Talk:Ostsiedlung

message: It's the first time I hear Poland had an Emperor Casimir.
--Molobo 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poland had an emperor ?

message: From history of Brandenburg on Wiki:
In the great uprising in 983 the Slavs wiped out German control from the territory of present day Brandenburg. The monasteries were buried, priests and Germans officials killed or expelled. The Slavic tribes living east of Elbe remained independent and pagan for the next 150 years.
12th Century
In the beginning of the 12th century the Saxon German kings and emperors conquered the Slavic-inhabited lands of present-day Brandenburg. Many Slavic inhabitants survived the conquests and live there still today - Sorbs, Lusatians. The church brought bishoprics, which with their walled towns, afforded protection for the townspeople from attack. With the monks and bishops, the history of the town of Brandenburg, which in time became the state of Brandenburg, began. In 1134, in the wake of a German crusade against the Wends, the German magnate Albert the Bear was granted the Northern March by the Holy Roman Emperor Lothar II. For some time up until the 15th century, some part of the area that would become Brandenburg was inhabited by the Slavic Wends, who still make up a part of the area's modern population.
--Molobo 23:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacefull ?

message: Kinda a small detail, but is east colonization really the right phrase in english? are you sure its not supposed to be "eastern colonization" or something?.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: English-speaking scholars usually use the term Ostsiedlung in italics.  This article shouldn't have been moved - it's the most common forumlation in English.  On the other hand, we need to get rid of these references to "Heinrich the II": in English he's referred to as Henry II or Henry the Second, Holy Roman Emperor. --Jpbrenna 15:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Name change 

message: (to edit: there is a lack of e.g details about the expansion to Pomerania, to Wartheland and to the Baltic States. The whole chapter has to be arranged again).  (unknown; moved here by --Jpbrenna 15:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. Haukur 09:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note moved from ''Marker of the Billungs'' section 

message: As I wrote on the Ostsiedlung talk page before the article was redirected here, Ostsiedlung has gained currency in academia as the term to describe German eastern colonization, and performing an English Google test shows it is three times more productive than the English calques "East Colonization" and "East Colonisation."  All of my medieval history texts have used the term Ostsiedlung in discussing this phenomenon (without the adjective Deutsche); the first time I read the termEast Colonisation was on Wikipedia!  We're supposed to use the most common English-language name, and that just happens to be a borrowed German word, so let's use it!  --Jpbrenna 21:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "per nom" see the policy  WP:NC#Use English words --Philip Baird Shearer 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it. It also says "unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." Duja 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to ''Ostsiedlung'' 

message: per nom (and also in line with Drang nach Osten, which I initially mistaken the English name for). Duja 10:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "per nom" see the policy  WP:NC#Use English words --Philip Baird Shearer 19:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it. It also says "unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form." Duja 07:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: "Ethnic Germans, along with Azkhenazi Jews, also formed a large part of the town population of Kraków". 
The Jews lived rather in Kazimierz, a separate town, than in Kraków.
Xx236 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kraków 

message: I have left my comments on the new map on the image's discussion page, I would like further input.
--Jadger 00:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: map

message: The sentence below is the last one in the introduciton. What is this sentence intended to say?
:However, some of the areas that saw resettlement were not as far eastward and as such, they are a part of the current German state.
I would guess that it is trying to say that parts of the territory that was settled during "Ostsiedlung" is still part of the current German state.  However, if that is what is meant, this sentence does not say that and should be fixed.
--Richard 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: During and after World War II, Germans were expelled east of the Oder-Neisse line, leaving the current German linguistic border smaller than that of the 10th century when expansion of German territories started. Population changes after the second World War largely reverted the Germanisation of Slavic or Baltic territory by , as it had taken place during Ostsiedlung. However, some of the areas that saw resettlement were not as far eastward and as such, they are a part of the current German state.
The next to last sentence misses a part (... territory by , as ...) and the sentence before that is factually incorrect. The Ostsiedlung started at the Elbe and Saale rivers, which are quite a bit west of the Oder-Neisse line.
-- Tibors 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh?  Can someone explain this sentence? 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Ostsiedlung → German eastward expansion — No need to use German word where an adequate English equivalent exists. Also per WP:UE. —--Lysytalk 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support. Wikipedia is not a German-English dictionary. The German word should stay as a redirect but the article can and should be named in English. --Lysytalk 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Many foreign (italicized) words are used for encyclopedic terms without having been adopted into the language (e.g., guanxi). —  AjaxSmack    03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
*"No need to use German word where an adequate English equivalent exists" is not what the guideline says, but "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works". That being said, Ostsiedlung seems to be a commonly used English version, at least until you conduct a research to prove otherwise. Duja► 19:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support. Wikipedia is not a German-English dictionary. The German word should stay as a redirect but the article can and should be named in English. --Lysytalk 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Many foreign (italicized) words are used for encyclopedic terms without having been adopted into the language (e.g., guanxi). —  AjaxSmack    03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
*"No need to use German word where an adequate English equivalent exists" is not what the guideline says, but "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works". That being said, Ostsiedlung seems to be a commonly used English version, at least until you conduct a research to prove otherwise. Duja► 19:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Why does the map present Wielkopolska as completely German, while the fact is it was Polish linguist area with German minority ?
--Molobo 07:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Ok, let's talk...
     
:Why is the map "dubious"?
- Ostsiedlung (), also known as German eastward expansion, refers to the medieval eastward migration and mainly peaceful settlement of Germans from modern day Western and Central Germany into less-populated regions like the Baltic and modern day Poland. These areas had been left by their ancestors, the Germanic tribes, in the Migration Period partly due to incursions by the Huns, and since had been settled by Baltic peoples, and, since about the 8th century, the Slavs.Wallbank and Schrier, Living World History, pp. 193  
:It appears the  tags are being used here to challenge the assertions.  Why?
--Richard 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the map from the article.  What about the tags? Is the veracity of the assertions being challenged?  If so, on what basis? --Richard 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This useful map is covering 1250 years with an animation consisting of many maps, the majority of them undisputed. It replaces a whole bunch of single maps. Surely a lot of hard work was put in that, much more than a scan of a single map requires. It would be helpful if the creator of the map would have given detailed sources for each map instead of simply listing dozens of books on his German user page  Apparently, he has answered to criticism and has made changes in the past. Considering the abuse from other users , I can understand that he apparently does not bother to put more work into Wikipedia only to see it deleted. As anyone is permitted to modify the file, I was tempted to fix it myself, but that map would inevitably be attacked as OR and POV and whatnot, too, and share the same fate. Another victory for the tireless edit warriors who in some cases had year-long vacations. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: It is a historical map regarding this subject. Other maps by the author are on Wiki.
--Molobo 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody upload this map 

message: I think I agree with Jagder that it is getting a bit off-topic to discuss the expulsion of Poles during WWII in the lead.  I know it seems like a balancing explanation for why Germans were expelled but it doesn't need to be explained in the lead.
I will comment that the lead mentions the 19th century concepts of Drang nach Osten and Lebensraum but the article doesn't discuss it.  If it's mentioned in the lead, it should be explained in greater detail in the article.  Same goes for the expulsions at the end of WWII.  These points should be discussed briefly because they are not specifically part of Ostsiedlung but rather the political ramifications of the romanticization of Ostsiedlung 500 years after the fact.  They are also useful to make sure the reader is aware that much of Ostsiedlung was reversed by the expulsions.  Mostly this section should state the facts briefly with links to the appropriate articles for the reader to learn more if he/she is interested.
As for the  tags, I am generally in favor of finding citations for stuff unless it's commonly known stuff like "The neoconservatives in the U.S. supported the election of George Bush." 
--Richard 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether or not to discuss the expulsion of Poles in the lead 

message: instead the new Slav culture arose and became dominating in Eastern and large parts of Central Europe.
There was no unified Slav culture.
--Molobo (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed: culture --> cultures Skäpperöd (talk) 08:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slav culture ? 

message: Yet, discrimination of the Wends should not be mistaken for being part of a general concept of the Ostsiedlung. 
Is this a polemic ? 
Another unfortunete example how the article downgraded. It now represents a cross-over between personal views, polemic-like statements, and picked selectively quotes to present a un-neutral point of view that conceals several events connected to Germanisation of Central and Eastern Europe, like extinction of Prussians, several Slavic people's and destruction of local cultures. Event the lead is made one-sides claiming it was done peacefully. Of course this not true, as they were crusades and destruction of Prussian settlements.
I am sorry but this article is  POV and I will add a tag to it, until this is settled.
--Molobo (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The warfare you are talking about happened before German settlement, and is covered in the "Background" section. Except for the Teutonic Knights' state and the HRE marches (where a "German" nobility called in settlers) the settlers came upon invitation of Slavic (Wendish, Polish etc) nobility. The settlement itself was peaceful, no settler came in with a sword and threw the Wends out of their houses. There is no dispute in historiography about that. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not an essay. 

message: I changed the translation of this word, maybe too hurriedly (as my German is pretty basic). Maybe it really does mean rural development? German speakers: please correct.--Kotniski (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as a native speaker, I had to look it up. :de:Landesausbau defines it as "internal colonisation", i.e. "the process of developing and settling in areas that were formerly uninhabited although they are located within inhabited regions or countries." A Google search for "internal coloni[zs]ation" reveals that this actually seems to be the correct English term. -- 3247 (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept might be better conveyed with the word Greenfield land, although this word has only recently come into use. —Fred114 06:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Landesausbau

message: I removed the references to Marian Zygmunt Jedlicki (1899-1954), author of "Thousand years of German aggression", whose essay "German Settlement in Poland and the Rise of the Teutonic Order" (first published in 1950) was cited here, as biased. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a perfectly reliable source, published by Cambridge University Press. You are removing it simply per IDON'TLIKEIT. The opinion that the essay is "biased" is yours. I can even dig up some very positive reviews of the work from Western history journals. Please don't remove well sourced text simply because it doesn't agree with your POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jedlicki

message: This article is missing information about exploitation of Ostsiedlung by German nationalism and Nazi movement to reject urban, scientific and cultural development by non-German people. 
German wiki has extensive section about this, and the Ostsiedlung is tied strongly to German nationalism-the effect it had on it, and how it was exploited and effected German historiography, must be included in the article.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential information missing from the article 

message: I'm reading through Piskorski's article in the German History journal (Journal of the German History Society) and he makes a pretty strong case that the term "Ostsiedlung" (or related terms) is inappropriate. I don't want to quote to much from the article so as not to risk violating copy right laws but here's some key points he makes (my emphasis):
*"it is essential to clarify what is meant here by the concept of medieval ‘colonization of the east’; this is a historically loaded expression, particularly in German, where such colonization is usually described as a ‘German’ movement. It is therefore proposed to replace terms such as deutsche Ostbewegung or deutsche Ostsiedlung or even Ostsiedlung. The latter, identical with ‘east colonization’, is the most suitable, since it includes both German colonization in particular, and also colonization based on German law, without the participation of settlers from German-speaking lands. "
*"However, it would be appropriate to include the medieval colonization of the Netherlands in this term, as this was the starting point for all European medieval eastern colonization. Before the German (sensu strictori) settlers reached the Slav lands, colonizers from Holland and Flanders appeared in northern and eastern Germany, bringing Dutch (ius Hollandensium) and Flemish law (ius Flamingicum) with them. It appears that this is the region of origin of many elements of the law used in the settlement process; this was called ‘German law’ further east, where it was mainly the German settlers who applied it."
*"In sum, it would seem that the term ‘east colonization’—or better still, ‘medieval colonization of central Europe’—offers a better description of the phenomenon, with a very broad definition of central Europe to include the territory from Holland, Switzerland and Austria (including Carinthia) to Scandinavia, Latvia and Estonia, the historic states of Poland-Lithuania, and the Hungarian and Czech lands."
The ideal situation in my view would be to have one article on "medieval colonization of central Europe" - essentially something like this present one but more balanced and without the POV problems, and another on the term "Ostsiedlung" itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Colonization might be a bit misleading,since it usually involves settlement in wild, unsettled areas. Settlement in Central and Eastern Europe perhaps should be better. Also while we can in general use Piskorski, there is a certain problem-we should add other scholars dealing with this subject like Labuda, otherwise we are risking basing the article and the subject on almost one scholar while ignoring views of whole range of scholars that could have another take on it. Piskorski after all isn't any "final authority" here. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology and name 

message: Since the information about supposed "improvement" is disputed, and scholarly information about contradicting views has been deleted I added the POV tag to the appropriate section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added POV  tag 

message: Piskorski mentions that overall about 200,000 individuals migrated from the German territories over a course of a century, and then says that represented about 2% of the population. I think statistics like these are useful as they put the scale of the phenomenon into perspective. However, I haven't added it to the article because it's not clear what the "of the population" refers to. Does he mean 2% of the "source" (German) population left? Or that the settlers constituted 2% of the population at their destination?Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers used by Piskorski (from Kuhn) refer to the first-generation settlers from west of the Elbe/Saale line. Skäpperöd (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So the 2% is a fraction of the "west of the Elbe/Saale line" population or a fraction of the settlers in their destination location?Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

text: the former, obviously. Skäpperöd (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Piskorski says: Although new research, especially that of Walter Kuhn, has shown that the number of settlers who migrated from Old Germany (I'm assuming this means west of Laba -VM) was not particularly great and perhaps did not represent more than 2% of the total population (making up therefore some 200,000 settlers per century), there was a change... (the ... is basically where the present article's text picks up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm if Piskorski takes Kuhn without mentioning what he represents, that makes me sceptical if he is that good a source(I already noted that we are basing articles too much solely on him). Otherwise it might be possible that he doesn't know who Kuhn is and what he represents.In any case I wouldn't use Kuhn's research, at least without mentioning who he was. Btw-if even such nationalist and pro-Nazi researcher mentions that number was small than it must have been small indeed.So I would write that even former Nazi and nationalist researchers admit etc-something like that.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  As share of population 

message: Please keep junk like this  out of the article. See Walter Kuhn and .Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you claim the Westermann Verlag, a leading educational publisher, and the dtv publishers (dtv Atlas zur Weltgeschichte ) are using a "Nazi map"? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put words in my mouth. I claim that a map based on the work of a Nazi historian, