Talk:Erika Steinbach/Archive 3

message: Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel (see [Rahmel on map of West-Eastprussia in 1896) and records of Inhabitants   in Westprussia, ( now Rumia, Poland), in direct vicinity of the Landkreis Danzig, Freistadt Danzig, in a part of Germany, which without plebecite of the local population, was with the Treaty of Versailles 'given' to Poland, but remained in Germany, until it was conquered by the Soviet Union in 1945.
Rumia (Rahmel in German) has never been the part of Freistadt Danzig (Free City of Gdansk/Danzig). Altough after the 3rd partition of Poland (1795) was taken away from Poland and incorporated into Prussia until 1918 (for 123 years). Rumia (Rahmel) since 1918 was returned to Poland. To clarify the above passage - Rumia has never been a part of Freistad Danzig (Free City of Gdansk/Danzig)
 
===Trip===
You changed "One of her aims is to build a monument against forced migration in the centre of Berlin, devoted to German victims of the expulsion of Germans after World War II." to "One of her aims is to build a monument against forced migration in the centre of Berlin, devoted to Germans subject to the expulsion of Germans after World War II."
:Obvious appeasement of a trip with hundreds of thousands up to two millions of German civilian deaths, most of who were according to a history book of mine woman and children.NightBeAsT 18:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Having Russia as a friend has been more important for German governments after the end of the Cold War, for many reasons. For example does Germany need Russian energy, and the Russians also need the Germans. If I remember correct Yeltsin in 1991 offered to sell East Prussia back to Germany, however the Germans declined since that area is in a horrible condition. Maria Stella 10:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it about expulsion of Germans only, or all expulsions, regardless of nationality ? --Lysy (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The centre is especially focusing on expulsions of Germans, naturally, but will also deal with other expulsions, for example the ethnic cleansings of the Balkans. Maria Stella 10:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Erika Steinbach - born in '''Rahmel'''-Inhabitants Records since 1600's

message: You changed "One of her aims is to build a monument against forced migration in the centre of Berlin, devoted to German victims of the expulsion of Germans after World War II." to "One of her aims is to build a monument against forced migration in the centre of Berlin, devoted to Germans subject to the expulsion of Germans after World War II."
:Obvious appeasement of a trip with hundreds of thousands up to two millions of German civilian deaths, most of who were according to a history book of mine woman and children.NightBeAsT 18:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Having Russia as a friend has been more important for German governments after the end of the Cold War, for many reasons. For example does Germany need Russian energy, and the Russians also need the Germans. If I remember correct Yeltsin in 1991 offered to sell East Prussia back to Germany, however the Germans declined since that area is in a horrible condition. Maria Stella 10:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it about expulsion of Germans only, or all expulsions, regardless of nationality ? --Lysy (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The centre is especially focusing on expulsions of Germans, naturally, but will also deal with other expulsions, for example the ethnic cleansings of the Balkans. Maria Stella 10:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trip

message: It does not look very serious when one person changes something and the other reverts the changes and things repeat many times. What is wrong in putting two names? In German the locality is called Rahmel, so in German sources the name Rahmel is used. In Polish it is Rumia, so the name Rumia is used in Polish Wikipedia. This is English Wikipedia and there is no English name for Rahmel/Rumia so I think to preserve NPoV both names should be used. Regards, Jasra 22:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: war of names

message: This page has been a mess for over two years now. I decided to give it a try and perform a general cleanup. Hopefully this helps to settle the endless revert wars and discussions going in circles (I also archived the 233kb-long discussion here at the talk page, it must've been some sort of a record...). I migrated most of the info on the Centre Against Expulsions to that article's talk, as it had little to do with Steinbach herself and lots to do with the centre. I also expanded on her post-war life. It wasn't easy as the details of her life vary from interview to interview. The basic source I used was the GW article listed as a "general" reference. 
Most of the changes are pretty self-explanatory, though there is one basic thing that might require some additional comment from me. The basic problem for many of those who revert warred over this article was the name of the place she was born in. Initially I thought that there might be some NPOV solution to the problem, but apparently there isn't. After two years I realize that this is a classical situation of two conflicting POVs, one represented by the majority and one by a minority. The problem is whether we accept the Nazi annexation of Poland or not. If so, then she was born in Rahmel, West Prussia. If not, then it was Rumia, occupied Poland. As the only state to accept the annexation of those areas by Nazi Germany was Nazi Germany itself, I decided to follow the version supported by the united nations and the international law ("no territorial changes through war" and so on). Hopefully this would end the dispute. Halibutt 04:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your edits. I can live with this version, and appreciate your contributions. The Rumia/Rahmel thing is not yet perfect, but then, as long as Rahmel is mentioned I am OK with it. (I don't have an alternative suggestion either) -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I know it's not perfect, hardly any compromise is... Halibutt 15:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Interestingly the law which somebody was nice enough to state "includes people who lost all kinds of property" is in fact worded different. In fact I wonder what property according to the author of that change Steinbach lost ? Was it perhaps some future property that would be hers if the chosen German nation would finally exterminate Poles as Hitler promised and settle their land ? Because I am unawere of her possesing anything in Poland.
Anyway the law is indeed worded differently and includes also people who didn't lost property as I can see it.
Here is the sentence :
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/bvfg/__1.html
I don't know if I am translating this right :
	
ohne einen Wohnsitz gehabt zu haben, sein Gewerbe oder seinen Beruf ständig in den in Absatz 1 genannten Gebieten ausgeübt hat und diese Tätigkeit infolge Vertreibung aufgeben mußte,
Without having a home, had his work or profession in named areas which he practiced, and because of expulsions he had to stop.
What an interesting sentence. Are concentration camp guards expelees also according to German law if I am reading this right ? 
Of course German law also makes it clear that people who were part of colonisation efforts earlier-for example during Kulturkampf when Poles were forced to sell their land to German colonists are expelees also:
Heimatvertriebener ist ein Vertriebener, der am 31. Dezember 1937 oder bereits einmal vorher seinen Wohnsitz in dem Gebiet desjenigen Staates hatte, aus dem er vertrieben worden ist (Vertreibungsgebiet), und dieses Gebiet vor dem 1. Januar 1993 verlassen hat; die Gesamtheit der in § 1 Abs. 1 genannten Gebiete, die am 1. Januar 1914 zum Deutschen Reich oder zur Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie oder zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt zu Polen, zu Estland, zu Lettland oder zu Litauen gehört haben, gilt als einheitliches Vertreibungsgebiet.
Basically this passage means that people who had earlier property in territories of Poland that were part of German Reich before 1914(!) and later were forced to move out of it are expelees also If I am reading this right. Now this not only justifies Partitions of Poland but also makes it legal for Nazi settlers to claim they are expelees if their families had some possesions in Poland earlier(as the expelee status passes over). German colonists from German Reich era are also expelees according to that right if I am reading this right.
All in all as can be seen the law is very broad and doesn't include victims but also others. Personally I am schocked that Germany has such nationalistic law, justifing(willing or not or aware or unaware) many discriminatory policies of German Reich and Nazi Germany towards non-Germans.
--Molobo 17:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expelee status

message: The anon editor is attempting to insert claims that the Versailles treaty was illegitimate and did not take into account the wishes of the inhabitants of Rumia.  Whether that is true or not, the Erika Steinbach article is definitely not the place to discuss these issues.  I invite the anonymous editor to discuss such speculation on the talk page of the Rumia article, not here. Balcer 20:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the appropriate tags.  I also invite the anon user to explain himself on the talk page.  Restarting the long debate over the status of Rumia is something I would really prefer to avoid.  Balcer 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the long insertion of text from one of the edits. The diffs were: ,, if anybody is interested.  No need to paste the whole text here. Balcer 13:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the tags needed? //Halibutt 10:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Versailles treaty

message: The fighter isn't exactly anonymous, he has a long record of almost radical nationalistic contributions. Is he financed by the LPR to make fun of Germans?
Xx236 07:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  24.23.39.36 

message: Mrs. Steinbach seems to be almost as popular as Jesus . One should believe she is the most important politician in Germany. Donnog 19:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost as popular as Jesus 

message: Okay, well it's not so new. I made a small change to the birthplace line in the article, just to see what people think. I'm looking for comments, improvements, and helpful civil discussion of possible changes. Let's try to work toward a compromise version here. —Mira 03:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with your version is that it suggests that the place is in Poland only now, while it was Rumia, Poland both before, after and during her birth. //Halibutt 05:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, which is why I asked for comments to improve it. I like your version, except for the part I just removed. It just seemed like too much information there. However, I don't feel strongly about that in any way. —Mira 08:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Mira. I support your change - the exact location of the village is explained in the Rumia article and not relevant here. --Lysytalk 09:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New version

message: This is what we will need to use to be consistent with the wishes of the nationalist POV pushers. Donnog 13:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to be more careful with what terms you throw around here. I am American, so how am I pushing my "nationalist POV" here? —Mira 19:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to be careful labelling nationalism as such. I don't know what your opinion on lies and irredentism is. Now I know. I only see continous nationalist vandalism and POV pushing on this article in contradiction with our most important policy. Donnog 21:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, as I've explained to you, edits that you disagree with are not vandalism. And the rest of your comment doesn't really make sense to me. I'm not pushing a nationalist anything. —Mira 22:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are pushing a nationalist POV , introducing historical revisionism and you disregard the NPOV policy. Donnog 22:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1945-1991: Breslau in [[Stalinism|Polish]]-occupied Germany?

message: Would this be ok to everyone?
"In her official Bundestag biography, it is stated that Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel, West Prussia. The city had been Polish between 1920 and 1939, and reannexed to Germany after the outbreak of the war and incorporated into the province of Danzig West Prussia. Germany considered it integral part of Germany (contrary to the Polish areas under military occupation), while the Polish government in exile considered it part of Poland. Since 1945 it has been part of Poland again as Rumia." Donnog 21:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's way too long and deals with information that really belongs in the Rumia article. —Mira 22:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I go for the short version, similar to :de:Erika Steinbach: Erika Steinbach (born [date] in Rahmel, West Prussia). It was you Polish nationalists who demanded every detail on Polish POV on Rahmel must be included. A longer and NPOV version explaining the situation is better than your historical falsification which does not even mention the name of her birthplace when she was born. Donnog 22:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no Polish nationalist, and would appreciate it if you would stop throwing around wild accusations which are bordering on personal attacks. —Mira 22:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Donnog, you've started to call other editors nationalists ever since I've told you (here, on July 6) that I considered this term to be offensive. I therefore assume that you are purposefully using the word in bad faith, to make personal attacks. Once more, I'm politely asking you to reconsider this as it does not help your case at all. --Lysytalk 05:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New NPOV version

message: The previous text said "she is the chairwoman (jointly with Peter Glotz until he died in 2005)."
A person cannot be "the chairwoman (jointly with a dead person)".  The present tense form of the word "is" is incompatible with having been a joint chairperson with Peter Glotz until he died in 2005 (i.e. an arrangement that occurred in the past and is no longer in force).
If you want to say that "she shared the chairmanship of the Centre jointly with Peter Glotz until he died in 2005 upon which she became the chairwoman", then do so.  The previous text was simply awkward.
--Richard 07:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairwoman of the Center Against Expulsions 

message: What kind of citation will you accept? the position that "Steinbach cannot be trusted as a daughter of occupant cannot be trusted" is prevalent if not expressed literally in Poland. You can argue all you want about the fact being encyclopedic or not, but it is a fact that she is viewed this way in Poland.
: It's not me that sets the standards for citations but Wikipedia policy.  That policy is expressed in WP:RS and also WP:Citing sources.  Ideally, the citation would be a statement in a reputable book or an academic journal.  Otherwise, a newspaper or magazine article is also acceptable.  Websites of reputable magazines and media channels are acceptable.  Websites of questionable reputability are not considered reliable sources.
: Also important... the statement in the Wikipedia article must reflect the reliability of the source.  It is difficult to prove that an idea is "prevalent" or that "most or many people believe...".  It is easier to prove that "some people believe...".  In fact, the most defensible statment is "Historian X believes..." or "In magazine Y, it is asserted that ...".  
: --Richard 04:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  View of Erika as representative of Expelees 

message: Here is the last example of Lysy extremist nationalist POV pushing. The POV text he wants to add includes:
"Steinbach's position as head of the Federation of Expelees arouses much controversy in countries which were occupied by Germany during the Second World War. The fact that she was elected a head of the Federation despite her family being relocated to teritories of Poland occupied only after 1939 is a sign of German revisionist ideology in the minds of many people in Central-Eastern Europe. Steinbach's public pronouncements have been criticized for causing a deterioration in German-Polish relations due to stirring up controversy regarding the rights of Germans who were expelled from Poland after World War II.  This controversy has led to Steinbach earning a strong negative reputation in Poland which associates her and the Centre against Expulsions with fascism and a German return to Nazism. "
Additionally he claims she was born in "Rumia in German-occupied Poland" when she was not, and btw. without citing any sources! According to official sources, she was born in Rahmel, Province of Danzig West Prussia, Germany. Deliberately falsificating this is vandalism. Donnog 01:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Donnog, please take time to read the discussion above in the very same talk page. Also try to avoid attacking other editors. --Lysytalk 05:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, try to read what is actually written in the fragment mentioned above. If this is extremist nationalist POV pushing, then how come there's nothing nationalist in that part, nor is there any pushing as the POV is clearly marked. Donnog, miss Steinbach is controversial and we all have to live with it. //Halibutt 18:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial among nationalist Poles only. Who cares? You may live with it or you may chose not to, but its not our problem, but rather yours. These Polish nationalists are so ridiculous. Stettiner 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Who highlighted "after" ? --Lysytalk 19:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lysy's extremist nationalist POV pushing 

message: The town of Rahmel was in 1943 part of Danzig West Prussia, see also :de:Danzig-Westpreußen. Donnog 02:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you recgnize Hitler's conquests as legal. Unlike you, all democratic German governments always recognised the Treaty of Versailles which gave Rumia/Rahmel to Poland in 1919. And because the city was in Poland between the wars, its annexation by Germany during World War II was illegal according to all modern European countries, including Germany. ProudPomeranian 12:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Jadger, this has been discussed again and again. Please take the time to read the argument above first. --Lysytalk 02:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erika Steinbach, born in Rahmel, Danzig-West Prussia 

message: Not only do a number of people , such as Lysy, keep reversing NPOV versions such as Erika Steinbach, born in Rahmel, now Rumia , in the heading by reinserting a very onesided POV statement (see sample). Lysys even re-inserts the following statement In January 1945, three months before the advancing Soviet army reached the area, Steinbach's mother decides to return to Germany and went to Schleswig-Holstein
.
 
Wikipedia is publishing this and a number of others are copying this twisting of what actually took place. Twisting history like that is an affront (purposely insulting) to millions of victimized refugees. Labbas 28 August 2006
:I have reverted your unsourced edit. Please do provide sources supporting your claims about her flight and I'll not oppose. As to your continuous attempts to push the different name of her birthplace, I'm sure you have noticed (and actually removed) this comment in the article's text: please discuss changes to her birthplace on the talk page before making them. I'm sure you are aware that the present wording of the birthplace is a result of a painfully reached consensus and I am going to defend it against nationalistic pushes either side. --Lysytalk 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberate Nationalistic POV Pushing - Twisting  

message: * Copied from my Talk page
Please read the talk page before reverting. The birthplace is important because of her being the head of the Vertriebenenbund. That means that for some people (Poles, mostly, but not only them) she is an expeller first and an expelled person second only. Note that Germany has officially recognized the annexation as illegal, so legally today we have to say that she was born in Poland. And TINC, I do not consider myself Polish. Have a nice day.--Pan Gerwazy 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the debate.  This Talk Page is on my watchlist.  All arguments for Rumia and Rahmel need to stay out of the introduction.  It is too long a discussion to put there.  I am OK with Rumia (then Rahmel) or Rahmel (now Rumia) but that's it.  Any longer discussion belongs in the Rumia article not here. --Richard 20:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumia / Rahmel 

message: I think we may need to issue a Request for Comment or seek mediation from the Mediation Cabal or something.  This edit war seems to be endless but I refuse to accept that 4 votes breaking 3-1 is a meaningful consensus.
In the short-term, if this revert war doesn't stop, we may need to seek protection of the article.  I would much prefer that we seek a mutually acceptable solution.
--Richard 04:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It may be time to follow the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] process 

message: This is addressed to all who are involved in the revert war over Rumia/Rahmel.
I don't know how knowledgeable you are about page protection so I might be telling you something you already know.  I feel confident that an admin would protect this page to stop the edit warring if we asked one to do so.  If an admin decides to protect the page, he/she will simply choose the current version and one or more of you are likely to be dissatisfied with the wording that is in the protected version.
It behooves all of us to find a mutually acceptable wording now without page protection rather than have page protection imposed by an admin and then try to seek a compromise then.
I'm serious.  This revert war has gone on long enough.  Either find a compromise yourselves or seek the help of others by following the dispute resolution process.
--Richard 04:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with protecting the page, no matter what version.  This usually helps tempers to cool down a bit. Balcer 05:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I second Balcer's reply. --Pan Gerwazy 10:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I was convinced that there was no other way out, I asked an administrator to protect, suggesting a revert to User:Piotrus if it was unethical for my version to be the one protected. Personally, I have no problem with Januszewicz' version (because it gives a longish explanation of the whole situation and is therefore relatively free from POV), except his last change contained a grammar mistake. I added the "to" missing, that is all. Now the real work must begin. For starters, we need to identify the passages that could be POV. First problem I see: the word "controversial" for the Bund der Vertriebenen. Is the evidence big enough to warrant that word? -this unsigned comment was added by --Pan Gerwazy 18:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About page protection... 

message: Germans fought in Warschau (now Warszawa) ?
--Januszewicz 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warsaw was not part of Germany (but rather the General Government of Poland). Rahmel was. Stettiner 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warschau

message: The page is protected due to an edit conflict. Please either try to find a compromise or file a WP:RfC. abakharev 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected