1861-65 and the post-1865 USA are considered to be the same. Kusma (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Noboy would question the category People from Idaho, because we have the category People from the US, so the question why we have West Germany is in that case similar it is ther to improve geographical resolution. The second point is for most of the people the differnce in life between being member of the catgory People form BRD (which is identical to that of People from West Germany) and being member of the catgory People form GDR (which is identical to that of People from East Germany) is so huge that this categories group people with similar surrounding problems. --Stone (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

We have general problems with categories that are intersections of "people from..." and "people by occupation" or similar categories. For "People from..." we usually use the political division they were born in (although inconsistently; some princes of Coburg who were born in Saxe-Coburg are classified as having been born in Bavaria). That works more or less for the birth categories, but gets pretty silly when we create categories for two things at once. In other words, having separate "German", "West German" and "East German" expatriate categories is probably not very useful. But then, our category system isn't very useful. Kusma (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, this blatant arbitrariness makes me sick. Do you people really want to write an encyclopedia by echoing tabloid headlines and Scheisshausparolen? Do widespread misconceptions take precedence over facts, or to they become facts by frequent misuse? "The FRG basically annexed the GDR" - and the WTC towers basically annexed Boeings?! If there was a "West Germany" that did disappear in 1990, how come that there is no article on its contemporary, the "West NATO", which has also disappeared since? Same for the good ole West EU.

Germans may colloquially speak of England and Amerika, but in an encyclopedia, they at least try to use proper terms, even when these are hard to determine. Is the official name United States of America or only United States? Go figure, it's as clearly worded as the oath of Pres. Obama. No matter what name, that country has changed its borders and its flags many times. Since 1949, the German flag is in longer continuous use than the US flag, which in 1958 still had 48 stars. At that time even the GDR used the German tricolor without the socialist symbols. Borders, symbols and names are even more confusing when speaking about England, Britain, Great Britain, United Kingdom, British Empire, British Commonwealth etc. And I haven't mentioned neither of numerous Irelands and Irish yet. For example, there was a transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China in 1997, yet Wikipedia currently includes the UK in the category of "1801 establishments". If Germany was established only in 1990, then mark the UK with "1997 establishment" accordingly.

No matter what many may believe or insist on, West Germany needs to redirect to Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990) or preferably to History of the Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990), not vice versa. The invented categories have to vanish - or all countries and people need to get similar divisive categories, with all "Americans" getting categorized after the number of states the US comprised when they were born. That way, no Americans ever walked on the moon, as only "people born in the 48 United States" have been there, said 48 state country having vanished from Earth half a century ago, according to the Wiki logic applied to "West Germany". -- Matthead  Discuß   16:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first (and fundamental) misunderstanding is conflating changes in territory and government with changes in English-language nomenclature and assuming one must mirror the other exactly. The FRG has existed continuously since 1949, but its name given to it in English has changed. We had FRG and GDR until 1990, then FRG, but the corresponding English nomenclature is West Germany and East Germany, then Germany. Appeals to analogy with the US or the UK are utterly specious - languages aren't self-consistent. The common name for the USA remained constant, the common name for the FRG didn't. No fundamental law of linguistics was broken.

Your second misunderstanding is that West Germany is used only in "tabloid headlines" and colloquial use. That is so easily disproved that to repeatedly maintain otherwise is laughable. We'll start with Schmidt, Brandt and Adenauer, move through the United Nations, the European Commission for Human Rights, NATO, and the IMF, then work our way through the Times (special, titled "West Germany" dated June 30 1971, say), the New York Times and the Financial Times, atlases and encyclopaedias of the time, and end with academic publications from Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Princeton. Let's bury that baseless notion now.

