Talk:Kniefall von Warschau

message: It should also be added that Brandt was critized as being "unpatriotic" by the german media of that era. -- Imladros 03:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: by PARTS of the german media  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.206 (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpatriotic 

message: The article translates the quote "[...] was Menschen tun, wenn die Worte versagen" with "[...] what man does when words fail". Well, German isn't my first language, but I think a closer translation would be "[...] what people do when words fail". Agree? Junuxx (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: as a first language guy, I say that the first one is closer (people=volk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.206 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I really must disagree. 'People' can translate to 'Volk' , as in 'the American people', where it refers to a nation or ethnicity, but not in a sentence like "several people were sitting around the fire" where it just refers to multiple persons. I'd say 'what man does...' would be closer to 'was der Mensch tut...". Then again, the precise translation is not all that important and I'm probably nitpicking here. Junuxx (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "People" as in "people do stuff" doesn't quite capture the connotations. When he says "was Menschen tun", it should be understood as "what human beings can't help but do". As in, he felt that at this point, it was the natural thing to do because of his being human. "what people do" doesn't quite capture that, it would translate in German as "was Leute tun", and here the emphasis is much on the "Menschen". So "what man does", while not being the literal translation because of it not being in plural, is in my eyes still the more precise translation when it comes to capturing the intended meaning. "What humans do" is not quite right in tone and style, I think, and "what men do", while being in plural, I think would be associated with the male part of mankind, whereas "man" is usually understood as representing the whole of mankind, male and female alike. In this light, I think "What man does" is as precise as we can get when it comes to translating the original meaning.--89.12.188.197 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a German, the term Menschen means human beings in general in his quote. He does refer to himself as human being and you can take it like the biological classification of homo sapiens sapiens. It doesn't have the connotation of Leute, race (white, black etc.), or something else. The importance is also not the plural or singular, because it's only common in German to use the plural for this kind of phrase, but it would also work with the singular "was der Mensch tut, wenn...". You would use the singular, while speaking to friends, the plural is more appropriate to use in official matters. So maybe you can take the plural more as formal and the singular more as informal. Wouldn't it be a good translation to use this "what human beings do when words fail" ? Maybe I didn't get the nuances that you English natives are able to get from English words as appropriate translations. Anyway, I hope this will be helpful for your discussion. Kind regards -77.8.196.75 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  English translation of Brandt quote 

message: I've noticed that the link to the quote is dead, and the quote at the German wiki site is different that the one used here. 
- ″Am Abgrund der deutschen Geschichte und unter der Last der Millionen Ermordeten tat ich, was Menschen tun, wenn die Sprache versagt. 
instead of used at the English wiki page:
- ″Unter der Last der jüngsten Geschichte tat ich, was Menschen tun, wenn die Worte versagen. So gedachte ich Millionen Ermordeter
what has a significantly different meaning  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btokarsk (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quote 

message: If he was surrounded by dignitaries and journalists surely there must be a photo available?Historian932 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's the good old licence problem. Just because the event belongs to all of humanity doesn't mean the photos do. I added the picture that was used in the German article which is a photo of a photo in the Haus der Geschichte. There are other pictures overlapping but at least it should be legal. --Mudd1 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah well, should be legal but wasn't because museums aren't public places in German law. God I'm so lucky I didn't study law or I'd be mad by now. --Mudd1 (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a photo? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Warschauer Kniefall. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2015/08/13/former-prime-minister-hatoyama-kneels-at-wartime-prison-in-seoul/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406113958/http://www.cicero.de/sites/default/files/field/image/willy-brandt-kniefall-warschau.jpg to http://www.cicero.de/sites/default/files/field/image/willy-brandt-kniefall-warschau.jpg
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) 18:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is "Kniefall" translated as "genuflection" rather than "kneeling"? He went down on bent knees and remained in that position, whereas genuflection is best known from the quick Catholic gesture of bending one knee while crossing oneself and standing up again right away. I suspect either mistranslation on enWiki, or a wider use of a possibly inaccurate word. Google hits ("Warsaw kneeling" vs "Warsaw genuflection") stand at a relatively balanced 63:108, so c. 3:5, AFTER enWiki adopting "genuflection" with the usual multiplication effect. What is the opinion of English native-speakers? Arminden (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The genuflection article clearly differentiates between itself and kneeling. It says "Genuflection or genuflexion is the act of bending a knee to the ground, as distinguished from kneeling which more strictly involves both knees." So I would say this is kneeling, but I would ask the person that originally wrote it because I don't much about this. Alexysun (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "genuflection" rather than "kneeling"?