User talk:Sca/Archive02

A statement about Danzig
(This is a comment I left on User Molobo's page in response to his attempt to suggest that Danzig was "occupied" by Germany in 1939 and "liberated" by the Soviet Union in 1945.)

This is an absurd argument. The city was separated from Germany, of which it had been part, in a political act by the Western victors in World War I. It remained the same city, ethnically German. When Nazi Germany "occupied" Danzig in 1939, the justification given by the Nazi regime was of course that it was being returned to Germany -- which was true.

A vast majority of the ethnic-German residents of Danzig would have welcomed being returned to Germany whoever was in power in Germany. That it was Hitler and his criminal regime ultimately was to prove tragic for the Danzigers, who after this world war were to lose not only their political status but also their hometown itself. And of course, a fourth of them lost their lives.

Nazi Germany occupied Poland and many other places in Europe during the war, but it's ridiculous to say Germany "occupied" Danzig -- it reclaimed Danzig (for five and a half years).

To argue that ethnically German Danzig was "liberated" by the Soviets, who kicked the Danzigers out and gave the city to Poland, is just total BS – unless it's your view that Danzig had been "occupied" since the 14th century by Germans, which would be a confession of hysterical Polish ultra-nationalism.

Tell me, Pan Molobo, do you also consider L'wow and Wilna to have been "liberated" by the Red Army in 1939?

In American English we have a humorous usage of "liberated." When someone steals something, he may jokingly say he has "liberated" it. This is exactly the sense in which Danzig was "liberated" in 1945, though in a violent and bloody manner.

Now just don't accuse me of being pro-Nazi. This is just basic logic. The Soviets in 1945 stole Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia from Germany and gave most of it to Poland to "compensate" Poland for their having stolen eastern Poland in 1939 in the deal with Hitler. The fact the it was Nazi Germany that started the war in the first place doesn't change the nature of what happened to the territories affected and the people living in them.

Sca 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "returned" territories
For anyone who's interested, I posted this statement on User Space Cadet's page regarding the Polish tendancy to refer to the Oder-Neisse territories as "returned territories."

It would be one thing if some province or provinces of Country A were occupied for a relatively short time by Country B, then returned to Country A, as was the case with Nazi Germany's occupation and (attempted) annexation of the so-called "Wartheland" in 1939. This area was indeed returned to Poland, only 5 years after it's detachment. Although the Nazis persecuted the Poles living there and expelled quite a number of them to what remained of Poland at the time (the so-called "Gouvernement General"), the area didn't lose its Polish character, and this act of geopolitical theft was not accepted internationally, as it was an act of aggression.

It's different when an area goes from one country or national group to another gradually over a long period of time in which the area develops in accordance with the later country or national group's culture and economy, and becomes thoroughly populated by the later nation. This was the case with the parts of Germany annexed by Poland and the Soviet Union at Stalin's insistence in 1945. They had been gradually Germanized over a period of centuries beginning in about 1250.

In the modern era, Germans from these areas contributed much to German culture and commerce. Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia were distinct regions of the German realm, and their loss was for Germany like an amputation of limbs from the body. I realize that this cataclysm was set in motion by German aggression and atrocities, but that does not change the fact that what happened to the Germans of this region was in every sense an act of ethnic cleansing, and the second-largest example of it in recorded history. This should not be ignored.

My analogy with the former Mexican states of the U.S. is not a perfect one – all analogies break down somewhere – but it does offer one notable parallel: When part of Mexico, this area was thinly populated; after it became part of the U.S., it developed quickly and within half a century was home to growing cities that became important to the U.S. economically and culturally. Today California is the most populous state in the U.S., with a population over 30 million. When it was Mexican, it had perhaps a few hundred thousand inhabitants.

In broad terms, development of a similar magnitude occurred in Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig and East Prussia during the centuries they were within the German "reach." Major German cities developed – Breslau, Stettin, Danzig, Königsberg – and before WWII the territories were home to about 10 million Germans. In relation to Germany's population, this was roughly comparable to the proportion of Americans who live in the ex-Mexican states today.

Space Cadet, please understand I am not suggesting the territories should be given back to Germany now or ever, nor do any Germans outside the lunatic fringe suggest that. I'm just saying that this whole episode was a very major geopolitical and ethnographic upheaval in recent times, and should be known along with all the other horrors of the WWII era.

Sca 19:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello!
I don't think we have met before on Wikipedia, but I thought I might introduce you to the reference desk - you might find helping out there quite rewarding. See you around! --HappyCamper 04:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you a Pole? :)
I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo. Just search for your username. If you would like a 'honorable Pole' badge or something, I think you have just qualified ;p --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Ghirlandajo seems convinced you are a Pole :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Kensington runestone
Dear Sca. The Kensington runestone is really fascinating. Just like some other possible hoaxes, it is extremely difficult to know whether it is one or not. All I can say is that it can very well be an authentic runestone, but I don't think we can ever be sure.--Wiglaf 09:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

'Poetic license'

 * Hi, your "poetic license" is very nice. Of course every real Pole (and I am one) would argue that Danzig was German for a few centuries only and then it returned back to Poland. But let's leave this aside. What surprised me is that you think that Germans should refer to modern Danzig as "Gdańsk". While it's still Danzig in German. Should English use München for Munich then ? (feel free to ignore my question if you do not appreciate the little chat here). --Lysy (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The situations of Gdansk and München are not the same, because in the case of Gdansk, the city before 1945 was known officially as Danzig and was called Danzig by its inhabitants (except for a small Polish minority, about 3.5% of its population). München has never officially been Munich and has never been known as such by its inhabitants. Hypothetically speaking: If in 1945 the Germans had been expelled from Bavaria by the conquering U.S. Army, and had been replaced over the next few years by American settlers who transformed München into an English-speaking city and changed the its name to Munich, then the two situations would be the same, and the Germans would be obliged to refer to the city as Munich.

All analogies break down somewhere, however. In this case, München has indeed long been known to the English- (and French-) speaking world as Munich. Presumably, this anglicization came about because the German Ü and CH sounds are too difficult for linguistically unskilled English speakers to pronounce (as, by the way, is much more the case with Szczecin, which is a virtual impossibility for non-Slavs). Consequently, it's not reasonable to demand that English speakers refer to München by its real name. But it is possible for English- (and German-) speakers to pronounce Gdansk, however imperfectly.

Again, the city that today is Gdansk was known everywhere outside the Slavic world, before the postwar changes, as Danzig. If you search for "Danzig" on the New York Times archival page, you will get hundreds if not thousands of hits on articles about the city's status in the interwar period and its history during the war and immediately thereafter. Hits on "Gdansk" start much later, of course, and are related mainly to Solidarnosc and Lech Walesa.

Now a question for you: Why would a "real Pole" have to claim the city as Polish even during centuries in which it was inhabited mainly by Germans (with a few Flemmings thrown in)? (Of course, all this has been argued at length before on Wiki.)

Sca 19:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the time taken in explaining this. I'm afraid I still do not share your view that Germans should be using "Gdansk" name instead of "Danzig" (similarly as they don't use "Roma" instead of "Rom", "Praha" for "Prag" or "Moskwa" for "Moskau"). In Polish we do say "Londyn", "Mediolan", "Akwizgran", "Rzym", "Gandawa" and not "London", "Milano", "Aachen", "Roma" or "Gent" and this is not because they are difficult to pronounce or because London was once conquered by Poles, but simply they are the same names in another language. Check out Names_of_European_cities_in_different_languages.
 * As to your question: "Why would a "real Pole" have to claim the city as Polish ..." firstly, I've been a bit sarcastic saying this (using the "real Pole" term should signify this already). But there is some truth to it indeed. Gdansk has been Polish before all its inhabitants were murdered by Teutonic Knights, who then literally replaced its population. And then again it was a part of Poland, since 15th century. Should the Poles slaughter or expell all the German inhabitants then to make it more Polish ? The fact that it was inhabitated by Germans does not mean it was a German city. For similar reason Lithuanians say that Vilnius was a Lithuanian city, not Polish even if it had no Lithuanian population until recently. I know I'm oversimplifying it here and the analogy is not 100% true. I'm sure you know that Danzig attempted to resist the Prussian occupation during the partitions of Poland. --Lysy (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your response on my page: I suspect that you, like many Poles, may be overstating the conduct of the Teutonic Knights. I do think that Poles generally are heavily influenced by a nationalistic, romanticized version of their country's early history – just as the Germans were similary influenced in the 19th and early 20th centuries by such people as Treitschke. You no doubt will disagree. But at least you probably can agree that pre-1308, Gdansk was a small settlement, and it was developed as a key city and port mainly during the following centuries and mainly (until 1945) by Germans.

Beyond that, I've already discussed the issue of old Danzig having been politically part of the Polish state in the late Middle Ages extensively with Halibutt. The fact that it was enfoeffed to the Polish Crown doesn't change the history of its ethnicity, which from an English-speaking point of view is the main issue historically.

If you read English books, I recommend Geoffrey Barraclough's "The Origins of Modern Germany." Or if you read German, Hermann Schreiber's "Die Deutschen und der Osten." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sca&action=edit&section=19 Sca 23:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's interesting that you say that Poles usually overstate the role of the Teutonic Knights. It might be very true indeed as the Knights were always depicted as the Evil Enemy in Poland, whether in 19th or 20th century. On the other hand, they were equally important in Lithuanian history, so maybe it is the West, who under-states their role ? After all it's Poles, not e.g. the Spaniards who dealt with them, so who would know better ? But all I said here was that they have slaughtered all the citizens of the city and replaced them with Germans. I think these are historic facts, regardless of the point of view. I also do not doubt that the city was primarily developed by the German people. So what ? Vilnius was developed primarily by Poles, does it make it a Polish city ? I think that kind of thinking is influenced by German idea of an ethnic nation-state. Poland has always been quite diverse ethnically, with Poles, Jews, Ruthenians, Germans, Lithuanians, Ukrainians etc. being its citizens. It is hard to understand why a city is considered to be German only because people spoke German there. From your other comment I understand that you believe that Poles are overly nationalistic in general. You may be very right in that over last 200 years or so Poles had to defend their national identity for most of the time. Given the history of these 200 years, you might be surprised that the level of nationalism in Poland is that low, compared to countries like Russia or Lithuania. What do you think ? Thanks for suggesting the books. --Lysy (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's been a few years since I last read it, but I also recommend Barraclough's work (available on Amazon). His writing style is pretty dry, but he does a good job of explaining how German feudal society developed, especially during the years before the Golden Bull. I agree with Sca that, in English, saying a city is "Polish" or "German" usually indicates the primary ethnicity of it, not that it is affiliated with a Polish or German state; I suppose it is because of the influence of German philosophers on the Anglo-American way of thinking. Regarding the Knights, it has been difficult for me to find adequate sources in English on them. Some authors take a more sympathetic approach to them, while others are very critical. It certainly is true that Poles and Lithuanians had greater interaction with the Knights than Spaniards who might understate their role. However, it should also be considered that some Poles and Lithuanians, as their ethnicities had been primary targets of the Knights and often victimized by them, might overstate the actions of the Knights. I often take a very suspect look at any text written from a nationalistic context, be the author German, Pole, Lithuanian, or Spaniard. Olessi 10:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it has to be taken with caution, especially that, as I said, the Knights had almost been used as a symbol of a national enemy throughout 19th/20th century, probably in order to better consolidate the nation against the powers that partitioned it. So I expect you may be right on this. On the other hand any remote nation would not really care for Teutonic Knights that much, so they would probably unterstate their role in anihilating other remote nations (as you said, it's even difficult to find comprehensive sources in English on them). The truth may be somewhere in the middle. From Polish perspective the Knights were the origin of the later Prussian state and therefore also all the Polish miseries associated with this later, including WW2. --Lysy (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For illustrating this better: the Polish history as it's been taught in Polish schools, has three canonic dates that every pupil knows: 966 - the Baptism of Poland, 1410 - defeating Teutonic Knights at Tannenberg, 1939 - German invasion. --Lysy (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A statement about Frombork, formerly Frauenburg
"Frombork" did not "return to Poland" in 1945 like some long-lost dog coming home. Its population was evicted, and the town was assigned – along with a lot of other German territory – to Poland to make up for or "compensate" for Soviet annexation of eastern Poland.

This was the price Germany paid for having started the war, inflicted all the atrocities, and then lost the war. Whether it was justified or not can be debated. I'm sure Molobo would say it was justified, and many people, especially Poles, would agree with him. Obviously, many if not most Germans would not, and some other people would agree with the Germans, arguing that the German people affected were not primarily those who inflicted all the misery. But this debate is not the issue here or in any of the other debates we've had about formerly German places transferred to Poland in 1945, the prime example being Gdansk/Danzig.

The issue is: What actually happened in 1945 and thereafter? In this case, it was NOT that poor little Polish Frombork "returned" to Poland after 173 years of Prusso-German "rule," a term that implies illegitimacy. It was that Frauenburg – which had been ethnically German for centuries – was emptied out and turned over to Poland by the U.S.S.R. – along with 44,000 square miles of prewar German territory that until then was inhabited by Germans.

Dear Polish freinds, truth is the only way to reconcilation. No one in his right mind expects Poland to give the territories back. Just be honest about how Poland acquired them 61 years ago.

Sca 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedians' noticeboard
Hello Steven! I would like to inform you of the recently created noticeboard for German speakers and German topics. Feel free to participate! Olessi 03:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sca
Thanks for your edifying comments as to my edits to several pages on Gdansk and other now Polish, former German cities and villages. I basically agree with you, though I must say, that as a Roman Catholic (some would brand me even a traditionalist) I do share my religious views with the Polish. But then again, I am Dutch and therefore have easy access to German sources. Don't forget, that the Polish Communists after 1945, supported by "Catholic" Polish nationalists, also expelled all German-speaking religious orders from Silesia and all clergymen from there and from the very Roman Catholic ánd very ethnic German-Prussian area around present Braniewo and Biskupiec (Braunsberg and Bischofsburg, East Prussia/Ermeland). I am still puzzled how intensely anti-German the Polish can be. But as a Dutchman, I do understand them, for more than 3,000,000 Polish were killed during the occupation, among them very many Roman Catholic clergymen. Then again, many Polish Jesuits were in the Silesian Uprisings the first (despite being formally suspended and forbidden to do so by Adolf Cardinal Bertram) to revolt against Imperial Germany and to incite Polish nationalist attacks. It all reminds me of the image many Southern Americans have of their clergy due to Camillo Torres Restrepo the Leftist Priest. To conclude: I also think the Polish should grow up and face objective history and acknowledge that almost 1/3 of their country was formerly in the German cultural and linguistical and political sphere.Smith2006 12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true. Copernicus is par excellence the product of Prussian influence, German Catholic institutions and Polish ancestry. But they don't want to admit that. One can honestly say, that more than half of Poland's major cities are totally German in culture and architecture. Not even Kraków can be exempted, as Austrian (German) baroque influence is visibly there as a remnant of its history as part of Austria-Hungary. Danzig, Torún, Bromberg-Bydgoczsz, Poznan, Katowice even Czestochowa all profited from German influence. The Warsaw and Lithuanian styles were really a bit different. But anyway, it's sad that these objective facts cannot be inserted in Wikipedia, because Polish nationalists will immediately come in.Smith2006 13:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As to Poland's homogeneity: that's an invention by the Polish Communists and Nationalists. The very distinct Kashubian language was forcefully integrated as "Polish", while in fact it was Farwest-Slavic. And the 500,000 ethnic Germans in Upper Silesia, who were polonized by pressure but not totally, are also all too easily forgotten or classified as "Polish" along with the Slavic (mixed German-Slavic) Upper Silesians who remained after 1945, mostly as forced labourers. And they also say the Ukrainians at the MODERN Polish southeast border and those deported to Pomerania, like the Belarus east of Bialystok (where many Orthodox live), are all "Poles". Germany had a similar method of declaring homogeneity before that. They also said all of Masuria was German, while linguistically it was not at all [it was Polish] (while religiously and culturally being German-Lutheran).Smith2006 13:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Only, I think that the Russians are not really "proud" on Königsberg, I just think they consider the past, the past and the consequences just to be accepted. The Russians use German names again for some products, they invite expellees for tourist visits (though visa make it difficult, not VISA Goldcard®). I think the Russians know that what Stalin and the communists did was not alright, but they just accept it now. They are still considering renaming Kaliningrad Königsberg (or Russian: Kyonigsberg) back again. And why not? Does not Kronstadt sound German to you? Yet that is Russian, of history, too. PLease note, that the 97 % Polish have sometimes Kashubian blood in them, as well as sometimes a bit German.Smith2006 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the three groups could gather together under the sign of the lowly tuber — for which my state, sadly, is famous. Hey, hey, I happen to like potatoes. In fact, in our Dutch Lower Saxon dialect, we also use a word derived from Kartoffel, tuffel. Mashed potatoes are a speciality of "high cuisine" of us Dutch!Smith2006 15:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See? This whole discussion started out as an explanation of why the squabble over German place-names still is going on here on Wiki, yet you focus not on the ones to push the German names nor on the ones not to give a darn like yours truly. It takes two to tango, yet in this case there are guys who start and guys who continue. Why not think of the earlier group for a second?
 * Now then, as to RC church in Poland. There are official stats that say that 95% of Poles are members of it. However, these are based on church records, which in turn are based on the number of people baptised. And that number is quite misleading as until relatively lately pretty everyone baptised their children to give them freedom of choice, as my parents put it. This was true to both Roman Catholics and to members of the commie party, who usually did this in secrecy. I was baptised too and I know only a handful of people who were not, regardless of their actual beliefs - or even beliefs of their parents.
 * Finally, I'm Jewish too, there's no contradiction in being both Polish and Jewish. Modern books of the Holocaust for dummies type often make people subconsciously adopt Nazi racial theories: if you have some Jewish roots then you're a Jew, full stop. That's not how it is in the real life, as people here - much like in the US or anywhere else - have mixed backgrounds. Finally, being Jewish is not a matter of lifestyle or what you do on Friday afternoon. Or rather not only. Just like it takes a tad more to be a Roman Catholic than to go to church every Sunday. I know ardent Catholics who have not been to church in ages at all (my grandma for instance).  // Halibutt 10:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course there are Poles who are moderate in their views. Not to approve Polish nationalism, but the Polish Roman Catholic Church is not extremist in its views, well they might be in some propagandistic or the liberal view of many Americans (drawing from the anti-Catholic sentiment of 17th century Protestantism), but then I would be an überExtremist, as I am more conservative than most Polish cardinals in matters of liturgy (Traditional Latin Mass) and doctrine. While in the past and until 1960 the Roman Catholic Church, and still the Radio Maryja clergy (whom I otherwise appreciate to some extent as in which they do not invoke popular sentiment), may have supported Polish nationalism and even claims to the former German territories annexed, these days some Roman Catholic bishops are very much busy on the path of reconciliation with German expellees. It's mainly nationalists and communists opposed to this these days. Please note, that until 1972 the Holy See refused to recognize the communist annexation policy of Stalin and communist Poland and refused to erect new polish dioceses, rename the German ones [e.g. of Breslau and Cardinal Bertram, rip]. Therefore until 1972 there would remain an Apostolic Vicar of Schneidemühl and a diocese of Braunsberg and Breslau. All whose bishops would live in West Germany. I rather would point out the Polish subjugation trauma, along with Slavic nationalism and historical misrepresentation of facts, caused the bloody expulsion and the "recovered" theory.As to being Jewish: rabbinically speaking I would qualify as a full Jew too, but racially speaking the Nazis would enlist me as the most Nordic-Phalian Aryan there is. Like Werner Goldberg. In fact, my greatgrandmother's by maternal line name was Goldberg. In Poland, with more millions of Jews than in the Netherlands (they were all driven out from here in the late Middle Ages to the more tolerant and more trade-like Polish Catholic Kingdom), most of the population has some Jewish blood, especially as always, like in Spain, a small number of them converted to Christendom, out of persuasion or out of economical goals.Smith2006 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When speaking of recent Polish-German relations, one should not forget of the 1965 letter of Polish bishops, which more or less started all the process of reconciliation.  // Halibutt 13:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As to being Jewish. I am rabbinnically Jewish, but I am, as a Roman Catholic, also somewhat anti-Judaist. I am not an Evangelical Dispensationalist. This however does not hinder me from having as my best friend a secular German Jew and to have among my acquaintances some Jews. The Jewish doctor stereotype (I don't say your relationship to your doctor is the same) was fed upon by H. Himmler in his Posener speech, which was not directed to concentration camp officers, but rather to SS-Einsatzgruppen who had to shoot all Jewish males in Soviet territory as possible "communists". Given the perspective of Titus Brandsma (fellow countryman of mine) and Maksymilian Kolbe, both Roman Catholic priests, it must remain clear, that I am virulently opposed to Nazism, even if I may have a certain weakness or sympathy towards Germans, German officers and German history in general. I likewise admire the Kashubians very much, especially for remaining both Catholic ánd Slavic under Germanization and non-Polish after 1945. Sca, I have to thank you instead of otherwise.Smith2006 19:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Günter Grass's wartime service
I think you are conflating different things: Grass was a Flakhelfer while a pupil, Reichsarbeitsdienst after that, Waffen-SS after that. Certainly, your "labor service of a Waffen SS panzer unit" sounds totally garbled. By the way, I wrote the sentence about Flakhelfer experience based on what I recall about the characters in Cat and Mouse. If it is inaccurate, please improve. Leibniz 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have indeed caught me reading too quickly. I misunderstood the following sentence from Spiegel: Grass wurde mit 17 einberufen und kam vom Arbeitsdienst zur Panzerdivision "Frundsberg," die zur Waffen-SS gehörte. However, the sentence before this one did give me the impression that Grass had not been an anti-aricraft auxiliary:  Der "Blechtrommel"-Autor war nicht wie bislang bekannt lediglich 1944 als Flakhelfer ingezogen worden.


 * This information came across on Spiegel's English-language site as: From the middle of 1944 until the end of the war in the spring of 1945, Grass served in the Frundsberg tank division of the elite military outfit. Previously, he had contended that he was a teenage helper of an anti-aircraft unit.


 * You may be in position to clear up this (minor) question about his service as a Flakhelfer prior to his induction into the Frundsberg Division.

Sca 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just trying to get the facts straight. The ratio of facts to verbiage on GG in the last few days has not always been favourable. Leibniz 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Danzig
Yup, that's precisely what I proposed at Talk:Gdansk several years ago and that's precisely what was accepted as a wiki consensus (albeit with strange timeframes). And that's precisely what I support in the case of other cities as well, be them Polish, German or any other.  // Halibutt 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps your definition of "German times" vis-a-vis Danzig/Gdańsk is different than mine. My view is, it was German ethnically from 1308 to 1945, and ought to be referred to as Danzig during that time. I believe you argued for Gdańsk from the 14XX through 17XX for poltical reasons.


 * Sca


 * Yup, I still believe that political allegiance is something more tangible (and definable) than imagined ethnicity of the larger part of the inhabitants.  // Halibutt 06:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Imagined ethnicity? It's a matter of language, culture and ancestry, none of which are imagined, at least not in Europe. (In the American melting pot it's more complicated.)


 * Would it help any if I explained the nuances of my position, which have to do with reader perception, or would we be beating a dead horse?

Sca 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sca, there's no population censuses dating back to 14th century. We could assume that the people of this or that city used this or that language back then or felt members of this or that culture. However, it is by no means tangible or scientific (in the strict meaning of the word). The political situation is much easier to check as the borders are something easy to check. But I have no intention to discuss that any further, it's been discussed over and over again, and I don't think either of us could say anything that hasn't been said already.  // Halibutt 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree to disagree.
 * Sca 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Inhabitants Records of Danzig
Sca and Halibutt

I happened to come across this conversation. Please excuse me for butting in. I will just make this onetime comment. Halibutt, you have incorrect assumptions, probably because a particular group of people at wikipedia are working hard for years to keep true and accurate information off wikipedia. But records do exist.

The official records of inhabitants of Danzig go all the way back to the Reformation, when the new evangelical protestant churches started keeping records of every person born; see sample Documents of Danzig Inhabitants Keep clicking on the church records. and click further. This will bring you back to appr 1530's. Inhabitants are documented at: Taufen, Heiraten, Tote (baptism, marriage, death). The Family History Centers of the LDS Latter Day Saints started filming these church records in 1922, when parts of Germany were 'given' to Poland and to other countries. It is true, that before the Reformation no condensed records by the Catholic church were kept, but for that earlier time there are Preußische Regesten scattered in many different places, which have references to individual people and to their plots of land as well. Labbas 8/22/2006

--

Jadger
LOL, you know what, I get that all the time! strange isn't it? I never thought so many people in Canada knew who Frederick the Great was, but I get stopped on the street all the time.

LOL, people have been changing my userpage according to new rules since I last edited it, and i hadn't bothered to look at it, that's the reason, it used to have more on it.

--Jadger 01:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for sending it, at my first oppurtunity I will read it.

{{talkarchive]] --Jadger 17:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

English wikipedia not for Germans, Poles or Russians ?
I'm writing my remark here, since it's not relevant to the article itself. In Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II you wrote: Keep in mind that this article supposedly is being written for English speakers, not for Germans, Poles or Russians. You'd be surprised how many English speakers there are in Europe. It's good to think that English wikipedia is not only intended for native speakers but for all English speakers worldwide. With this perspective, the US are in minority (just wanted to mention it as many US editors tend to think that this is a US or British wikipedia). --Lysytalk 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's a delusion that most of the readers of en.wiki are native English speakers. Also, my experience is that most of the editors I'm meeting on en.wiki are not native English speakers at all. I wonder if your observations are very different. P.S. thanks for the paper. --Lysytalk 23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But what is Wikipedia, really? is a good question but not to be answered without at least a weekly supply of beer. Certainly it is not an encyclopedia as we used to know it. Also the role of English is rapidly changing and a large portion of people while not fluent in English still use that language to communicate and to look for information. Thanks for discussing this with me (I only wanted to make a point that it's not that obvious that English wikipedia is intended for native speakers). --Lysytalk 06:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)