Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7


Map translation request

Can de:Bild:Münchner abkommen4.png be translated and uploaded to Commons? Our Munich Agreement is missing a map and this seems like a good free candidate.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationality (Entering the minefield)

I am updating some German chemists and now I have a problem with the scientists info box entries. For example:

  • Heinrich Limpricht (1827-1909) is Residence Flag of the German Empire.svg German Empire and Nationality Oldenburg Flagge.jpg Oldenburgian, then Flag of the German Empire.svg German
  • Adolf von Baeyer (1835 - 1917) is Residence Flag of Germany.svg Germany and Nationality Flag of Germany.svg German

The problem of who is which nationality and is a German Empire German a BRD German or is this a discontinuety or what ever, is a question I will not ask!

I had this discussion already with if Fritz Pregl (1869 – 1930) is a Slowenian. This question I would deny because Slowenia was never a independant nation while he lived making him an Austria Hungaryan and later a State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbsan and later Kingdom of Yugoslavian. But this should be done by people who whant to fight about it. I will encounter the Problem with Poland and Elsaß early enough.

I only want a hint which of the two methods is prefered! --Stone 15:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

German nationality

Until 1913 there was no German nationality in a legal sense, only the nationality of one of the souverain German states. In 1913 the Reichstag passed the Reichs- und Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz (RuStG), which was amended several times later on. It did not introduce a direct German nationality, but an indirect one. So a citizen of the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg would have the Hamburg nationality and a Hamburg passport, which made him indirectly a citizen of the German Reich (1913-1934). This was changed by the Nazi-goverment through the 1934 amendment of the RuStG, then creating a direct German nationality for all those belonging to the "Reich" as defined by the amended RuStG. The West-German Grundgesetz from 1949 has a definition for German persons. Its "German in the sense of the Grundgesetz" is wider than the "German nationality" under the RuStG (kept until 1999).--Kresspahl 16:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect for a lawyer but it does not help me with my question! Nationality is not defined by laws or birth only but also by heritage, making everything complicated. Staatsangehörigkeit and Nationalität I like more for these kind of definitions!
But still I need an answer!--Stone 16:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think in cases like these, using "German", while technically inaccurate, is what readers expect. The flags are impossible to get right, but 99%+ of biographies should not have images of flags anyway (only biographies of flag designers etc. benefit from adding flag images). Kusma (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Flags are pointless in most bios. Maybe they are useful for politicians and soldiers, to illustrate which state(s) or army(s) they represented (sometimes changing).-- Matthead discuß!     O       13:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia really needs better guidelines regarding nationality. Due to changing borders, many famous Germans/Austrians/Prussians are claimed by present countries as "he lived here, so he's one of ours". See Gregor Mendel for a current ongoing editwar/debate.-- Matthead discuß!     O       13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


A prior discussion about categorization of Germans/German-speakers has got me thinking. Using the previously created Category:German natives of East Prussia and Category:German natives of Silesia as examples, I had created additional categories, such as Category:German natives of West Prussia (for more, see Category:German people by state, which is currently missing Bremen). However, I am doubting that this is the best way to approach the issue. It makes sense to categorize people according to the specific principality/state when they were born, but the current "German natives of" scheme is problematic with some territories.

Some of the current categories can be confusing on ethnic grounds, which are often subjective. When should we differentiate between a "German from Alsace" and an "Alsatian"? Bohemia, Moravia, and Austrian Silesia had substantial German-speaking populations, but were never part of "Germany". How/should we categorize such individuals? Should they be merged into Category:Sudeten Germans? Or should that latter category only refer to the late 19th/20th century concept of Sudeten Germans, or strictly to the Nazi era?

"East Prussia" is another problematic case. It was only formally created as a province of Prussia in 1773, but the phrase has frequently been used to refer to the territory of the Duchy of Prussia (1525-1701) and sometimes earlier. Should German natives of East Prussia be restricted to post-1773? King Frederick I of Prussia was born in Königsberg while it was part of Ducal Prussia; should Category:People from the Duchy of Prussia be created? What about people born in East Prussia between 1701 (elevation of the duchy to the Kingdom of Prussia) and 1773 (creation of Province of East Prussia)? What about when East Prussia was merged with West Prussia into the Province of Prussia (1824-1878)?

A possible solution is to do away with the ethnic classification of "German natives of" and instead categorize solely on citizenship. To avoid cluttering up the root German people by state category, People from former German states could be created as a subcategory. For example, the articles in German natives of Silesia could be split into People from the Province of Silesia, People from the Province of Lower Silesia, and People from the Province of Upper Silesia, based on when/where they were born. The controversial Jan Dzierzon (is he German, Polish, or [Upper] Silesian?) would be included within People from the Province of Silesia, a subcategory of Category:People from Prussia, itself a subcategory of People from former German states. Of course, that wouldn't help with pre-1740 (First Silesian War) articles- should they be included within a People from Austrian Silesia category? "German" Alsatians could be restricted to People from Alsace-Lorraine, referring solely to the territory/era of the German Empire.

Since Prussian history can be complicated at times, categories such as People from Royal Prussia and People from the monastic state of the Teutonic Knights or People from the Ordensstaat could be created.

Thoughts/suggestions/alternatives? Olessi 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Category:German natives of Bohemia, an alternative would be to create Category:German Bohemians (i.e. Bohemians of German ethnicity). Olessi 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The current Category:German natives of Moravia could be troublesome, as Category:German Moravians would refer to both Moravians of German ethnicity or to members of the Moravian Church (often used in American publications). Perhaps this one should be merged into the aforementioned German Bohemians category. Olessi 17:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Because "East Prussia" is widely used in English to refer to both the Duchy of Prussia and the Province of East Prussia, I do not see a significant problem with including residents of both in a single category. Plus, this avoids the questionable 1701-1773 time period. However, Category:People from East Prussia is my preferred title. Olessi 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Your idea to drop the nationality and instead simply concentrate on just the regions (eg. People from the Province of Lower Silesia) is IMO the way to go. It might not solve all problems but it is a good start. Nationality could then be introduced as subcategories, if necessary. - 52 Pickup 18:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, the introduction of new categories trying to describe regions is useless as they will get removed from articles anyway by certain users claiming they did not exist as political entities at the time [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. -- Matthead discuß!     O       05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Space Cadet (talk · contribs) is continuing his removal of Category:German natives of East Prussia, from about two dozen bios today. -- Matthead discuß!     O       20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm just removing people who got added to the category by mistake, because they where born when East Prussia did not exist. Thank You. Space Cadet 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Trying to limit the meaning of East Prussia to the two policital subdivisions of Prussia, or claiming that some were added by mistake, is an interesting exercise in Wikilawyering. East Prussia, as a historical region, covers about 500 years, also the times of the Monastic state, the Duchy, and the Province of the mid-19th century. Only Category:German natives of West Prussia is an alternative if more appropriate - deletion is not. In Category:German people by state, people are listed under present German states even when born centuries before these were formed, like Israhel van Meckenem. Thank you for quitting your destructive behaviour towards a useful category for undisputedly German speaking persons now. -- Matthead discuß!     O       21:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being disruptive, I'm just correcting mistakes. East Prussia was an administative region (with changing borders) of the Kingdom of Prussia, later of Germany. Why do you feel it's so important to promote a popular stereotype over actual truth? Only because the mistake was spotted by a Pole? Stop your Polononphobic games now! Space Cadet 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you shout, there is no need for it. And ain't be silly.--Kresspahl 22:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and when I got shouted at by your homeboy Matthead then it was OK, right? Also, don't call me names or I'll report you! Space Cadet 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
"Polononphobic" is - as far as I can judge - a senseless term in English, the appropiate term would be something like "Polophobic", but I think that this is not the appropiate level for a serious discussion about historical questions (and their implications) at Wikipedia. WWII is over now for more than 60 years, so maybe we can let emotions out of this and discuss on the basis of facts.
And a good advise to our polish friend: At Wikipedia, bringing good (proven) arguments is always better than using bad words, breaking the 3R-rule and getting blocked for this. In the long run, aggresive stile and dubious edits doen't succeed, its the facts and their exhibition in a serious discussion that count. -- Rfortner 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Polonia in Latin is Poland, therefore Polonophobia. And I don't recall Kresspahl or Matthead "bringing good (proven) arguments" but they are your homies so that's OK. East Prussia existed 1772 - 1829, 1878 - 1918 in one set of borders, then 1918 -1938 in another set, then finally for seven years 1938 - 1944 it included Memelland again. Calling people who were born outside those timeframes "German Natives of East Prussia" is like calling everybody born in Berlin a native of German Democratic Republic. Space Cadet 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
SpaceCadet, I think you are misguided, nobody here is my "homie" (whatever you mean with this term), I am disgusted by any kind of nationalism, irrepective if it is German or Polish nationalism (and maybe you know, that also we Austrians had to suffer from German nationalism). I just reminded you, that in a controversy debate proven arguments and a consens-willing-attitude are the best way to convince people, while any kind of "aggressive" stile in a dicussion will strongly minimize your standing. About the "phobie": At least an "n" was too much in your posting ;-) -- Rfortner 09:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was misguided. Or rather jealous of how Germans can always stick together and back each other up. I wish it was true for my people. But here in the States, where I live, the worst enemy of a Pole is not German, Russian or Jewish but another Pole. Polonophobia is really the way it is spelled. Really. Happy editing, your friend Space Cadet 15:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you wrote "Polononphobic", so there was at least one "n" to much ;-) ... By the way: I am not German, I am Austrian. And telling an Austrian that he is German is normaly not very nice, as we struggled long enough to get independent (So to be clear: We are "german-speaking" but we are not "Germans"). And I am not so sure if - for example - Matthead and I would always agree about every part of our common history, but at least we will discuss it in an open discussion here at Wikipedia. Therefore I am a little bit scared when you talk about "enemies", irrespective of their nationality, as Wikipedia is an international project where we all should work to find a common sense, instead of starting "combats" (which one normally does with enemies). -- Rfortner 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand. And when I said "enemies" I only meant people not being very nice towards each other. I am not a nationalist, either. Space Cadet 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This edit of yours is only one example of your ongoing campaign of deleting Category:German natives of East Prussia from biographies of persons undisputedly being born in the historic region East Prussia, the main part of Prussia (region), where Germans have a 500+ year history. Your claim the category applies only to the periods 1773-1829 and 1878-1945 in which the Province of East Prussia existed as a separate province, but not for 1829 - 1878 when it was merged to Province of Prussia, is petty-minded at best. You have claimed you will definitely try to learn from this experience during the recent Community sanction noticeboard: Proposal to ban User:Space Cadet from German-Polish-related topics, yet all you do is continue in even worse manner. Unless there is a more appropriate category for that area in Category:German people by state, you shall not vandalise biographies by removing the geograpical classification for any German being born there before 1946.-- Matthead discuß!     O       02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What worse manner? I'm helping you guys to correct a mistake that occurred probably by accident. Why do you bring up the Sanction Noticeboard, where I was wrongfully accused of stuff by your buddy Sciurinæ? What does it have to do with anything? East Prussia was not a "historical region" but an administrative unit that lasted only in timeframes mentioned above. Now I am not questioning that those people whose biographies contain mistakes are German. Also I'm not removing those who actually were born in East Prussia. But East Prussia was NOT a historical region. Sorry. Space Cadet 07:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides, you can create those missing categories yourself. Don't be lazy. Come on: German natives of Province of Prussia, German natives of Ducal Prussia, German natives of the Monastic state of the Teutonic Knights - and you're done! This last one would probably be even empty, because I don't remember anybody from there. Happy editing and I mean it! Space Cadet 07:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned when I started this discussion, I don't support classifying these biographies in terms of location by ethnicity, preferring instead sorting by citizenship regardless of ethnicity. The current categories are a mixture of both - shouldn't there be a Category:People from East Prussia before there is a Category:German natives of East Prussia? Plus, the preferred category naming style is "People from", not "Natives of".

Regarding Category:German natives of Silesia, for instance, is this referring to German citizens who lived in the Province of Silesia (or other Silesian entities), or ethnically German Silesians? As an example, Joseph Maria Olbrich was a German-speaker who grew up in Troppau, but he was not a citizen of Germany. I would thus recommend a Category:People from Austrian Silesia for such individuals. Regarding Category:German natives of Silesia, I would suggest dividing that into Category:German Silesians or Category:Silesian Germans, a subcategory of Category:German people by ethnic or national origin, and also place people into Category:People from the Province of Silesia (or other relevant Silesian entities). Olessi 22:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories can always be put in question. Now for the ethnic German East Prussians, a category makes sense to me. There were indeed a peripheric part of the German nation/people/ethnic groups (cf. Category:Baltic Germans). And I don't see any logic in the nonsensical argument that East Prussia somehow disappeared in the 19th century, only because it was for a time part of a united province with West Prussia. What East Prussia historically was, when it came into existence etc., is to be discussed here: East Prussia. PS: This is all history now. Poles and Germans are friendly nations, not enemies. And forget about the Lunatic Fringe! --DaQuirin 20:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course Poles and Germans are best friends, but then why are you calling my edits nationalistic? Space Cadet 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Space Cadet, where did DaQuirin call your edits nationalistic? Hardly in the comment right above yours[8]. -- Matthead discuß!     O       00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
[9], [10], [11] Space Cadet 12:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, our nationalistic Space Warrior is on a mission here - a perfect premium member of a any new Wikipedia members Category in the field. Your argument that East Prussia was only an administrative unit is completely childish. You may discuss it here: East Prussia. Where did you get this theory from? --DaQuirin 12:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not nationalistic. I'm not on a mission. Where did you take your theory that East Prussia was anything more than an administrative unit from? Please provide a modern (post 2000) source. You may discuss it on my Talk page. Space Cadet 13:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for calling you "nationalistic". I ddn't mean it. You should watch it too. I'm not gonna report a fellow Wikipedian for his childish games, but somebody else might. Space Cadet 13:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Just friends would be O.K. after what happened in the last century. Why are you so fixated with eliminating long-gone East Prussia from a category? What is your motivation? --DaQuirin 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Truth, Logic and Common Sense! That's my motivation. Do you always answer questions with another question? That's fine, but this time I urge you to answer "why are you calling my edits nationalistic?" Remember that calling somebody a nationalist "just for fun", without adequate reasoning is a reportable offense! And I'm not removing long gone East Prussia, I'm just returning it to it's proper time frames. Space Cadet 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Why do I call nationalistic edits nationalism? A difficult question. For people like you, there is a rule: Deep in your heart, you always love what you are hating. You have strong feelings, I see. You are an Polish-American or emigrant? I wish you could come home and see your country rise to glory (maybe with future cabinet members that do not spy against each other). Our nations will be friends - you may not like it, but we don't have a choice anyway. --DaQuirin 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a true Master of avoiding answers to straight forward questions and of dodging points based on common sense. I bow to You, Sir. Space Cadet 21:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So be serious. You are interested in the administrative history of 19th century Prussia? I must admit, I can't believe it. But if you like, we can discuss. For some time forming a united province, East Prussia and West Prussia were separated again, because they were two different historical entities. Now the Ermland, and on and on.... --DaQuirin 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am serious, ironically. My hobby and passion is History of Prussia. All of it. Even the pagan times. And even today. I am Polish - American, and yes, ages ago I was an immigrant. What was that you started to say about Ermland? Finish the sentence please. And after that why don't you do expand on the difference in borders of East Prussia between let's say 1880 and 1936? Space Cadet 22:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The borders changed indeed in the (Catholic) Ermland region, so what? In the ex post perspective, it became finally East Prussia when West Prussia disappeared (first) from the map. (Sorry, with Prussia you mean only what was called "West and East Prussia"?) So you may eliminate some people from there from the East Prussia category, great thing. A hobby like yours is perfectly O.K., but it is always difficult if the clear view is hindered by too strong emotions. Your Province of Prussia argument looks a bit childish, to say it very politlely (ja, ja, the good old Provincial Prussians!). By the way, being fixated on Categories, is a dangerous sign... Studying history always means trying to take different angles, but this not what you are up to, right? Seen from 20th century, the German-Polish history is a mess. But going deeper into this, it is far more complex (a German pope, 'designed' by a Polish Pope, still unbelievable!). Thanks to the Polish editors especially here and in the German wikipedia I have learned about a different perspective on Polish history. So you won for tonight, Polish-American Edit-War King! --DaQuirin 22:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I will continue on my talk page if you don't mind. Space Cadet 12:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Call your own homie Matthead an "Edit-War King", he just got banned again for 3RR.Space Cadet 13:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As fascinating as the above discussion has been, is anyone interested in discussing the proper categorization of biographical articles regarding the questions I have raised? Olessi 18:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There are too many categories here, but this is only a personal point of view. You could solve your problem with a joint Category:Germans from West and East Prussia. It is not a perfect solution, but should answer various claims. --DaQuirin 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I would personally prefer to have categories for (country, state or province of birth). That means quite a lot of categories for the Holy Roman Empire, but we could avoid claiming that Joseph Goebbels was from North Rhine-Westphalia (he was born in the Rhine Province of the Kingdom of Prussia; NRW was not established until after his death). David Hilbert should be in a category that says he was born in the Province of Prussia and another one that says he was born in Königsberg; that Königsberg was part of an administrational area called "East Prussia" at other times is no more relevant for Hilbert's bio than that it is in Russia now. Georg Forster, born close to Danzig, was not a native of West Prussia, but of Royal Prussia, part of Poland. I don't think the people born in a certain place need to be further sub-categorized by nationality or ethnicity. Perhaps we should use detailed category names like Category:People born in the Rhine Province, which is more exact than "from". Kusma (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma's suggestions. I have initiated a renaming discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 13#Category:German natives of.... Olessi 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to point out that neither David Hilbert nor Georg Forster, nor too many others, have any category pointing to their provenance, due to deletions by you-know-who, or due to complicated categories like "People of the Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz-Ducksburg" preventing editors picking any category at all. I oppose an overcomplicated atomization in favour of a simple regional structure as proposed in Category:German people by state:‎ 16 regions according to current state borders, and 8 historic regions. Additional subcategories as you please, but only as subcategories. -- Matthead discuß!     O       08:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to point out that as of now both David Hilbert and Georg Forster, and many others, have a category pointing to their provenance, due to constructive edits by "you-know-who" also known as Space Cadet 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistranslated source

Hi there. I'm working on the article on Emma Watson, and one of the key sources we're working with is an interview with the German press. Someone's done enough of a translation to permit us including some references, but the translation is not really perfect. The article is pushing featured article candidacy so we'd really like someone fluent in German to have a look at the source, find out where the quote is coming from, check the references are valid, and see if they can give us a better translation. If anyone is interested in helping, please have a look at the details on the talk page. Many thanks in advance. Happy-melon 18:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

German journal CotW

The Academic Journals project has selected Astronomische Nachrichten as our Collaboration of the Week. It would be great if a few German speaking Wikipedians put this article on their watchlist and kept an eye on us. :-) I have just translated Astronomische Gesellschaft from the German article and last week it was Oriens Christianus. John Vandenberg 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


servus. es gibt einen schlimmen beständigen zustand den ich anprangern will. propagandisten können mühelos diese wikipedia dazu verwenden um seiten nach zweifelhafter geschichtsschreibung abzuändern. schaut mal User:Molobo an. er gehörte zu den aktivsten wikipedianern und alles was er gemacht hat und macht kann man dem polnischen nationalismus zuordnen. viele seiner änderungen sind drin geblieben und kaum einen kümmert es. das ist keine übertreibung und er findet sogar noch zeit die russen zu nerven. warum bastelt Ihr unbezahlt zu gunsten eines projekts herum wenn doch die glaubwürdigkeit die Ihr aufbaut letztendlich ihm und dergleichen in die hände spielt?--20:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Rough translation (by Matthead):The editor complains about misuse by propagandists which seems to bother few if any, as edits remain. He asks why we contribute to a project without being paid for, trying to bolster its credibility, when that is abused as a propaganda platform?

I wholeheartedly agree. Many articles regarding German issues suffer from the relentless activity of a small, but very active group with a very narrow focus. While some with an open anti-German bias broke the rules and got themselves blocked or banned, some manage to bend the rules time and again, out-wearing all other editors. Wikipedia in general suffers from this, and frankly, I am convinced it has "jumped the shark" long time ago, as the stats recently published show. Instead of quality content, we get only mediocre articles under constant fire by POV-pushers and vandals. And those should be treated as acting in Good faith, to add to the insult. Wikipedia really needs to get its act together, abandoning old policies, and adapting stricter ones.-- Matthead discuß!     O       04:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

hee? quite funny you are talking bout quality. aren't you the one stating "heil dir löschpedia" in the german edition? sorry but you seem to miss the bigger picture, if you want to have a higher standard of quality you need to sort out bad quality entrys, which can't be improved eighter due waht reason ever. 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking interest, and for desisting from mangling quotes you apparently don't understand at all. -- Matthead discuß!     O       12:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

i was talking about User:Molobo, what he does to wikipedia and how no one bothers, as matthead summaried. you're right, that we need to sort out bad quality entrys. who does want to help?--21:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The first step would be registering an account. Steps 2 to ∞ : editing. Hit-and-run complaining doesn't solve anything. -- Matthead discuß!     O       18:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like another job for the Space Cadet. I love to "sort out bad quality entrys", as you call them. Space Cadet 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Recently I (not singlehandedly, but with some substantial help from Olessi) "sorted out a bad quality" Category: German Natives of East Prussia.Space Cadet 22:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

County vs. district revisited

I thought we had settled how to translate (Land)kreis a year and a half ago after the discovery of the EU's recommended translation of "District" discussed at /Archive 2#EU "official" translation of Kreis, where I got the terms now used from in the first place. However, a user has now moved Districts of Germany to Counties of Germany. It seems to me it should be moved back. Discussion at Talk:Counties of Germany#country vs district [sic]. —Angr 09:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Input would be appreciated at Talk:Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten regarding the best title for the article. Names considered so far have been "Hans Ernst Karl, Graf von Zieten" and "Hans Ernst Karl von Zieten". Olessi 23:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

St. Hedwig, patron of Silesian expellees?

Could somebody verify this - see also Talk:Hedwig of Andechs. Seems WP:ORish. Thanks, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 09:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. St. Hedwig was highly admired by the German Silesians because they considered her to be one of the earliest and biggest patrons of the Ostsiedlung (the same is true for some early Piast dukes btw.). After the expulsion she became something like a tragic symbol. Karasek (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Can some experienced persons watch this guy?

and do something against these regular antigerman periods --22:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Note: I've restored the above comment after it was erroneously removed by Piotrus.
Dear 80.190, there has never been a lack of awareness of Molobo's campaign. It has simply been an all-pervasive and self-delusional feeling of not needing to do anything about it oneself. You should know well what I'm talking about because, after all, you're guilty of just that yourself, telling us to keep tabs on someone although you haven't lifted a finger yourself so far, have you? And don't pretend not to have enough experience of Wikipedia and awareness of Molobo. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Molobo's "campaign" is simply his expansion of topics related to German history and Polish-German relations, which he has personal interest and knowledge of. Examples include:

I also contributed to such articles as War crimes of the Wehrmacht.

Now as far as I know current German state is dedicated to correcting its past mistakes so I fail to see describing German history regarding atrocities and war crimes as 'anti-German'. I certainly would welcome more German editors interested in expanding info about Wehrmacht's patricipation in genocide and its war crimes, or Generalplan Ost but so far this has not happened and only few mostly non-German editors are concentrating on those difficult subjects. I am also puzzled by the statment that somebody should be guilty of not "keeping the tab" on somebody that expands content on Nazi genocide and crimes. I would ask the user to explain what he meant by claiming that and the statement about my supposed campaign--Molobo (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I needn't state the obvious. People can decide about your agenda for themselves. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Seit meiner Botschaft vor 2 Monaten auf den Tag genau ist nichts Grundlegendes passiert. Man könnte meinen, daß genügend Zeit vergangen sein müßte, in der man Benutzer Molobos Beiträge hätte kräftig nach Belegbarkeit, Neutralität und Theoriedarstellung durchstöbern und unabhängig dessen ein Urteil hätte fällen können, ob ein enormes oder alleiniges Verfolgen nationalistischer Interessen in Wikipedia ein legitimer Zeitvertreib sein darf. Aber nein. Aus den Augen, aus dem Sinn. Das geht ganz leicht. 2 Monate oder 1000 seiner Beiträge später ist eine Bändigung noch Zukunftsmusik. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Ach macht doch, was ihr wollt.-- (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dieses Problem, und ähnliche, sind durchaus bekannt, es interessiert nur kaum jemanden, während ich schon auf der Abschußliste Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction stehe. Dieses Notizbrett ist reichlich nutzlos. -- Matthead  Discuß   08:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please use English on English Wikipedia. May I ask why adding information about Prussian repressions against Poles in territories taken from Poland in Partitions seems offensive to a German editor ?

--Molobo (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is okay to use German here; if you do not understand one of the discussions and would like to see a translation to English, just ask (see the note at the top of the page). Kusma (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like a translation then. Please. Space Cadet (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There you go:
Since I posted my message 2 months ago nothing fundamental has changed. One could think that sufficient time has passed to check Molobo's contributions for verifiability, neutrality and original research, and to come to a decision as to whether an enormous or exclusive pursuit of nationalist interests in Wikipedia is a legitimate pastime. But no. Out of sight, out of mind. It's very simple. 2 months or 1000 of his contributions later, a restraint is still a dream of the future.
Suit yourselves. (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This problem, and similar, are well-known, but hardly anyone cares, while I am already blacklisted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#General_restriction. This noticeboard is quite useless.-- Matthead  Discuß   08:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hope that helps, Kusma (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Helps a lot. Space Cadet (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well what are you going to do about it? I've just run accross Molobo in articles I happen to have on my watchlist, Former eastern territories of Germany and Expulsion of Germans after World War II‎. From their edit histories I conclude that a couple of Polish nationalists are trying to tint all articles about German and/or Polish history with an anti-German bias, using POV-laden vocabulary and unbalanced presentations as most important tools, and Molobo appears to be one of the most active ones.

I'll try to inform the Polish notice board as well. Do nationalists there form a majority or are there enough neutral authors to help? Also how would one go about to inform an admin about the situation? Anorak2 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anorak, I would be grateful if you would stop using the POV term nationalist. This is not helping. Tymek (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If you observe that the majority of an author's edits are POV, and if you observe that they appear to follow a specific agenda, it's perfectly OK to name that agenda, don't you think?. NPOV is only applicable to edits in articles. In discussions we can share opinions and judgements, as long as it's done in good faith. Anorak2 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Especially since questioning neutrality of those who you call "nationalists" makes you a POV pusher yourself. Space Cadet (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Questioning an author's neutrality makes me a POV pusher? IOW, it's never acceptable to question someone's neutrality? Disagree. Anorak2 (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but brain servers are currently down. Please try again after another 10 000 related edits of him have everlastingly entered the veins of Wikipedia ... Sciurinæ (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't fully understand your grammar, but I guess you resorted to insults in lack of better arguments, again. Space Cadet (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I was actually speaking about the fact that no one really taxes his brains about Molobo's future, present and past contributions. So no need to feel insulted and insult "back" (and why 'again'? When did I 'resort to insults in lack of better arguments'?). Sciurinæ (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I confused you with somebody else. Sorry. And I didn't insult "back", nor do I feel insulted. Space Cadet (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Humble request

The Germans are way, way ahead of us on creating articles for lesser-known Classical music composers. We have a partial list of missing articles, most of which already have German entries, at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Classical composers, and it's quite long. If anyone here has any interest in helping translate some of the articles, it'd be a boon to the English-speaking, music-loving world. Chubbles 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

However, please only translate German articles if they're properly referenced, or if you find references yourself. The German Wikipedia is notoriously averse to citing sources, meaning articles there are generally unverifiable and would thus be in violation of policy at English Wikipedia. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much every entry can be sourced with either The New Grove or MGG, the latter of which is in German. They're available at any decent research library. Chubbles (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If you look for references of the German articles, you will often find relevant editing comments in the history section: 'andere Länder – andere Sitten' (Different Countries, different customs)! --DaQuirin (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Occasionally. But usually, you won't find them there either. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation & Citations

Ive noticed some wikipedias in other languages are more relaxed about citations in general. For instance, the German wikipedia, which I am not a contributor to, requires hardly any in-text citations. When the pages are translated into Englsih, they are just blocks of text with no sources, and then the articles all get labeled as no citations. Is there some sort of consensus on how to deal with this? The problem is then the article can be tagged as not having any citations, which is pretty much true. It seems like people translating pages into English should cite sources, at least with some effort, even if the sources are in other languages. I dont mean to pick on the german-language wikipedia becuase Im sure this happens with lots of others too.--DerRichter (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, and this problem is why I have stopped translating articles from German into English. At de-wp, even featured articles (exzellente Artikel) can get away with being completely unsourced, and if you bring it up, they just say, "Well, we don't want German Wikipedia articles to be unreadable from all the little footnotes peppered everywhere, like the English Wikipedia is." It never seems to occur to anyone there that there might be a middle ground between no sources at all, and three sources at the end of every sentence. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Im glad Im not the only one who feels that way

sorry for not signing--DerRichter (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just an explanation: On de-WP we do give sources for our writing, just not as inline reference all the time. Quotations, relevant numbers, disputed facts, and particularly subjective judgments need inline sources on the de-WP. General descriptions that are undisputed and can be found in any publication on the topic don't get footnotes. But then printed or online sources need to be named, where those parts of the article can be verified. This happens either in the "Literatur" or "Weblinks" block, or if only one source was used, in "Quellen und Zusammenfassung", the edit summary of the first or a large subsequent edit. We prefer that over your style, which is seen as excessive and inconsistent with the purpose of an encyclopedia.
How to do translations then? Check the edit summaries. If there one book or website is named as source for the whole article, refer to it in a footnote. If there are many - you can use the "wikiblame"-tool to identify the edit that brought a certain fact into the article in the first place and check if there is a source given in the edit summary or if the contributor included a new book or website into "Literatur" and/or "Weblinks" with the edit.
Or don't translate. Write your own articles and use the de-WP-article only as structure and help in finding relevant publications, get those publications, read them and write on the topic with your background. I never translate from the en-WP, despite I write featured articles on US-topics in the de-WP. I noticed that US-topics need a completely different approach on de, then on en, as I have to give much more and often different background to explain things, that are covered differently here. Translation is not just about language, but also about culture. 1:1 translations can only cover language - and are thus always inferior to new articles adopted to your own culture. --h-stt !? 07:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Input sought

Input would be appreciated at a few different discussions. At Talk:East Prussia, I have started a discussion on how we should diffentiate between East Prussia, Province of East Prussia, and Province of Prussia. At Talk:Kaliningrad, I have posited separating that article into Kaliningrad and Königsberg. I have done the same at Talk:Immanuel Kant State University of Russia regarding a split between Immanuel Kant State University of Russia and the University of Königsberg. Thank you for your time. Olessi (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In general, I support splitting of articles, when the history is much more notable, or totally different, from the presence. Königsberg is a good example for that. Does anyone know anything about Kaliningard not related to its past?-- Matthead  DisOuß   09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


A move has been proposed on Talk:Berne (to Bern). Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Freie Stadt Danzig citizen

I have added numerous facts to Edward O'Rourke, the first Bishop of Danzig. The facts and the sources, links to books and documents, such as the one from the Senate of Freie Stadt Danzig attesting to O'Rourke's citizenship of the Free City of Danzig, his family etc , get repeatedly removed and/or reverted. Also the city of Freiburg in Germany gets repeatedly falsely re-inserted, when it should be Freiburg in Switzerland. I will not waste any more time trying to correct the deliberate mistakes, which he even admits to. I'd appreciate it, if someone else can take a look at it. I do not have much hope for anyone trying to tackle this, but just in case someone does, thanks. Like I said, I will not correct or re-add information any further. Thanks MfG 25 Feb 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed Switzerland, I corrected it already, but denying that he was Polish and insisting that he was born in Belarus is just plain wrong. Space Cadet (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confusesd about the clear "polish" claim. I only know what is writen here. There I found the only anchestor which has an artikle as a russian nobleman, he was born in Russia (now Belarus). At least statless he has chosen polish citizenship a frew years before he died. What other kriteria shows he was nothing but polish?--WerWil (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, the constant removal of facts by a number of people, this instance Space Cadet, seem to all have one purpose, to confuse and 'make the person look like Polish'.

While Edward O'Rourke had to take on Polish citizenship for 4 years from 1939 to 1943, due to political/wartime, Space Cadet removes vital information, books and sources for prior to 1939, that is for most of his life

When you look and read through the information repeatedly removed by Space Cadet you will find that until resignation as Bishop of Danzig (1938/39) he had Freie Stadt Danzig (Free State Danzig) citizenship, documented by the Senate of Freie Stadt Danzig (source w. document removed by S.C.)

You find answers, that the Irish O'Rourke family also held imperial Russian title and German Imperial Holy Roman Empire Title of Graf- count. Upon request to Tsar Nicolas in 1848 they had also retained their Irish title for all the family. Eduard O'Rourke, besides being Irish, Russian, Minsk Belorusan and Baltic-German from his mother, had Freie Stadt Danzig citizenship since 1922. But all this gets repeatedly removed by Space Cadet, and if not him by likewise and the person, in this case O'Rourke, is branded by Space Cadet as (only) Polish. MfG —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me as impossible to claim any nationality to this Person.--WerWil (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Need help at Allied war crimes during World War II

Editor Molobo (talk · contribs) claims that Polish crimes committed by Polish occupation forces against German civilians are not applicable to the Allied war crimes during World War II, since the occupation of Germany by "default" is "after the war" according to him. I instead claim war crimes by occupation forces are applicable, besides, peace was not made until 1955/1990. please contribute your opinion.--Stor stark7 Talk 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right. --WerWil (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The two articles state that there have been war crimes or war criminals in poland after 1945. This is a proof and can be cited. So War crimes are possible after the war. War crime suspect stays in Israel Polish man accused of 'war crimes' against the Germans --Stone (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus at Morgenthau plan

Piotrus (talk · contribs) is in apparent collaboration with Molobo (talk · contribs). I don't think that it is right for administrators to behave as he has done in the article Morgenthau Plan. Molobos edits are heavily contested in the Morgenthau plan, see the article talk page, and he simply selects to revert back to include all of Molobos edits. And don't even bother to explain himself at talk.--Stor stark7 Talk 01:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article is hardly the only one were two or more editors act in unison. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader (myself means Piotrus there). -- Matthead  Discuß   23:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-war history of Wrocław

I'm trying to add some information from this source: As you can see, a translated, valuable Polish source which covers this complicated topic pretty well. As you can also see the Wikipedia article about Wroclaw doesn't mention anything about the depicted events after the war. I tried to add some information about the ideological handling by the communists and the fact that the rulers of that time not only reconstructed some parts of the city but also destroyed other parts like old German cemeteries. It seems impossible to insert these reverenced facts. Obviously the sourced facts are considered POV and UNDUE whereas it's perfectly OK to mention the destruction of other single houses. Karasek (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The city was completely destroyed by Nazi forces fight against Allied forces, to claim it was destroyed by Polish people rather then by Nazi forces as it was seems to be an extreme POV.--Molobo (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
These aren't my allegations, they were published in a respected Polish newspaper by a Polish author and they are backed up with several Polish references. Neither the author nor I claim that the Poles (or better the communists) destroyed the town, but they destroyed some parts of the city and didn't care for others because they refused to accept the entire history of the city. A history that the Nazis couldn't accept either. It's not about Poles and Germans, it's about regimes and ideologies. The article actually explains this very well, and Wikipedia should do this too.
Maybe someone could find the original Polish document at the archive of the Gazeta Wyborcza, this would help the discussion very much. Karasek (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There are hundreds if not thousands of newspapers in Poland. Some have extremist views just like their authors. Just because it is a newspapaper doesn't make it respectable. The city was destroyed by Nazi Germany 's resistance to Allied forces who wanted to stop the genocidal regime from exterminating whole nations. Frankly to blame Poles for Nazi Germany's crimes is an unbelievable extreme POV. That is not to say parts of the city weren't reconstructed - this is a normal thing in every city where old, useless buildings give ground to more needed infrastructure. I guess some symbols of German nationalism and colonialism towards non-German lands such as Silesia could have been removed, since the Poles had no need for German nationalism symbolic or symbols of past Germanisation of their lands. But it is hardly notable, when compared to real cause of destruction in the city, that was German state..--Molobo (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hardly notable? I'm sure that the history of the city didn't end with the Nazi's "destruction" of the city (the quotation marks are there because the city continued to exist in some way and not wiped off the face of the earth). To say that the history of the city ended then would be rather insulting to the ~700,000 current inhabitants. As an account of the city's reconstruction, it has its place here, instead of flatly dismissing it out of personal preference. - 52 Pickup (deal) 05:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is denying the city was rebuild, and now exists. Hardly notable however is loss of one street in 1976 when 95 % city was leveled due to resistance of Nazis against Allied forces. The article must be balanced. One can't blame destruction of the city on the Poles, as its an extreme POV and simply falsehood, especially as Poles continue to rebuild it even today, such was the scale of destruction.--Molobo (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Polish Corridor as seen by Molobo

Molobo started to add his very own POV ( in 1919 East Prussia returned to its former status as an exclave as it enjoyed (sic) in 1657 -1772 as part of Brandenburg) to every possible (and impossible) article without any kind of seriously discussing a compromise. I will not start an edit war on that, but could someone take a look at? (HerkusMonte (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

Some examples: Prussia / East Prussia / Province of East Prussia / Ustka / Polish Corridor / Invasion of Poland / Treaty of Versailles(HerkusMonte (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

This is a simple fact, how can it be POV--Molobo (talk) 9:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A fact as neutral as "in 1939 Gniezno returned to its former status as a town in Germany as it enjoyed 1772 - 1918"? (HerkusMonte (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)) I don't see any similiarity in that situation. East Prussia wasn't invaded by foreign power to become Brandenburg-Prussia.--Molobo (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The neutral fact is, it became an exclave. Calling it a "return" to anything is your conclusion and your POV.(HerkusMonte (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC))
Duchy of Prussia was an exclave of Brandenburg-Prussia and later of Kingdom of Prussia, this is not anybody's POV but a fact. Space Cadet (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And Gniezno was a city in Prussia/Germany between 1772 and 1918 - that´s a fact. So it returned to Germany in 1939, to a status it enjoyed(!) before?? The facts are : East Prussia was an exclave before 1772 and after 1919, everything else is your very own conclusion. Btw I´d rather say Brandenburg was an exclave of the Kingdom of Prussia (in it´s original meaning) and I still couldn´t find any reason, why all this is mentioned at Ustka (HerkusMonte (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Herkus if you want somewhere to note that Nazi Germany repeated Prussia's agression against Poland and reconquered Polish territories previously taken in Partitions , that is no problem for me.--Molobo (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The "return" is unnessesary here. In Europe nearly all Territorys changed their "possesors" several times during History, so nearly each conquer was a "return", too.--WerWil (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at a matter concerning Danzig, again. Thanks

At the time of Reinhold Curicke Danzig was in Prussia and a Stadt Republik- City Republic, (freie Stadt, autonome Stadt). It was not Danzig, Poland.

A number of people at wikipedia ignore this and continue adding (to Danzig), Poland in many articles, here some samples [18], [19].

Here are a number of books about Danzig as Stadt Republik.

Note the book about Reinhold Curicke on Danzig.

Danzig Stadt Republik - City Republic Danzig was Stadt Republik [20] (city republic), Danzig was in Prussia, was not Poland. Adding Poland in the article is incorrect.

Reinhold Curicke on Danzig [21] MfG 9-Mar 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Danzig was in Royal Prussia, and Royal Prussia was in Poland during Curicke's life. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. During this time, Danzig was part of Royal Prussia (not Prussia as in Hohenzollern Prussia) which was a province of Poland (later a province of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) from 1466 till 1772. Also, it was not completely free or autonomous (as the term "city republic" may imply) since they were still under Polish authority. In short, it was part of Poland during Curicke's lifetime (technically the PLC, at the risk of being pedantic). - 52 Pickup (deal) 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! should we then state, that Germany (during its last occupation from 1945-1990) was in Soviet Union? or was Germany in United States of America, or was it in France, or Great Britain???

Reinhold Curicke, the Danzig state secetary and historian answered the question 'Ist Danzig eine freie Stadtrepublik ?' [22] with Yes MfG 10 Mar 2008

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not fully translated Curicke's complete answer from this document. The beginning of section 2 (page 1) says that Curicke answers this question about Danzig being a free city with the "paradoxical" Yes, even though the King held authority.
Post-WW2 is a poor comparison. Instead, look at a Free Imperial City of the Holy Roman Empire (e.g. Free City of Lübeck). These city-states functioned like small republics and enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy BUT they were part of the Empire and still under the Emperor's authority. Whether or not the Emperor actually exercised any authority over these cities is irrelevant: the point is that he had authority. - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Book by Louise Schorn-Schuette, 2006 is about Debates about Legitimation and she is the one that called it paradox, (because of todays terms). The article states:

The reformed Danzig city secretary Reinhold Curicke answered the question in his monumental city (of Danzig) history "Ob Dantzig eine freystadt seye" mit dem Paradoxen "Ja, obgleich sie eine Obrigkeit im Koenig haben”. Er gibt damit die Mentalitaet einer Stadtbevoelkerung wieder, die zwar die Zugehoerigkeit zum polnisch-litauischen Koenigtum nicht leugnete, de facto aber ein hohes Mass an Autonomie fuer sich beanspruchen konnte. 1454 hatte sich Danzig als Teil des Preussischen Bundes vom Deutschen Ordensstaat losgesagt und der Schutzherrschaft der polnischen Krone unterstellt.. Danzig hatte sich besonders in den “privilegia Casimiriana” ab 1454-1457 eine Reihe von Vorrechten garantieren lassen… article continues ...The only rights the king had were to Seezoll, customs duty at sea and royal building privileges for visits.

Reinhold Curicke answered "Ob Dantzig eine freystadt seye" "Ja, obgleich sie eine Obrigkeit im Koenig haben”. "If Danzig is a Free city" "Yes, even though it has a superior (Schutzherr- protector) in the king" He therefore stated the mentality of a city population, which realized the connection to the polish-lithuanian kingdom, but in fact held a high grade of autonomy for itself. 1454 Danzig rid itself of the Teutonic Order and accepted the Schutzherrschaft- protection of the polish crown. It did so with the continued guarantees of its privileges- rights and as explaned in the article, the king only had rights to customs duties and royal building for visiting.

The idea of some at wikipedia or elsewhere to call Danzig or any of Westprussia or Eastprussia Poland before 1919/1945, because they had as Schutzherr protector- the crown of Poland, Polish king is absurd and misrepresents historical facts as they occured. Both parts Eastern and Western Prussia continued to be called Prussia , die Lande Preußens, prural: the lands of Prussia and were not Poland.

Fritz Gause in his book: Ostpreußen und Westpreußen Geschichte des Preußenlandes, 1966, 1970, 1986, 1994 states: " Das Bewusstsein der Zusammengehoerigkeit des jetzt auch vom Roemischen Reich geloesten Preussenlandes erlosch aber nicht. Beide Teile hiessen weiterhin Preussen, ... Eine in Privilegien fixierte Sonderstellung nahm Danzig ein. Es wurde ein Freistaat im Verband der Krone Polens mit weigehenden Sonderrechten....

I previously posted a number of other books all pertaining to Danzig Stadtstaat, Republic, again Danzig Stadtstaat, Republic books [23] MfG —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Flaggen fehlen

Wenn auf der Seite offenbar (alle ?) Länder gelistet werden sollen, in denen es Minderheiten gibt die Deutsch sprechen, fehlen noch einige Länder: Rumänien, Tschechien, Ungarn, Polen, Slowakei, Frankreich und Russland. Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Es sollten ursprünglich mal alle Länder sein, in denen Deutsch offizielle Amtssprache ist. Ich habe mal ein paar Flaggen entfernt. Kusma (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Flaggen haben in den Userboxen nichts zu suchen, siehe WP:MOSFLAG! TINYMARK 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copy to commons request (de:Bild:Stefan Kuntz.jpg)

Could someone please copy the image de:Bild:Stefan Kuntz.jpg to commons for use in his English and other articles, and do any other information carryover from de:Stefan Kuntz to en:Stefan Kuntz. I'm guessing there is a better place to put this request, but right now I'm about to fall asleep at the keyboard. Danke -Optigan13 (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo now on Commons and added to en-article. Will look at rest of article when I get the time - unless someone else wants to take care of it? 52 Pickup (deal) 07:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Excluding Namibia?

Why is Namibia excluded from the nations with a native German speaking population? They absolutely do have natives who do speak German. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The flags are those of all countries where German is an official language. This avoids adding the flags of half of Eastern Europe, where many countries have a German-speaking minority. I don't know whether having flags is useful at all, but having more than a dozen doesn't seem so great to me. However, anyone (especially someone who redesigns the ugly noticeboard page ;-)) is free to come up with different criteria for what to put there. Kusma (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Did SPD demand 1914 borders post-WW2 ?

I just found this poster and I wondered if SPD demanded 1914 post-war ? I did heard that organisations of transfered Germans did make such claims but from the looks of this SPD did also ? [24]--Molobo (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting poster. There were no such official demands of the SPD, but in the early years expellees / refugees played an important role for all major parties. Sometimes the Sudetengebiete, Danzig, Memel or even the Province of Posen seem to have been vaguely included from time to time. The exact source of this poster would be important to know. --DaQuirin (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The source seems to be here: [25]. Note that the poster does not include Elsass-Lothringen. My guess is the designer got something wrong, but then I am not exactly familar with the borders of Posen or Oberschlesien. Yaan (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A more detailed source for this 1949 election poster is here. There are other SPD posters from 1949 where they used the 1937 borders. So it should be seen as a kind of mistake (or the designer had a special agenda...). --DaQuirin (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Karl-Ferdinands-Univ. zu Prag soll gelöscht werden

The German tradition of the University in Prague is once again about to be erased: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Charles-Ferdinand University of Dec 2007. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested Move: Großglockner -> Grossglockner

Wikipedians reading this noticeboard may be interested in the request to move the article at Großglockner to Grossglockner. Discussion is at Talk:Großglockner. Knepflerle (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the Bromberger Blutsonntag article

Me and Piotrus (talk · contribs) were having a discussion at Talk:Bloody Sunday (1939). Now Piotrus feels that the discussion would profit by involving more intrested parties, so he has invited User Xx236 (talk · contribs). I was wondering if there is anyone else that might have an interest in improving this article? Thanks--Stor stark7 Talk 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AHT_Cooling_Systems if someone can help with this greatOo7565 (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

German film editors wanted

WikiProject Films has solicited interest in creating a German cinema task force. We'd like to cordially welcome all regular editors of these articles to voice their interest in starting this task force so as to see if there is sufficient support. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates for Biographies ADB and NDB

Please see Template:ADB/Template:de-ADB and Template:NDB, which correspond to de-Wiki Vorlagen. Very helpful when translating Bios for de->en, just copy the whole template (add "de-" before ADB), and you got a working link to online scanned articles. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Medieval peace treaties

I have begun move requests at Talk:Peace of Toruń (1411) and Talk:Peace of Toruń (1466). Further input would be appreciated. Olessi (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


The mountains known in German, and also in modern English use, as Schneekoppe and Riesengebirge, need some attention, also in regard to naming disputes. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Schnekopfe voting is already over, but there is no harm in reading how the discussion on Matthead proposal looked like[26]:) --Molobo (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That thread was altered beyond recognition by others. My last contri was 11:48, 14 January 2008. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note: It has been proposed that Karkonosze be renamed and moved to Giant Mountains.

What is Expulsion?

On Talk:Friedrich Scherfke, Tymek asked the following question:

A question to user Matthead. Why are you stating that Scherfke was a victim of expulsion? He was drafted into the Wehrmacht, and was caught by the British in Western Germany. Nobody expelled him from Poznan.

So, is being prevented from returning home expulsion, or are some questions rhetoric? -- Matthead  Discuß   18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know he was prevented from returning home? How do you know he wanted to return to Poznan? Anyway, awaiting opinions of other users, too. Tymek (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
As you know very well, his ethnic German team mate in the Polish national squad, Ernst Willimowski, was even prevented from visiting the 1974 Polish team within Germany. Do you really want to make believe they had the option to return to their homes after 1945? Tymek, do you deny the Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II? It is relevant to both footballer bios that they were expelled (or repelled) by Poland after having played and scored for Poland. It's even more shameful to deny this today, now that Poland is in the EU, and the borders are open. Tymek, you re-added that Scherfke "was frequently a visitor of a Polish restaurant Strzecha" in 1980s West Berlin, but removed any hint why he did so in Berlin rather than his home town Posen/Poznan. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Matthead, the situation was not as simple as you may think. Wilimowski was regarded as a traitor because he played for the national team of the Third Reich and this is why he was not allowed to return to Poland. In other words - his case was exceptional. Other players who signed the Volksliste and ended up in the Wehrmacht, such as Gerard Wodarz, returned to Poland after the war and continued their careers there. I am not denying anything, I just do not like simplified generalizations that you exhibit sometimes. Tymek (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for a short translation

Hello, fellow wikipedians. One section here about a lunatic (it appears he was from Kyiv) Nazi_occultism#Gregor_Schwartz-Bostunitsch has no content, it only says to see the German wikipedia article. Could someone translate a few lines? Thanks, Ostap 05:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant article at de-WP was deleted recently as unencyclopedic essay - I'm not really convinced about that, but that's the way it went in early February. I looked into the deleted article and could not find anything useful about Schwartz-Bostunitsch anyway, so I'm sorry, there is nothing from de-WP that could be used here. --h-stt !? 06:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The link points to the still existing article Gregor Schwartz-Bostunitsch, H-stt.--Jo (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Gregor Schwartz-Bostunitsch might be a start.--Stone (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
True - but in the German languae article on Schwartz-Bostunitsch, there is nothing on the content of his occult writings, just the fact that he wrote about that topic. So I'm not sure how his German article can be helpful to expand Nazi occultism here. --h-stt !? 09:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a necessary note: The closing admin was of the opinion that my article "as unencyclopedic essay". I personally consider the outcome of the discussion more like "no consensus" and I didn't get any specific comment which sentences were 'to essayistic". My style of writing might be rather "wordy and rambly", as someone commented recently on a discussion page, but I am very well able to write an encyclopaedic article (at least I didn't get any complains for the English Nazi occultism article.) I am still unsure how I should deal with the rejection from the German WP (aside from not doing much work there, for now), and I wonder if there might be another real reason why the article encountered so much resistance.Zara1709 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I just checked Goodrick-Clarke. According to him (Occult Roots of Nazism, p. 162, 169-71) Schwartz-Bostunitsch was a conspiracy theorists with a profound interest in occultism, and he was "appointed honorary SS 'professor' in 1942." So it is quite correct to describe him as "Occultists working for the SS", probably I can fill out a few details next week. Zara1709 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks to whoever added the content. Very good work. Ostap 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

East Prussian Plebiscite

Somebody added a map to the article East Prussian plebiscite claiming an ethnical Polish Majority in the 1920s in large parts of the plebsicite area. The plebiscite resulted 98 % of German votes, so it´s quiet obviously a nationalistic claim of people, who are (even 90 years after) unable to accept the plebiscite results. I added a POV tag, that was removed by User:Piotrus several times. The discussion leads to nothing, as I couldn´t find a map showing the ethnicity (with 98 % German votes, there is no need for an "ethnicity"-map). Is somebody able to find a similar map or something else convincing? (HerkusMonte (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Poles voted for Germany (or Prussia, to be exact) because of fear of oncoming Soviets and for many other reasons. Space Cadet (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC) Part of the votes were also falsfied giving a bigger majority then existed.--Molobo (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See Masurians for an answer ("Support for the Nazi Party was high in Masuria, especially in elections in 1932 and 1933"), they were largeley Protestants and had assimilated over time (though keeping the language), and therefore voted to stay with Germany. I don't know the tale of electoral fraud, seems to be an excuse for the Polish nationalists. After the Second World War, Masurians could stay in former East Prussia - "Poles" ending up, in a further twist of history, as part of the "German minority" in Poland. Many of them migrated to Germany - such is the history of Europe... --DaQuirin (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The Poland was a Communist protectorate. At the same time many Germans left the GDR. Xx236 (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community

Hello folks,

The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit, also to be held in Cebu. The Philippine Wikipedia Community is an Implementing Partner of the Open Source Summit. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to meet people from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)

If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. You can register for the Open Source Summit here. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.

The Philippine Wikipedia Community

looks like eryone is on vacation, but I'll post anyhow

Please read up on Danzig, Danzig Law, Reinhold Curicke etc

I find that some people keep adding to Danzig, Poland or change it to Gdansk, such as in Reinhold Curicke or Danzig law. It is not Gdansk, Poland untill conquest in 1945, but Danzig, Prussia or Danzig, Royal Prussia, but not Danzig Royal Prussia, Poland.

I collected a number of historical facts for Danzig, Danzig law and Prussia, of which it was a continous part.

I posted these at Talk:Danzig law [27] .

It is pointed out that (even then) the false assumptions (about Danzig) are sometimes made (es ist ein Fehler, wann zuweilen vorgegeben wird, die Republik Polen sei Herr ueber die Stadt (Danzig) und ihre Recht usw). I realize that this will take some time to read through. This false assumption, that Danzig was Poland or Royal Prussia, was Poland is often repeted, it is nevertheless false and Wikipedia should not engage in entering false assumptions or claims. An Observer 9.6.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read Karin Friedrich's "The other Prussia ..." Space Cadet (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

German films task force

Just thought that the community would like to know that WikiProject Films has a established a German cinema task force. Interested editors are encouraged to join onboard! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the German name for...

Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435). Relevant to the discussion on article's talk about possible renaming. Please comment there. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment here if you don't mind: That's a nice example for how different the Polish and German views of history are. I'm not aware of any concrete name for this particular episode in a low-intensity conflict that dragged on for a long time. For modern Poles, the conflict with the Teutonic Knights is a significant element in history; for the Germans, it's not - the average German has never even heard of the knights. I'm also pretty sure that even in Polish, the "war" wasn't referred to as "polsko-krzyżacka" (which unduly reduces the complexity of the conflict) until a much later time; in Germany, it was never called anything simi(whatever it was called.) Translating the Polish name and article pl:Wojna polsko-krzyżacka w latach 1431-1435 into English as Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435) effectively imposes the specifically Polish perception on Wikipedia. Let there be no understanding, for want of a better name (maybe there is one, but I can't be bothered to look this up now), we might as well use Polish–Teutonic War (1431–1435). As long as it is made clear that this is a specifically Polish term that has no direct counterpart in German or international historiography, at least not in popular historiography. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What is listed by Piotrus as results of the google search are basically Wikipedia-mirrors and forum sites.
Google Book search yields the following surprising results:
  • Before 1939: Polish Teutonic Wars = No books at all
  • 1.note 1939: Eligiusz Kozlowski: Polish Teutonic Wars
  • 1941: The Polish Review, New York: Polish Teutonic Wars
  • 1942: Stephen Paul Mizwa: Polish Teutonic Wars
No books again until one in 1965, several the 1970s and thereafter
The term "Polish-Teutonic Wars" for a number of inner Prussian-Prussian civil war type events seem to be invented between 1939-42. Clearly 20th century Polish terminology, your hunch was right on. An Observer 10 July 2008
To clarify book search results further - Polish-Teutonic Wars is Polish-American terminology, started in USA in the 20th century. I agree with your detailed explanation below and here is my shorter version: 'Polish Teutonic Wars' is not historical terminology.
@An Observer: Thanks for your comment. I hesitate to base any statement as to when the name gained currency on a handful of Google Books results, though; esp. as this is dangerously close to original research (as would be a conventional, paper-based review of literature). I suggest to take an ex negativo approach instead, simply by stating that the term "Polish-Teutonic war" is a calque of wojna polsko-krzyżacka, which in turn was coined at a later date, and has no unambiguous equivalent in German (or even in English, for that matter).
On a more technical note, to separate your posts from others, please indent them with colons in front of each paragraph, rather than with a horizontal line. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes - even if you don't have a username. --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Wikipedia Listing of People

Someone please look into Wikipedia Category Lists, such as following, where it is claimed that German people, who lived in German cities in Germany, were People from Poland etc, sample: People from Szczecin, Category talk:People from Szczecin. Thanks - An Observer 01 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to say? --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This Wikipedia People from Szczecin List is very inaccurate. This flawed list states a large number of people, who were not born in Szczecin and were not People by city in Poland, as it is claimed in the category on the bottom of the list. Trying to correct this, gets reverted [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] and so on. These people referred to were born in Stettin, Pomerania, which was Holy Roman Empire Germany at least since 1181 continously until 1806, then German Empire until in 1945 and later Stettin became Szczecin, Poland. An Observer 1 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As much as I resent Space Cadet's anti-German crusading - I think you'll agree that Stettin and Szczecin are actually the same place, which is why we have just one article on it, rather than two. As long as it is made clear that Stettin has both a German and a Polish history, I don't see any harm in this categorization. I think it can be taken for granted that people will either know anyway, or will easily discover, that "people from Szczecin" includes people from a period when the city was actually called something else (e.g. Breslau wasn't always called Breslau, but was known by various names even during its German period). The alternative would be to either split the categories (which I would disagree with), or to create subcategories for pre- and post-1945 inhabitants (which I wouldn't mind). As long as this doesn't happen, though, covering everybody with one category using the modern name "Szczecin" seems to be the best solution. --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It is misleading to use a wrong name, as Wikipedia does in too many cases, sadly. And, BTW, is has to be made clear that Szczecin has a German history before 1946. The Poles made a "clear cut" then, and this should be reflected also in Wikipedia. Stettin should cover the city's history up to 1945, with Category:People from Stettin listing the people of that period. We have separate articles for Constantinople and Istanbul, for Königsberg and Kaliningrad. It should be uncontroversial to apply the same concept for former German cities like Breslau and others. Also, Wikipedia already has a plethora of categories, so adding a few does no harm, but solves conflicts. See for example Category:People from Königsberg and Category:People from Kaliningrad.-- Matthead  Discuß   16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Matthead, I totally agree with you that "is has to be made clear that Szczecin has a German history before 1946". I'm just not sure if this distinction should be or even can be properly made using two different categories. For most English users not familiar with German and Polish history, it's not easily recognizable that "Category:Stettin" and "Category:Szczecin" (and any derivative categories) actually refer to the same place. The same goes for categories relating to Königsberg/Kaliningrad. There is a case for your proposal (consistency), but I still maintain that these categories must be linked somehow. We mustn't allow the impression that "Stettin" and "Szczecin" are unrelated. There's yet another problem you may not have considered: Strictly separating old and new names may suggest that a name is necessarily tied to a specific period. However, in my book it's perfectly legitimate if modern Szczecin is referred to as "Stettin" by German speakers (or English speakers, for who the German name is more accessible); vice versa, it's equally legitimate for Polish speakers to use the name "Szczecin" when referring to pre-1946 history. Make no mistake, I'm not saying that things have to be done one way and not another - I'm merely pointing out the intricacies that each solution has. -Thorsten1 (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Baron Karl Siegmar (von) Galéra

Could anybody create a stub on this person? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Molobo, maybe? See his essay at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nazi_Publication_as_source_of_information_regarding_Polish_German_history__.3F.-- Matthead  Discuß   18:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is some more information on Dr Karl Siegmar Baron von Galera What is the justification for Molobo and others at Wikipedia to defame Dr. Karl Siegmar Baron von Galera ? -- An Observer 14 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Defamatory Smear campagne by Molobo An extensive smear campagne against persons and books by them was started by Wikipedia User: Molobo and supported by a number of his co-nationals.
Same site also states detailed rebuttals and corrections. An Observer 14 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, now we have stubs on

-- Matthead  Discuß   20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to {{db-author}}, these two stubs are gone now. Ashes to ashes. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It makes me sick to see how you create „truth“. You cite no proper sources (his son/nephew’s homepage is no source at all, especially not for political appraisements), you don’t care about the character of Karl Siegmar Baron von Galéra’s work. These books never had a serious impact on historiography, no matter what his family says. Their content is untrustworthy. Do you have any other tools except for Google? Books, papers? I won’t comment on Siegmar Baron von Galéras political attitudes, but your conclusions on honouring famous locals is just naive: There are enough examples where people have been honoured regardless of their past - by ignorance, disinterest or a lack of tactfulness. --Polarlys (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to this at User talk:Polarlys. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
... and by having the stubs deleted, due to certain "sick" people. -- Matthead  Discuß   23:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it’s my fault that these stubs are gone now. --Polarlys (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wehrmacht warcrimes...

...and where they should (not) be added is discussed here: Portal_talk:History#Wehrmacht_warcrimes. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Territorial changes of Germany after World War II

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Territorial changes of Germany after World War II, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Territorial changes of Germany after World War II. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

interesting discussion: merge templates German / Polish border changes

... is discussed at both template talk:German borders and template talk:borders of Poland. The merged template is used already in:

  1. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
  2. Potsdam Agreement
  3. Treaty of Versailles
  4. Yalta Conference
  5. Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919)

...and would look like this:

German border template + Polish border template = merged template (?)

Skäpperöd (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone please have a look at this group

There are a number of 'edits' by people, who in various ways keep removing references and information from Germany-related articles.

Please have a look at these edits, such as by User: and others, who deliberately re-enter mistakes or get abusive like [User: (

). The list keeps growing:


User: at Hedeby one of the group was stopped, others keep at it User:

Is that just a group of overanxious students who do not know any better, but to be as disruptive as possible, or is there a very deliberate method of slanting information to their particular nationalistic POV behind this? Either way, there are too many and I could use your help. Thank you. An Observer( (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC))