Talk:Centre Against Expulsions

Archives

Information removed

The article is BdV propaganda-the information about the truth that Nazi Germany soldier's daughter is being removed. Information that people removed support for this center is removed. Information about claims of the center is removed. --Gwinndeith (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Your edits were made in good faith. Yet, you may want to make yourself familiar with the policies linked in the welcome message on your talk page. This is not the Steinbach article, details of her life are WP:UNDUE here. Also be careful not to violate WP:BLP. For the "claims" the "center" makes: This article is about the project in Berlin, not about the scholary debate when "Gdanzig" was founded, WP:UNDUE. Please add information where appropriate and keep your language neutral, see WP:WTA. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.The withrdaw of support by former supporter is notable and should be in the article. 2.Some details of Steinbach life's are more important then others-here the nature of her controversy to opponents is notable and needs to be covered. 3.Show me "scholary debate" about begining of Gdańsk-there ain't one. Show me a scholar that denies it was founded by Mieszko. BdV is a political organization not scholar. 4.Remove the POV template after the discussion is over.--Gwinndeith (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To 1) depends on how notable it is. It would be if he was the only supporter or one who has something to say about the center, which is not the case. To 2) To insert that Steinbach is the "daughter of a Nazi soldier" etc is a schoolbook example of a WP:UNDUE violation and may even violate WP:BLP. These are both core policies that must not be violated. To 3) The burgh of Danzig was probably founded by Miezko, the town certainly not. This has NOTHING to do with the center against expulsions. To 4) You must outline a WP:NPOV violation at talk, otherwise tagging is not valid. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.It is notable-media have reported on it calling it important.2. Maybe it is undue for you but for 38 milion country next door to Germany involved in dispute it is not undue. Fact of her birthplace is needed to understand why this is controversial.3 Your opinion is not important, the city dates its beginning to Mieszko. You haven't showed any scholars as I asked you that would confirm the debate exists. It has everything to do with Centre as it is published by Centre itself. 4. I outlined them above and here, as you are part of dispute you can't judge if I am right or wrong as you are a side to it. --Gwinndeith (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To 1) ok let's mention him along with the others, but not with a whole paragraph. To 2) This is not about "me" and "Poland". You misunderstand WP:NPOV, a policy of how sources are to be presented. To 3) no connection to the center. To 4) I am not part of any scholary dispute.

Regarding the section "Jewish criticism" you introduced: A Polish Jew and a German Jew don't make Jewish criticism. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To 3) no connection to the center. Directly connected to the center as it makes the claims. 1. Oppose, mention him seperetly as he is most notable person who withdrew support and high moral figure in Germany. 4. Yes, you aren't and you failed to show any scholary dispute over founding of Gdańsk-which you claimed before was disputed by scholars. Centre is not a scholar so they are disputing the founding of Gdańsk by politics. 2. Sources now are wrongly presented and in POV which harms the article. There is lack of critical sources.--Gwinndeith (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Giordano is a notable person. He is not "most notable" in regard to the center, neither is he a "high moral figure" in a sense that the German public shapes their views about the center after his views. He certainly does not deserve an elevated position here, this pretty much would unbalance the article. Neither does Angela Merkel have her own paragraph here, who certainly has exponentially more weight, and I'd oppose her having one. Now Gdansk. You were the one who introduced the foundation date of Gdansk to the article and said the "center" (which does not yet exist btw) has made untrue claims. When I replied that this article "not about the scholary debate when Gdanzig was founded". Thereby I intended not to go in any further detail. It is very very unimportant for the project whether the date a burgh was build or the date a town was build and chartered in Gdansk is taken as the foundation date. This has no impact whatsoever for the project center against expulsions. Now please outline what sources are not presented according to WP:NPOV. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable person who was widely noted by media as withdrawing from the project is notable for inclusion. You haven't shown more notable person covered by media who withdrew from the project.--Gwinndeith (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't withdraw from the project. He never was a part of it. He is just a writer who changed his personal oppinion regarding the project. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Centre has a webpage and it is within this article. It is very very unimportant for the project the project is of other opinion, and as seen serves other goals as outlined. Other claims of the centre are that Gdańsk was illegaly part of Poland and Poles were not expelled but "deported" while Germans were "expelled". All those claims are by Centre webpage and notable.--Gwinndeith (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously conclude from the facts that the foundation's website a) gives the date of foundation of Danzig with the year the town received town law and b) that they used "deported" when in your oppinion they should use "expelled", that the center has other goals than those outlined? Come on. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is irrelevent. We should only state facts-such as the Centre claims Poles were deported not expelled, lowers their number, Gdańsk was "illegaly" Polish and so on. Obviously the center message isn't only about the post-1945 transfer of Germans to Germany. I saw nowhere the information about settelement of milions of Germans to Germanizse conquered countries-notable lack of information. I see that you dropped your opposition to including Jewish survivors criticism and other parts that will make this article neutral.--Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"My opinion is irrelevent.". Exactly.

