Talk:Germanisation/Archive 1

message: The German folksinger Gottlieb Wendehals (alias Werner Böhm) regularly makes fun very much at the costs of Poles, when writing and singing the song "Polonäse Blankenese", which by means of akward sexual allusions achieved tremendous success among the Germanic audience.
: The above statement is complete non-sense. The song is called "Polonäse" because it is a "Polonaise"-type song (Polonäse is light-hearted (incorrect) German transliteration). Neither the title nor the lyrics refer to Poland whatsoever. By the way, what is a "Germanic" audience? 141.13.8.14 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the translations because when I said "Rather than insisting on proof of 'torture'", you should have looked the term "rather than" up in a dictionary, and it does not mean "also", but "instead of". I cannot stand this senseless source-flood that tries to force through a statement to make the text biased. When you again and again try to paint the gloomiest, one-sided, most biased picture without stepping over the line of factual inaccuracy, it's best to just open the history book and get a sober impression by Pr.s and Dr.s of history. If this picture is different, it is usually best to shrugg off Mo's POVpushing and paint the picture the way the history book did. In case Molobo might accuse me of deleting his source despite a possible copyright violation, you can read the source here. NightBeAsT 19:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I can hardly imagine how anyone can consider Germanisation policy being "neutral". It's hard to believe that German textbooks would provide such a biased picture. --Lysy (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ~Sigh~ nor can I. "I read "Minorities in the nation state" of my old history book, and, of course, the impression conveyed is differently than that Molobo tries to give, for it is neutral." =) NightBeAsT 19:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Than the impression is wrong, sorry. You can't argue historical facts. Molobo's proposal are not perfect, nor written in a good style, but you can't ignore the sources he cites. For goodness' sake I can't believe that textbooks in German schools do not talk about Germanisation in context of violent Kulturkampf organised and led by the German state and civilians. Boyau 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: Removed information on Nazi programs of Germanisation including kidnapping of children ?
--Molobo 14:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard of that program as well. Olessi 19:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh please, Molobo! You know the revert was rather focused on your other changes (or rather revert). And before you're accusing me, accuse yourself. You're doing the same eg. NightBeAsT 19:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: My objections to the recent additions are that they are kept in a form of a dispute, that is (a) inappropriate for the article ("so this ... thus that ... etc.), (b) not clear what is disputed (e.g. why there should be any reluctance to offer the crown to a German speaking ruler ? why is it importand what was the intention of the Habsburgs ? etc.) The article should contain conclusions, based on cited sources and not discussion of the facts, which is apprpriate for the talk page. --Lysytalk 08:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why do you

message: I'm disgusted with this anonymous Polish-German pushing that's happening in the article since yesterday. It's definitely not healthy both for the article and for the editors themselves. Any ideas of how this could be handled ? --Lysytalk 16:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disgusted

message: I just wanted to state for the record that the cleanup tag was added because this was apparently translated & posted from the german wikipedia. Most of it was passable aside from a couple missed "und"s, but it likely needs to be rewritten inasmuch as the grammar. Don't remove the cleanup tag unless you've read through the entire thing, not just a glance (as has been the case some other articles). Also, if at all possible, we should have links to comparable web pages in English for the sources cited here. Darkildor 22:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup rationale 

message: I've been following this editor for the better part of today, and he seems to be of the opinion that there's a great deal of POV pro-polish or anti-german material in some articles concerning this controversial subject. While I cannot under any circumstances agree with his blankings and drastic, undiscussed/unjustified changes to the articles, I do agree that, as someone with no background in the subject, the language used is exceedingly unflattering toward Germany. If anyone can provide sources or evidence to justify what would otherwise be POV language, I'd like to see it added to ensure a NPOV in this subject area. --Kuzaar 06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The language used is exeedingly unflattering toward Germany? This does not refer to present day Gemany, you know!! But the policies of the German rulers and actions of the German people of the XIX cent., and they deserve 'unflattering language'. If you're not familiar with the topic, read some sources, and then say what is your opinion. Memory about these events is very well preserved in Poland (not srprised it is not so in Germany), as this is part of the opposition to outrageous antipolish violent policies that were imposed on Polish people during the 123-years of non-existence of Polish state. All these events have been countlessly recalled by popular history books, literature, published diaries, in film etc. The article, although not free from mistakes, presents historical facts obvious to EVERY Polish person. Disregarding this, you disregard the memory of all the victims of those crimes! Boyau 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes by 131.173.252.9 

message: This article started out as Germanisation. It was recently moved to Germanization by User:Darkildor without giving any reason/no discussion, thereby violating the MoS. The move should be undone. An administrator will have to do the move, because the target page has an edit history. It's very similar to the recent Organization-move, this time the other way around. SpNeo 13:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move back to [[Germanisation]] 

message: Can someone please cite sources that state that Frederick the Great "germanised" Silesia.  As Silesia was already a part of the HRE at this time, that is to say, it was already recognized as German land, with a majority German population.  nowhere but on wikipedia have I ever read anything about Frederick the Great "germanising" populations of his land.  This looks like the article is meant to demonize a respected German historical figure while advocating the forced eviction of Germans from their native homelands by the Soviets/Polish after WWII.
--Jadger 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Germanising does not refer to landownership, but to violent policies of Kulturkampf. Demanding that Polish people stop using Polish language and will become German - and the fashion in which this was done. I see this topic causes lot of controversy, I'll look up some sources, and post it here. Boyau 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silesia under Frederick the Great 

message: The only possible approach is historical. By the way, forced germanisation can be well defined as a bad thing. It is the case of the germanisation of the non-German speaking people in South Tyrol (XVII century) promoted by the Austrian Empire and motivated by religious concerns.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.0.27 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanisation: an historical approach 

message: You act like Germanisation is a bad thing, like the "vile" and "evil" Germans were persecuting the poor, defenseless eastern Europeans. It would appear to me that this article is a result of the severe amount of anti-German propoganda in America and other former ally countries. I have read the text books that you "educate" your children with, sad is the only word i can think to describe it.
-Helmut Reiker
I'm part German and it annoys the bloody hell out of me whenever people act as though Germany is a horrible country or it's bad to be German. Germany was in need and Hitler abused it, they need to get the hell over it now, it's over. 
-Blakemore
I'm a German-American. I also have issues with this article and with Helmut's suggestion. Forced Germanization was not always done for racial motivations, sometimes political reasons or ease of administration. There should be a distinction. The article is negatively overtoned almost entirely throughout, exceptions being where it states that the process happened as a by-product or side-effect, but even then it's still pretty shaky. It speaks of people being of mixed Polish descent with an "Oh, what a shame," attitude, as if it were a terrible thing that they are no longer only Polish. As an American of mixed heritage, I am rather irked by things like this. I'm English, Scottish, Irish, Scots-Irish, German, Native American, and Chinese-Indonesian, and proud of it all. Not trying to go off on too many tangents or anything, but take it as a poll from the audience, reader feedback, w/e.
If I might address Helmut directly, I'm reading these textbooks now. I don't see any propaganda being mass produced and distributed in the schoolbooks anymore. Once upon a time, yes, it happened, and it does bother me as well, but that's over now. And what bothers me more is the Allies' treatment of the German people, the Dutch people, the Polish people, and others, the expulsion, the trading around, and the idea that only an ethnically homogeneous state could ever be truly stable. If only they could see the US, Canada, UK, Australia, Singapore, and even Germany now. And keep in mind that a significant portion of the United States population is of German descent. It'd be a special kind of hard to discriminate so much against ourselves. --Reinald Wesner  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCIWesner (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is indeed a lot of problems with the article, stemming from an anti-German bias. Chauvinist propaganda is used as if it is fact, while it actually isn't. 105.12.7.75 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please provide specific instances of "anti-German bias" and material sourced to "chauvinistic propaganda". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: There's a problem here: Bias Against Germanisation

message: result of the severe amount of anti-German propoganda in America
IMHO it's mostly written by Poles. Polish nationalism - especially in schools at communist time - has a long tradition in demonizing German history, e.g. the feudal wars against the Teutonic Order are interpreted as a "national" independence fight, completely blanking out that the local German population supported the Polish lords! In this propaganda the assimilated Slavic or Baltic minorities were all per definition Polish and this evil process of assimilation was politically enforced, even long before the concept of a nation state or language dispute was even born. The corresponding processes of Francization, Anglicisation and Polonization where huge linguistic minorities vanished in the last 2 centuries are in comparison very moderately discussed in Wikipedia! -- Popolfi (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish  nationalistic propaganda

message: There was written that the dialect of the Ruhr area contains lots of words of Polish origin. That isn't true. I live in this area and I don't know any. I suggest to delete this sentence until there are any proofs of this assertion.
: well "lots" seems to be very exagerated, here some few examples from German Wikipedia:
:"Im Ruhrgebiet (Ruhrdeutsch) wird das polnische Wort Mottek für einen Hammer benutzt, im poln. heißt es młotek. In der Jugendsprache wird für Geld manchmal auch Schlotten gesagt, im Polnischen heißt die Währung Złoty (Gold)." 
: "Ausdrücke wie Mottek für Hammer oder Mattka (beides aus dem Polnischen) für eine korpulente, ungepflegte ältere Frau, die in der Gesamtheit des Wortschatzes ebenfalls als kennzeichnend für das Ruhrdeutsch genannt werden können, sind vielen Sprechern des Hochdeutschen im Ruhrgebiet sogar nicht einmal mehr geläufig. Insgesamt ist der Bestand polnischer oder masurischer Worte im Ruhrdeutschen begrenzt."   --Popolfi (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruhr dialect 

message: The French treat their linguistic and cultural minorities poorly but aren't treated nearly as harshly as the Germans, who have strongly pulled back on the Germanisation policy. This should be noted somewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.117.108 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with France 

message: I was looking for information about the Germanisation of the Belgian East Cantons. Could somebody with more knowledge about this topic please add some information about it?Johnny2323 (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Eupen-Malmedy belonged to the Prussia/German Empire before being annexed by Belgium after WWI. IMHO the population  belonged since Roman times to the German-Dutch dialect continuum. In the western parts of Europe you have rather French language pushing eastwards, so it's more a Francisation than Germanisation. --popolfi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.73.203 (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgian East Cantons 

message: What is the specific example supposed to show? All dates are clearly even before the First World War, so it's not an appropriate example for the Second World War. Can anybody shed some light on this one? --Tauwasser (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think somebody just misplaced it.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Put a relevance notice up. If nobody thinks it's relevant or finds some sources with actual figures for a time span at least touching the First World War, I will remove the whole section later. --Tauwasser (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

text: And it's gone. --Tauwasser (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I'm not even the person who added it to begin with.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific example - Germanization during the Second World War 

message: I have corrected the following passages, in addition to some minor edits:
:"The Protestant king of Bohemia elected against the Habsburgs by the Bohemian estates in 1619, the German prince Frederick V, Elector Palatine was defeated in 1620 by Catholic forces loyal to the Habsburg Emperor, Ferdinand II. "
:Proposed correction: "The German prince and Elector Palatine Frederick V, elected as king of Bohemia by the Bohemian estates in 1619, was defeated by Catholic forces loyal to the Habsburg Emperor, Ferdinand II."
:"Among the Bohemian lords who were punished and had their lands expropriated after Frederick's defeat in 1620 were German- and Czech-speaking landowners. Thus, this conflict was, by far, an internal conflict resulting from the feudal system than a clash of different nations. Although the Czech language lost its significance as a written language in the aftermath of the events, it is questionable whether this was primarily intended by the Habsburg rulers, whose intentions were in religious and feudal categories."
:Proposed Correction:"...Thus, this conflict was feudal in nature, not national. Although the Czech language lost its significance as a written language in the aftermath of the events, it is questionable whether this was intended by the Habsburg rulers, whose aims were of a feudal and religious character.
:Of Prussian Lithuanians
:Similar Germanisation also happened for Prussian Lithuanians living in East Prussia, numbers of whom, since the 15th century, made up a majority of population in vast areas of East Prussia (since early 16th century often referred to as Lithuania Minor), had shrunk considerably during the 18h-20th centuries because of Plague and following immigration from Germany, notably from Salzburg in 18th century. Policy of Germanisation was tightened during the 19th century. In the early 20th century, Lithuanian majority remained north of the Neman River and areas south and south-west of the river.
:Similar development happened with Kursenieki, but this ethnic group never had a large population.
:Proposed Changes:===Prussian Lithuanians===
:Prussian Lithuanians living in East Prussia experienced similar policies of Germanisation. Although ethnic Lithuanians had constituted a majority in areas of East Prussia during the 15th and 16th centuries (from the early 16th century it was often referred to as Lithuania Minor), the Lithuanian population began to shrink in the 18th century. Plague and subsequent immigration from Germany, notably from Salzburg, were the primary factors in this development. Germanisation policies were tightened during the 19th century, but even into the early 20th century the territories north and south/south-west of the Neman River contained a Lithuanian majority. Kursenieki experienced similar developments, but this ethnic group never had a large population.
...the point is to change it (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy Editing

message: A "Citation Needed" mark has been added to several segments whose online reference no loner exists. If any sources can be found for these, it would be appreciated!...the point is to change it (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The last paragraph under Western Germanization  says:
:An even more radical scheme was devised by Himmler which envisioned the near-future resettlement of the entire Dutch nation to agricultural lands in the Vistula and Bug valleys of German-occupied Poland in order to facilitate their immediate Germanisation.[58] 8.5 million people were to be relocated in total, after which all Dutch capital and real estate would be confiscated by the Reich and distributed to reliable SS men, and an SS Province of Holland declared in vacated Dutch territory. [59]
However a look at the sources indicate BOTH originate with a man named Felix Kersten who has his own wikipedia entry. This talks about the so-called Dutch Relocation.
:In his post-war memoirs Kersten takes credit for saving, among others, the whole Dutch people from forced deportation to the Nazi-occupied East. In 1953 the Dutch government nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize on this account.[1] However a later official Dutch investigation concluded that no such plan had ever existed and that some of Kersten's documents were fabricated.[2]
These citations are sourced to a story in the Atlantic (whose archives are available to the public) and a document that is a German Reprint of something called "Two Legends from the Third Reich." This is written by Loe de Jong who apparently is an incredibly definitive source on WWII in regards to the Netherlands. In light of this information I am removing the claim about Dutch relocation from this article.(SSJPabs (SSJPabs (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch Relocation 

message: Was Himmler the one who was responsible for planning "Germanisation under the Third Reich"?  MathewTownsend (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanisation under the Third Reich 

message: There is a very old NPOV tag. Can it be removed, or if not can someone indicate what is the problem below. Op47 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php?t=38757. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The final section regarding Germanic and Slavic surnames reads very much as if it has been lifted straight from the paper it claims to be citing.
I have not had the time to read the paper myself, but the wiki section here has phrases like 'our study' still present, and retains stastisical analysis in brackets. I would be very surprised if this is not the result of straight copying.
This really needs to be investigated and be re-written in a proper way if it is a copy before the journal notices. It is a clear breach of copyright if it has been copied.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.183.18 (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surnames section 

message: The sentence "Later in the German Empire, Poles were (together with Danes, Alsatians, German Catholics and Socialists) portrayed as "Reichsfeinde" ("foes to the empire")" is unclear, who was portraying them as Reichsfeinde? This implies that there was government propaganda depicting them as such, but if there was such, then it should say so. If however, this was just the view of Bismark his political allies, then it should use the term view. It seems from other sources, that Bismark doubted the loyalty, and viewed them as potential threats to the Empire, and would not explicitly name them all enemies.  Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reichsfeinde 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Germanisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719060128/http://www.magazin-deutschland.de/de/artikel/artikelansicht/article/auf-der-suche-nach-dem-ich.html to http://www.magazin-deutschland.de/de/artikel/artikelansicht/article/auf-der-suche-nach-dem-ich.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This page uses a capital letter - to Germanize. But Webster's  uses a small letter, although it notes "often capitalized". I would suggest we change to a small "g" in this article, with a note in the lede that the word is "often capitalized". Unless someone has Reliable Sources - more reliable than Webster's - that prefer the capital letter? MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  capital or small? 

message: The article refers mostly to nazi Germanization or to the word adaptation. Some migrants get German ID, this is called Germanization also. We are supposed to reveal all data, not the most emotional ones. If something boring is part of the truth should also be revealed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:2F00:C96E:5DBA:BFD5:D544 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  make chapter: Migrant Germanization (z, US option is the unofficial standard in Wikipedia) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Germanisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120527021449/http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm to http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.shoaheducation.com/aryan.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120801131532/http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm#GERMANIZATION%20OF%20POLISH%20CHILDREN to http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm#GERMANIZATION%20OF%20POLISH%20CHILDREN
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Germanisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723173024/http://kossert.net/dateien/vfzg5122003.pdf to http://www.kossert.net/dateien/vfzg5122003.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051208100913/http://www.echoed.com.au/chronicle/1902/jan-feb/world.htm to http://www.echoed.com.au/chronicle/1902/jan-feb/world.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120527021449/http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm to http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031203151512/http://fundamentalbass.home.mindspring.com/c9052.htm to http://fundamentalbass.home.mindspring.com/c9052.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120527021449/http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm to http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article requires editing for sense - especially the second paragraph. I couldn't parse it for love or money. Well, maybe for money...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.202.150 (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article requires editing for sense. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Germanisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904184121/http://www.tcm-kp.de/geschichtliches/johannziesch/ to http://www.tcm-kp.de/geschichtliches/johannziesch/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This entire article appears to violate several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Specifically, it is a synthesis: a gathering together of information from many separate sources to support the idea of a single unified idea called "Germanization.", and synthesis is a no-no because it is a form of original research.  As far as I can tell, none of the referenced sources discuss this newly-created synthesis i.e. the idea of germanisation as a single historical trend. Can someone please provide a few such sources?  If not, then this article should be broken into multiple articles, one for each (referenced) meaning of the term "germanisation", and the article itself should become a disambiguation page.
Separate from the synthesis problem, the article is in dire need of a through copyedit, but that would be a great deal easier if it were first subdivided.
Please note: I realize that some of these separate aspects of "germanisation" had truly horrific effects, and some of the dogma that drove is was frankly evil. I sympathize, but that is no reason to cram all of this stuff together into one article. -Arch dude (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entire article is a synthesis? 

message: Do you mean:
 ?Xx236 (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Does who mean what?  Could you please write coherent comments and provide context for them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What is  An international meeting of socialists held in Brussels in 1902? I have proposed my link. Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

text: It's apparently International Socialist Bureau#1st. Brussels; December 30, 1901.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brusseles 1902 

message: I have linked Września children strike replacing the general Września link, where the strike is only mentioned. Beyond my Ken has reverted my edit. I'm right. Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been here for 13 years and have almost 40,000 edits, so there's absolutely no excuse for you not to understand the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism", but since you apparently don't, I suggest you read WP:VANDALISM, and withdraw your aspersion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read my edit summary, you'd see that I reverted your edit because you removed a "citation needed" tag without providing a citation. However, your change of Wikilink does seem to be an improvement, so I've restored it.  I'll accept your apology for calling my edit "vandalism" at any time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong revert