Talk:Treaty of Ribe

German editors feel free to contribute.
I've written most of this article and has noticed that a user has nominated it to be checked for POV. I have no problem with this what so ever, but I would have preferred if he'd given more specific comments as to what parts of it he disagrees to, instead of just tagging the page with, effectively, "I don't like it, but won't tell why".

I shall be the first to admit that my original draft contained a number of typos especially regarding the list of Holy Roman Emperors. This is one of the things happening when writing at two o'clock in the night. I've later double-checked and corrected these names. The only one I haven't been able to completely identify is "Ulrich of Mecklenburg". I'm not sure that Danish history books name him accurately. My source for that name is almost 100 years old. He might have been from not of Mecklenburg. But my sources are not good enough to tell. I've later re-written the article several times, including a complete overhaul.

The article is mostly based on Danish sources, since I don't have access to the relevant German ones. What prompted me to re-write it was that I found a number of pages on the Schleswig issue to be heavily biased in German favour. Not surprisingly, since most English books rely solely on German material. Seeing the old slander "protocol-king" on a related page was not the only thing offending me. Consequently, I re-wrote most of this article, and tried to replace generalisations with a chronology of events. Anyone with German references are very welcome to contribute to the article and all opinions are respected. But I will resent anti-Danish propaganda. My regards. --Valentinian 11:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Forget the part about identifying "Ulrich of Mecklenburg". Apparently, a certain Ulrich I of Mecklenburg-Stargard died in 1417. It appears, he's the only contemporary count with that name. --Valentinian 12:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right many pages about Slesvig/Schleswig being biased. I attempted to re-write some pages in the German Wikipedia, rather by extending and balancing them than replacing traditional German views. But I have seen German hardliners reverting it very often. This group of people are in no way representative for the democratic history tradition developed after 1945, but rather a minority trying to conserve a pre-WWI history tradition. You may say I could be biased because I am a Dane (not from the border area, though), but I believe there is a major difference between Danish and Scandinavian historical views on Sleswick on one side, and the rest of the world's historians on the other. Less so because of sympathies, and more because of the fact that all Danish historians would be able to read German sources aswell, whereas German (and other) historians would not know the Danish language and not be able to read Danish sources and the Danish version of the story. So I dare to say that among German scholars and amateur historians there is some lack of balanced knowledge about the subject.

Also, there has always being a tendency to talking about different aspects on either side. German historical tradition focuses on treaties, constitutions and the culture of the educated, whereas Danish tradition focuses on actual policies, individuals, cultural heritage and the language of the rural populace. This was evident already in 1830 when Uwe Jens Lornsen launched his constitution project for a (German) Schleswigholstein, without the hyphen, and in 1832 Christian Paulsen issued a rejoinder defending the Danish language and cultural heritage. They were, to some extent, talking at cross purposes. This is somehow what happens even today when Wikipedians write about Slesvig/Schleswig.

Another thing: Wouldn't it be appropriate to make a Sleswick Portal with all the articles about the region. The history is so complicated, with a great amount of articles that need to have a main access rather than crisscross links. The English name, even if it has become obsolete, would be neutral in this context. --Sasper 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)