Talk:German South West Africa

message: Have restored alternative name for the events, and also mentioned both disputed versions of the shoot on site order. Hopefully we can find some citations that will clarify things further. Greenman 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebellion 

message: First paragraph: "....it was easily one and a half times the size of the German Empire at the time", how can a part of the empire be bigger than the empire?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.52.122 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to: "it was easily one and a half times the size of the mainland German Empire in Europe (without its colonies) at the time." (When it is called the German Empire it actually refers to the then-new unified German state of all the earlier smaller independent German-states, not because of its colonies.) -GabaG (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: I tried to add to the infobox the official language of German South-West Africa as being german, but I wasn't able to do so.81.193.24.210 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Language 

message: Itsmejudith's modifications to Shark Island, German South West Africa, though well-intended, have obscured two extremely important areas in the historical record:
1. Shark Island, German South West Africa was renamed Shark Island Concentration Camp. However, great efforts were made to provide citations that substantiate that Shark Island was the world's first extermination camp, not merely a concentration camp.
2. A great deal of research to find the proper citations to find officials of German African colonies who worked during the Second Reich and also worked during the Third Reich; thus, bridging the Second and Third Reichs. This bridge was not insignificant, as is noted by one of my citations by Hannah Arendt. Furthermore, one of the officials worked during the Third Reich to establish an 'internal colony' by Germany in Eastern Europe. This official, who links the Second and Third Reich, became a central person in another Wikipedia article. The removal of Bridging the Second and Third Reichs thus destroys quite a few Wikipedia pages.
Some of the related issues:
* The changes above impact approximately fifty Wikipedia articles. I wish that all the Wikipedia articles were independent, but in fact very few are. This applies not only to articles I have created or modified, but articles created by others as well. 
* Extermination camps are quite different from concentration camps. Consider List of Nazi concentration camps, not written by me, with a redirect of vernichtungslager, which links to Extermination camp -- also not written by me. The point is that the distinction between an extermination camp and a concentration camp applies especially in German South West Africa, and has now been obliterated from the historical record, totally disregarding citations given. This is exactly the objective of the deniers in history, in spite of the fact that the German government has issued an official apology, admitting this fact. I don't believe that Wikipedia should ally itself with positions that are historically false. 
*Officials who bridged the Second and Third Reichs are referred to in other Wikipedia articles. Removal of this list of officials now destroys the historical record. No amount of citations with a link to "Bridging the Second and Third Reichs" for support, will have any meaning, since the information that it refers to has been removed. (Such links now land the reader on Shark Island Concentration Camp, at the top of the page, where no "Bridging the Second and Third Reichs" now exists.)
I agree with you that editing information in Wikipedia to make information easily available and easily assimilated, is a laudable objective; but not at the cost of changing the historical record and removing vital information. Please take care that other edits of this nature do not take place without careful investigation. In fact, since I am fully aware of the intricacies, when you see things you want to change, rather than making extensive changes, why not consult me first? I realize this is extra work, but in the end it might actually result in less work. There are some related articles that are even more complicated; this is especially true for them, even though I made strenuous effort to write plainly.
Itsmejudith, please comment.Virago250 (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Obfuscation of the Historical Record Due to Conflation and Deletion of Material

message: I think the article needs to be chronological, as it is a history article. Also, I do find the "bridging Second and Third Reichs" formulation to be potentially confusing. Unless people have read some German history, they might not know what the Second and Third Reichs are. They might not know what it means to "bridge" the two. I do think we need to reflect the major body of recent historical work that finds the roots of Nazism in German colonialism, but we need to do it in a way that makes sense to readers of very different backgrounds. I had to look up and remind myself of what "Second Reich" means, and I have studied 20th century European history. What would it mean to a young reader from southern Africa, for example? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The entire section titled "Bridging the Second and Third Reichs in German South West Africa" looks like WP:OR. Although I'm sure some authors have touched on the subject, our article gives it undue space. In addition, lots of items in the table look like pure speculation. Descriptions such as "Heinrich "worked" in German Southwest Africa, and Hermann was a "well known member" of the NSDAP"; this guy "originated the slogan Lebensraum while in GSWA in 1910, a sympathizer who influenced the NSDAP since 1923"; or even "member NSDAP in 1933, founder of German East Africa" are meaningless (btw this article is not about German East Africa). Enumerating every single person who visited GSWA and later had some role in NSDAP or WWII does not seem especially remarkable or particularly informative and the entire section could be reduced to a paragraph or two summarizing the arguments for the link that some authors have provided. Remember, this article is about German South-West Africa - i.e. narrower in scope than German colonialism and wider than the Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Timbouctou (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of sections 

message: First-time reader here for the article, confused about what the "Notes" on the Shark Island camp mean: "(In Lüderitzbucht, 121.2% for Nama, 30% for Herero)".  To what do these percentages refer?  As far as I can tell the article does not explain them.  I assume it has something to do with mass killings since Shark Island is labeled an extermination camp, but I don't know what.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.85.146 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question About Table On Camps 

message: The unsubstantiated genocide claims are simply malicious. Or are you now going to define any colonial war against insurgents or even violent police action as "genocide"? --197.229.145.65 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous, did you read the article? Did you follow the link with the German government admitting the genocide? The UN? The Namibian government? How much more "substantiated" do you want? :) Greenman (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since when is a claim not malicious only because it's made by one or more government, who obviously have political interests in making them? Government press releases aren't proof of anything, except a government making them. --154.69.34.119 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  A better question is why you think the Herero and Namaqua genocide should merely be described as a "colonial war against insurgents or even violent police action" rather than, as is seemingly the consensus among historians, genocide. What are your sources for it not being a genocide? --Ismail (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malicious Claims 

message: @Fuortu
The recent move from South West Africa to a hyphenated form took no regard of the actual local English spelling of the name of the territory during all the years of its existence between the end of the German colonial era as Deutsch-Südwestafrika and independence as Namibia. For examples, refer to official documents of the territory and its postage stamps. On stamps, the name was never hyphenated in English during all the years while the full names of the territory was used from 5 March 1931 until the abbreviated and multilingual SWA began to be used on 1 September 1973.Previous entries on this talk page show that this same issue also came up in 2006 and 2010. The argument that "In a purely grammatical sense, "South West Africa" would be in the south of West Africa" is moot since in the south of West Africa is exactly where it is actually located.All the above also applies to the simultaneous moving of German South West Africa to a hyphenated format. Both moves should therefore be reverted. -- André Kritzinger (talk) 11:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on Talk:South-West Africa where the same matter was brought up. --Pgallert (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, as outlined on Talk:South-West Africa, the territory was never part of West Africa. The "grammar" argument was thus not moot. Furthermore, the national language during this period was not English but German. I would be surprised to find that they used the territory's English name, with or without hyphen. Indeed, from the little coverage in Postage stamps and postal history of German South-West Africa it seems they issued German stamps. --Pgallert (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename took no account of local English 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on German South-West Africa. 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/20090220230544/http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk:80/press/103mann.htm to http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/103mann.htm#German%20South-West%20Africa
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) 00:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm from Germany. Please excuse my bad English!
The flag in the article isn't correct. This flag was planned by Wilhelm Solf, but it never was the official flag of German South West Africa. Please look at the german article and take this flag.
Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix00186 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag