Talk:Marie Huber

Geneva was not Swiss before 1815
Geneva was not part of Switzerland before 1815 (that is, not any time before 1815). Except during a brief 15 years period (when it was part of France, and not of Switzerland), it was an independent state from 1541 to 1815. Moreover, there isn’t any historically recognized notion of  Swiss ethnicity which could justify considering people from Geneva before that time to be « Swiss ». And the fact that some categories of craftsmen, politicians, scientists or theologians exist with the qualificative « Swiss » and not (yet) with the qualificative « Genevan », is in no way a good reason to classify a person in a wrong category. Sapphorain (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In English Wikipedia, these categories are usually used to categorize in accordance to current borders and nationalities.
 * American people of the 17th-century are categorized as Americans despite the fact that the USA did not exist prior to the late 18th-century. Finland was only a Swedish province until 1809, but still have its own categories, because it is an independent nation now. Greece was not a united nation until 1830, but still have these categories. Similarly, Geneva may not have been a part of Switzerland prior to 1815, but because Geneva is apart of Switzerland today, Genevan people may still be categorized as Swiss, simply because we use the categories in accordance to current borders.
 * This can be somewhat incorrect, but the categories are made foremost to find people of history within current nations, and the result is that it is impossible to be completely historically accurate. The borders changed so many times on the same places, there has been so many states that does no longer exist, so many provinces that are not nations, and so forth, that it is impossible to adjust categories to all of them. The only solution is to adjust to current borders: even if that is also incorrect, it is sadly the best we can do.
 * If we where to be completely historically accurate, these categories would, in the end, have to be deleted entirely, because the further in history you go back, the more the borders changed. Further, many historical states have no such categories at all, because that would make the access to information too hard to find in a Wikipedia where information should be so easy to find as possible.
 * So the reason is simple: the more one think about it, the more one may come to realize, that one has no other choice than to adjust to modern borders and nationalities, because too adjust to the borders of history would in end lead to such chaos that the categories would have to be deleted entirely. That would be a great shame, because the categories are used for people who need to find people active in the history within the borders of present-day countries. That is, unfortunately, the only thing you can do if you want these useful system to exist.
 * I myself do not want to press matters or participate in long discussions in Wikipedia, so I to not like to press matters, but I write this simply to explain, and perhaps be of some help. I hope I have been of some help to you, because I understand how this matter can make one wonder. My best wishes, --Aciram (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You write that « these categories are usually used to categorize according to current borders » . But this doesn’t seem to be quite true. For instance Schopenhauer is categorised as German, although he is originally from Dantzig (Gdansk), now in Poland (and it would of course be absurd to classify him as Polish). And for instance the people from colonial Texas and Mexican Texas are categorized as Spanish or Mexicans, not as Americans (and it would as well be absurd to classify them as Americans (« American » meaning here of course « citizen of the United States »)). For similar reasons I think it is completely absurd to classify as « Swiss », for instance, a Genevan theologian of Calvin’s time.
 * I admit that it is sometimes difficult to be completely accurate. But I think you are being pessimistic in claiming it is impossible in all cases. You write that « The borders changed so many times on the same places, …, that it is impossible to adjust categories to all of them » Maybe so, but certainly not in the case of Geneva. Indeed for 250 years it was an independent republic, and its borders didn’t change at all during that long period of time (longer by the way than the period during which it has been Swiss, which it has been for 200 years only!).
 * Besides, there is a big difference compared to examples such as « Greek », or « Italian » : people speaking Greek have been called Greeks for several thousands of years; the Italian peninsula has been called « Italia » for nearly two thousands years; whereas nobody before the 19th century would have called « Swiss » a Genevan. Simply because historically there has never been a « Swiss » ethnicity. There were of course Helvetii in nearby regions (very) long ago; but they moved (very) long ago also, and anyway Geneva (« Genava » ) was never in their territories: it was part of the Allobroges territories at the time of the Helvetii. Sapphorain (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)