"We should only state facts" Yes, but thereby adhere to wikipolicies. Relevant policies are WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:WTA. I created sections for the issues you want to introduce, so we have issue-related discussions and not a mess. See below.

"Centre claims Poles were deported not expelled"

"Centre claims Poles were deported not expelled" (cut from above statement of --Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"Deportation" and "expulsion": These terms are to a certain degree redundant. Deportation can be a form of expulsion, and this is the case here. Thus, this is no "claim" of the "center" (which btw does not yet exist, you certainly refer to the Foundation Centre agains Expulsions of the Federation of Expellees). Not in any way notable for inclusion in this article. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your and my view are not important. We should just write facts-that the centre calls Germans expelled and Poles deported. Expulsion has unlawflul meaning while deportation has lawflul meaning. Notable.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Centre lowers the number of expelled Poles"

"...lowers their number..." (cut from above statement of --Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

First, if the Foundation Centre agains Expulsions of the Federation of Expellees uses another figure than the one you have in mind, this is not "lowering their number". Second, it is not in the scope of this article to compare/evaluate/list figures of how many Poles were expelled. Not in any way notable for inclusion in this article. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the scope to show what the centre will present and what it already does. --Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gdańsk was "illegaly" Polish"

"Centre claims [...] Gdańsk was "illegaly" Polish" (cut from above statement of --Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Please cite. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will cite in the text.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"center message isn't only about the post-1945 transfer of Germans to Germany."

"center message isn't only about the post-1945 transfer of Germans to Germany." (cut from above statement of --Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, it is not limited to expulsions of Germans, these expulsion are however in the particular focus of the Foundation Centre agains Expulsions of the Federation of Expellees. This is why the line reads "... planned German documentation centre for expulsions and ethnic cleansing, particularly the Expulsion of Germans after World War II." (and not ... "only" ...) Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also documentation for claims like "Gdańsk was illegaly Polish and a German city"-as on the Centre's own page.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"information about settelement of milions of Germans to Germanizse conquered countries"

"I saw nowhere the information about settelement of milions of Germans to Germanizse conquered countries-notable lack of information." (cut from above statement of --Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This is not in the scope of this article. This article is about the planned center, not about specifics of the demography of wartime German populations. Inclusion thus in violation of WP:UNDUE Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported by the link you gave. The statements of the Centre are important just as what it is not saying if it is a important part of the topic it showes-Nazi colonists are important part of that topic that is going to be shown by the Centre. The Centre project is led by a women critised by that very aspect of her life.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish" criticism

Two people of Jewish descent are not "Jewish critricism". Extra section violates WP:UNDUE. Also, inclusion of the particular views of Giordano and Edelman, especially if they are redundant with the already stated ones, is also WP:UNDUE. Does now violate anything-your are using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as argument shielded by giving links to policies that do not support your personal dislikes.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steinbach "born to a Nazi soldier"

Completely WP:UNDUE and the implementation made by this statement violates WP:BLP. Placing tags instead is disruptive WP:POINTing. That Steinbach is one focus of criticism in Poland is already stated. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was the argument given by Polish govenment it is notable and important.WP:IDONTLIKEIT claim again.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]