We are not going to deprive fluent English speakers of using the standard, accurate terminology that has served them perfectly well for decades because its "arbitrariness makes [you] sick". Knepflerle (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course "West Germany" was used as name for the state in western Germany from 1949 to 1990. But please distinguish between a label and an entity. "West Germany" is a label, not an entity. There never was a state or nation "West Germany" that was different from "Germany", because the state "Germany" is in unbroken existence from 1871 until today. There is no "West Germany" nationality and never was one. German nationality law will tell you, that the same nationality law of Germany was valid from 1913 until 2000! Over all the changes in the name, the flag, the form of government, the territory, and the constitutions of the four epochs of German history over that time. My first children's passport Kinderausweis (als Passersatz) issued by the Federal Republic of Germany long before 1990 listed my nationality as "German", just as my first real passport (issued still well before 1990) and my current passport (well after 1990). And as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must not categorize for mere labels, but needs to use connection to real entities to structure its content. --h-stt !? 08:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

From 1949 till 1990 there were two Germanies, the FRG (West Germany) and the GDR (East Germany). That`s why you can`t say, that Germany is the same as West Germany. There was the same continuity in "East Germany". --Obersachse (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again: Are you familiar with international and constitutional law? Or with history? The eastern GDR claimed in word and deed, that it was the "new Germany", the good ones, build by the victims of fascism and not connected in any way with the bad guys in the West. They explicitly rejected any continuity. The western FRG accepted the responsibility that came from the unbroken tradition with Nazi-Germany. --h-stt !? 11:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not talk about the continuity of self-perception. What matters here is more the question of continuity of exterior perception as reflected in reliable (ideally English-language) sources. Kusma (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

International law does not come into it. Not only because hairsplitting legal definitions are irrelevant to colloquial usages, but also because there is no single "international law". There was and is controversial among scholars what international law actually is, and the legal status of the different parts of Germany during the cold war is a prime example of such a controversy. Furthermore, you claim about East Germany They explicitly rejected any continuity. That is untrue. East Germany considered itself as an heir of the German nation, it claimed German national identity for itself and strived for reunification under a "socialist" regime for a considerable time of its existance. Even if that was not so, it was considered part of the German nation by outsiders, and named accordingly. Anorak2 (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Mere labels" matter - read WP:NAME, one of our core policies - we label our content with the name most familiar to our readers to make finding and linking to it second-nature. West German was the name given in English to the FRG nationality until 1990. And again, we do not need labelling that exactly mirrors constitutional change - the English-speaking world outside en.wp manages perfectly well without such labelling. Fluent English speakers read, write, say and use West Germany all the time as evidenced above, and cope with the fact that the labelling does not exactly mirror the constitutional changes - the FRG / GRD between 1949 and 1990 are never distinguished in English as Germany / East Germany respectively. You're trying to solve a problem English speakers don't have by imposing a labelling that English speakers don't use. Knepflerle (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine - but we don't shape categories along mere labels, we do that following the real entities. Look into Category:German expatriates in the United States. This category is shared by Expats from the time before any state of Germany was even founded (Prince Carl of Solms-Braunfels), to those during Imperial Germany (Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven), to those who immigrated during the Weimar Republic (Leo Birinski), to refugees from Nazi-Germany (Dietrich Bonhoeffer), to modern day expats as Detlef Schrempf. It is ridiculous that of all those periods only those between 1949 and 1990 are in a separate Category:West German expatriates in the United States. delete. --h-stt !? 11:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, only sportspeople are categorized as "West German" instead of "German". Kusma (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "we don't shape categories along mere labels" - you're still missing the point that this labelling is absolutely adequate, accurate and well-understood for all uses by fluent English-speakers. However, we could restructure our categories in accordance with the constitutional changes, with corresponding labels that are undoubtedly accurate over all of that period: e.g. "expatriates of the Federal Republic of Germany"; slightly longwinded, but this longer naming could be extended to other categories too. However, a complete whitewashing of the term "West Germany" from en.wp as unfit for purpose as proposed earlier is utterly laughable; it's served its purpose perfectly well for sixty years for half a billion English speakers in all registers of use. Knepflerle (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tatsächlich besteht in den Kategorien ein Inkonsitenz, wenn zum Teil Westdeutschland für Deutschland allgemein genommen wird, wie in dem oben verlinkten Fall einer Zusammenstellung der Außenminister Deutschlands, die dann nur die der BRD angibt. Daraus folgt aber für micht nicht, dass die Kategorien zu Westdeutschland aufzugeben sind, sondern dass diese durchgängig als Subkategorien Deutschlands neben z. B. Preußen, DDR, Königreich Bayern zu verwenden sind. Insofern müsste da einiges, was sich nämlich auf Deutschland insgesamt bezieht aus den West-Kategorien rausgeholt werden, und diese Kategorien konstquent zu Unterkategorien gemacht werden.--WerWil (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Citizenship- Staatsangehoerigkeit Deutsch- Only differnces Passes from DDR or BRD

West Germany was not formed, the Bundesrepublic Deutschland Federal Republic of Germany was formed (I changed that).

The citizens of the Bundesrepublik Deutschland were/are Deutsche Staatsbuerger German citizens with Passports issued by the Bundesrepublik BRD (English FRG). Inhabitants of the Deutsche Demokratische Republik DDR (English German Democratic Republic GDR) were German citizens with passports issued by the DDR GDR. In other words, in either part of Germany, western or eastern, the citizens were/are German citizens. Only in travel outside the borders were there different BDR or DDR issued passports, citizenship was Deutsche Staatsbuergerschaft -German- either way.

Stating the facts, correcting the incorrect description at West Germany did not last long. Many people, who input at wikipedia, seem to prefer false assumptions over facts. See: West Germany discussions ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Germany#misleading_introduction.3F.3F.3F misleading introduction]

An observer (70.133.74.161 (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

• An East German citizenship never existed, a West German citizenship never existed, only German citizenship existed. (Until the Grundlagenvertrag neither the GDR nor the FRG could enter the United Nations because neither side accepted the other side to be a state and any move to get membership in the U.N. would be vetoed by the respective allied in the security council.) So all those categories claiming things like Category:West German expatriate footballers are nothing else than original research and should be removed. --Matthiasb (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. The GDR invented their own nationality in 1967: de:Staatsbürgerschaft der DDR, after abandoning the hope to dominate "Germany as a whole". The FRG kept the very same "Reichs- und Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz" in unbroken continuity from 1913 until 2000. --h-stt !? 06:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bitte vergessen Sie nicht, Sie fahren weiter durch Deutschland ("Please do not forget, you continue to drive through Germany"): Signs on all east/west german border crossings before 1990, on the west german side of course. Apparently someone in the West German authorities thought that West Germany was not identical with Germany. Anorak2 (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me a bit of the discussion regarding West Bank, although there we have a single term referring to more than one territory (that is, in terms of existing regional names). In both cases the argument is made that "West XYZ" is the most familiar term in English-language usage. I would tend to agree, especially as the main article regarding Germany is, simply, Germany, to which is redirected the formal title. It's not necessarily the solution I personally prefer, but there is a difference between editorial and personal opinion. PetersV       TALK 03:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Tyrol

Hello. It has been suggested to create a Wikiproject Tyrol as a subproject of Wikiproject Austria. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Department of Racial Politics

A few sources refer to a German Nazi "Department of Racial Politics" of 1939, but I am rather sure this is a bad translation. I'd appreciate help figuring out the real German name of this department and the correct, accepted English translation. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That was the "Amt für Rassenpolitik" which is usually translated to "Office of Racial Policy" - "Politik" in German can be politics as well as policy, here I prefer policy. --h-stt !? 22:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

die tageszeitung

Some editor want to move the article die tageszeitung to Die Tageszeitung, because, in their opinion, the MoS demands that. I a going to elaborate on Talk:Die tageszeitung even further why, for someone who is a native German speaker, this sounds like a bad idea, and even if the MoS demands that it would be contrary to common sense - but I can't find the time a.t.m. I think it would be helpful if a few more German-speaking editors could take a look at the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be die tageszeitung since this spelling is part of their self-concept and based on left political ideas they promote. --Polarlys (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I tried to explain it to these faschists bureaucrats. But instead of replying to my arguments, they preferred to blindly follow their stupid style guideline. Zara1709 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn’t call them “fascists”, did you? --Polarlys (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As a native German speaker I agree that this looks weird for a German user; unfortunately, this is en-wikipedia, and we have these policies for a reason. I agree with the move. And Zara1709, please refrain from personal attacks, even if they are somewhat veiled. Lectonar (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale renaming of articles relating to Landskreise

Could I ask members of the WikiProject to comment on the contributions of this user: Special:Contributions/Gereonmc?

They have created articles such as Counties of Germany and County Boroughs of Germany (could someone check if these are cut-and-pastes?) and started changing wording and links in other articles e.g. [1] and [2].

I seem to remember our nomenclature for Lands-/Kreise and Bezirke was discussed at length at some time in the past, and formal consensus and style guidelines drawn up. The nomenclature being introduced by this new user, seemingly based on the United Kingdom's district naming, doesn't seem to be standard, and a wider discussion should precede any massive changes.

Comments? Knepflerle (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion centralized at WT:GER. Agathoclea (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rakowitz

Please see my question about a strange toponym used on de and sv wiki at Talk:Battle of Warsaw (1705).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A ton of German maps in danger of deletion from Commons

I just discovered a somewhat stale but still unresolved deletion discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/IEGMaps. Input appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Territorial changes of GE and PL in the 20th cty

Analogous merger proposals at Talk:Territorial changes of Germany after World War II#Merge and Talk:Territorial changes of Poland after World War II#Merge, input appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Needed: a category for former German administrative units

There is no category tying for example General Government, Reichskommissariat Ostland or Category:Nazi Gaue to Category:Subdivisions of Germany. I suggest creating a category Category:Former subdivisions of Germany, and within it, creating a category Category:Subdivisions of Nazi Germany, that would be a parent to Nazi Gaue, and many other cats, a subcategory to Category:Subdivisions of former countries (and thus on the same logical level as States of the North German Confederation). Further, we need an article on Administrative division of the Nazi Germany (similar to the one we have on the Administrative division of the German Democratic Republic). I also think that some categories and articles from Category:Geography of Germany (such as Government regions of Germany or Districts of Germany) should be moved to the subdivision category.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - this also includes former districts and smaller units that currently get culled in the barrage of Kreisreorganisationen. ATM you might find former districts ect in a subcategory of where they where previously. Agathoclea (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. There is a good category - commons:Category:Maps of the Third Reich with some really nice maps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus and Agathoclea, you both seem to be unaware that neither the General Government nor the Reichskommissariat Ostland were considered as parts of (Nazi) Germany at any point; hence, they are not "Subdivisions of Nazi Germany", let alone "Subdivisions of (non-Nazi) Germany" (in spite of what this user-created map incorrectly suggests). Without prejudice to their respective legitimacy, this would be like calling the Polish zone in Iraq a "Subdividison of Poland". --Thorsten1 (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

True, they were not part of the Greater Germany, they were more like occupation zones indeed. Still, some form of category tying them into German-administered territories is needed, as well as an article on administration of Nazi Germany and Nazi Germany occupied territories. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"they were more like occupation zones indeed." - cancel the "more like" and you have a statement that actually makes sense. I also wonder why such a category is supposed to be "needed" here, when (to my knowledge) no such category exists in the vast literature on Nazi Germany and WWII. There's nothing wrong with creating a category or an article comparing administrative units inside Germany with occupied territories, but let's be careful not to fall into the trap of original research here. --Thorsten1 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've created the Administrative division of Nazi Germany. By all means, feel free to improve it! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

@Piotruś: "I've created the Administrative division of Nazi Germany." So that was you?! And I always used to believe it was the greatest commander of all times... You live and learn. --Thorsten1 (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

University of Straßburg

user:89.243.246.161 is changing in some articles the title from University of Straßburg to University of Strasbourg. I have not the slightest clue if this is necessary for people teaching there between 1871 and 1918?--Stone (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Silesian duchies

Right now all Silesian duchies use modern Polish instead of the old historical names. As far as I know this is against WP:EN and WP:NCON, which state: "Always ensure that names are used in an historically accurate context and check that the term is not used anachronistically, e.g. using France as a synonym for Roman Gaul, or Edo to refer to modern Tokyo.". [3] I started with the Duchy of Ziębice, moved it to Duchy of Münsterberg (Ziębice) and fixed the names in the article, but admin Piotrus doesn't seem to like this. Karasek (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, Piotrus knows better. He once lectured to German speaking editors that Oppau is the real German name for Troppau (Opava, Opawa). And the result of this? The other editor got chased away, plus edit restriction and block for me for trolling a closed 3RR case. And the article today still says "Duchy of Troppau (Vévodství opavské, Herzogtum Oppau)". Occasionally, I have a look at it, as a reminder for the way English Wikipedia works. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds very strange. Oppau will be only rarely used in German historiography for the Duchy of Troppau; the exemption cannot be the lexical rule. Regarding the consequences of this Oppau misjudgement (chased away, edit restriction, block ) the responsible user should say sorry! - Elysander (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Aren't WP:NCON and WP:EN unambiguous? If I can provide sources about the historical names of the duchies and the use in the English speaking world at that time they have to be moved and named according to the Gdansk vote?! Or is this just my interpretation? Karasek (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Danzig/Gdansk vote is only about naming within articles, not about article names, where double naming is discouraged in general (imagine Switzerland-related articles getting names in 4 languages). Yet by now we have some articles with a "compromise" double name, like Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk).-- Matthead  Discuß   14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Polish names are the historical ones used by local population. The German ones were limited to documents back then as there was no Polish legal language at time, so German was used. --Molobo (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Everybody who writes German is Polish, that's a well known fact. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thus all Polish Wikipedians are welcome on the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board, too. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If it weren't so annyoing, it would be amusing to see how people keep trying and read history backwards and force modern concepts onto century-old matters, be it about Danzig/Gdańsk, Copernicus/Kopernik or whatever. Molobo claims that "The Polish names are the historical ones used by local population. The German ones were limited to documents back then as there was no Polish legal language at time, so German was used." I wonder if there is anything correct about this sentence at all. "The Polish names are the historical ones used by local population". What does "historical" mean here? Back then, the local population, either Polish or German-speaking, was largely illiterate and therefore left behind few written documents. Regardless, many of those places were established by German-speaking settlers that the local princes had intentionally invited into their underpopulated territories, so the generalization that the "local population" used "Polish names" is unfounded. If at all, such statements can only be made on a case-by-case basis, not for Silesia as a whole. "there was no Polish legal language at time". Of course not, but then there was no German legal language, either... "so German was used." Complete nonsense again: Latin was the legal language. Latin documents used Latinized forms of whatever was name was locally common at any given time - such as Ducatus Monsterbergensis for the Duchy of Münsterberg/Ziębice, if .pl is to be trusted. The question of what is the only "correct" form to be used in en.wikipedia is simply undecidable, any decision will have to be compromise. Apart from that, what a place was called has absolutely no bearing on what country it belongs to, or should belong to, 800 years on. To state that the most common name of a place in 1209 was, say "Münsterberg", doesn't imply that it should belong to Germany in 2009. Conversely, stating that it was "Ziębice" in 1209 doesn't imply that its being part of Poland in 2009 was the only legitimate status. One has got nothing to do with the other, no matter how hard a time certain editors terrified by German backbenchers have understanding this. If we knew what the Celts called Kraków [4], we might use that name wherever appropriate without establishing any Irish political claims to it whatsoever. So please stop bitching, guys. --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of "there was no German legal language" - there was, also in Silesia, where in addition to Latin, German documents appeared at the beginning of the 14th century, and by the end of that century, German dominated the secular area, Latin in the clerical circles. Upper Silesia had some Czech documents, while Polish was not used in official correspondence, and not even in Poland proper. Interesting bilingual (French/German) articles at the conference "La langue des actes, Actes du XIe Congrès international de diplomatique", by Polish and Czech scholars:

• Tomasz Jurek: Die Urkundensprache im mittelalterlichen Schlesien [5], Polnische, tschechische und deutsche Ritter in Schlesien [6]
• Ivan Hlavácek: Die Nationalsprachen in den böhmisch-mährischen Stadtkanzleien der vorhussitischen Zeit. [7]
• Maria Bláhová: Die Sprache der Herrscherurkunden im Böhmen der premyslidischen Zeit (bis 1306) : Stilistik, Formular, Terminologie [8]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthead (talk • contribs) Thorsten1 (talk)

Matthead, you can always argue about details, of course. Even if "German dominated the secular area" by the end of the 14th century, this would be quite irrelevant to the argument at hand, as the arrival of German settlers and the establishment of municipalities in Silesia was already well past its peak then. What is important here is that Molobo's insinuation that, in medieval Silesia, German was merely a bureaucratic language which foreign aggressors forced onto a Polish-speaking majority population, is indefensible. --Thorsten1 (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a view documents, please have a look. Karasek (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hans Kroll

Molo surely was constantly adding misleading, insinuating and incorrect stuff, to say it very mildly.

Here is another matter:

What is your opinion about the following entries (and other similar ones) ?: To me they are clearly false.

at Hans Kroll addition

added again

more added

again, this time by a partner

Observing (70.133.64.127 (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC))

I did make an edit to underline the place of birth (Prussia, Imperial Germany) plus additonal hints to polish town, the place of death etc. .. and found me totally reverted. ;) A little bit strange phenomenon. But I'm not interested to be engaged with edit warriors. - Elysander (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

When you (and others) are not interested, the edit warriors win. It seems some of them are convinced they get away with everything. Kudos to our impeccable admins. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Maria Cunitz

Could someone please have a look here: Maria Cunitz. I added two very credible sources which both state that her father was German, but both of these sources get removed all the time because, allegedly, the sources don't state clearly enough that he really was a German. Karasek (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

German Wikipedia is not a source.--Jacurek (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources used are the German National Library and a project created by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and several important German librarys, like the Bavarian State Library, the Berlin State Library or the Saxon State Library. I never used German Wikipedia, just the German Wiktionary (and Duden) to show what "dt." means. Karasek (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well you did[[9]]. The above sources also do not convince me that he was a pure German and not a Silesian for example, as people often did think about themselves at the time. Remember, nationality was not as important for them then. If he was a pure German then there must be something better than the sources you provided. Also please read the message I have left on your talk page, because I was serious. I think you should do what I suggested and then we should try to find a solution. I have few ideas already but first you have to act. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If nationalities weren't important at that time, why are most of your edits about her nationality then? And academic sources aren't good enough?. Karasek (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion about this specific case, but national states, where you are expected to choose an exclusive national identity, are a relatively recent phenomenon. It's often inappropriate to make claims about the nationality of historical people. With more recen people you can see the English Wikipedia is often less precise in this respect than the German one, e.g. calling Peter Ustinov British where the German lets it open for good reasons, or calling Rudi Carrell Dutch without any qualifications when he was actually one of the most popular figures on West German television (where he played the Dutch show master). You can argue that Ustinov was British and Carrell was Dutch, based on their nationalities at birth. If you try this for people in the 18th century you are not going to get "German" as a result: It was an identity, not a nationality.

It's only natural that famous historical personalities are often claimed by two countries now, in cases such as Silesia. Hans Adler 08:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't my problem, the problem is that I added some credible German sources which get deleted because they allegedly aren't reliable, or wrong, or because a abbreviation is used, or whatever. Karasek (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading parts of the talk page: I don't want to get involved with this nonsense, although I do understand how one can be drawn into it. When I see people insisting on sources that call someone a "pure ethnic German" before you can call him "German", then I must say there is obviously something very wrong. Overall, it looks as if the article perhaps overstates the "Polish" part, but it's not as bad as I thought it would be. A worse problem is that the article gives undue weight to this question, with even a "Nationality" section.

I am not familiar with any details of Silesian history, but in general I think one should be careful both with German sources claiming someone to be German and with Polish sources claiming someone to be Polish. I guess all of this doesn't really help you. Sorry for that. Hans Adler 09:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but maybe you can confirm my interpretation of the two sources... ;)

Regarding these discussions. I usually try to stay away from them, since most of the time the usual suspects, without any knowledge of the person, the time and the place, pop in and start their usual game. I don't know the person, but I know the time and place, and can assure you that biographies like this sometimes get distorted to a point where the history of the place and the persons living there aren't compatible in any way anymore. Karasek (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously "dt." means "German" in a German document, unless it's an extremely old document or there is strong contrary evidence such as an alternative meaning. But it's not entirely clear what "German" means. Hans Adler 11:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

German speaker requested in AfD discussion

At the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gefängnis Zürich deletion discussion it has been speculated that a German speaker will more easily be able to determine the presence or absence of reliable sources about the subject (a prison in Zürich). Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment there as a German speaking Wikipedian. Barras (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Same here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janice Behrendt. Thanks! Location (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Miramar problem and de.Wiki

It seems that de.Wiki are unaware of the problem of the Miramar website changing its links on a monthly basis. We at WP:SHIPS have {{cite Miramar}} to work around this. I corrected a link in the de:Hilda (1883) article so that it now points to the stable url. Can someone let de.Wiki know of this problem and how to work around it. Mjroots (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should explain the issue to de:Benutzer:Merlissimo (User:Merlissimo) who is handling many such problems in the German wikipedia and also a bot operator for doing mass replacing of link. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped him a note. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

John Barnett Humphreys

Copied from WT:SHIPS
Beaverbear (talk · contribs) posted the following on my talk page. I'm afraid I cannot help so I'm passing it on for a wider audience.

Hello Mjroots, having you by chance some information about John Barnett Humphreys. Please have a look at de:John Barnett Humphreys. We have no information about the birthday, the live after return to England and the death of him. Thank you for help.

Any German speaking editors able to assist him? Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Zaphiro

I've just indef blocked Zaphiro (talk · contribs), who claims to be this person of the same name on the German-language Wikipedia. I suspect this is a case of impersonation as Zaphiro seems to be active on the German-language Wikipedia (filing some vandalism reports?) and doesn't seem to be ruffling any feathers. However, I cannot speak German. It appears that someone has been impersonating Zaphiro on other Wikipedia projects de:Benutzer Diskussion:Zaphiro#Wie wärs mal mit. Could someone please contact him and let him know of the situation here? Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I will contact him. Sincerely, Stefan64 (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that information, the account with my name was created by a well-known vandalist on german-language wikipedia. I will sign up for SUL to avoid such problems in future. Best regards, Zaphiro from de.WP--89.12.118.227 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, could anyone move that vandalism-account to an another nickname? I want to create a regular account under my SUL nick, sorry about my bad english, thank you very much. Zaphiro from german wikipedia--89.12.118.227 (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:User de-N

Dear administrators, please change the protection level of the Template:User de-N. In this version was showed anti-german propaganda on many user pages! --Grossenhayn (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments appreciated in article on German play

The article on the famous German play The Deputy by documentary playwright Rolf Hochhuth has been tagged for lack of neutrality recently. A controversy takes place on the discussion page on material that is potentially libellous to the living author. I would like to avoid an imminent edit-war and would therefore like to broaden the discussion (which increasingly drifts off into a political instead of a literary direction). --Diggindeeper (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

O Du Fröhliche

O Du Fröhliche is one of my favorite Christmas songs. So I just used Google Translate and an elementary understanding of German to translate the German page into English. I'm sure I got something wrong though! I'd appreciate a check. It's a beautiful song. It deserves a well written article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.105.206 (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)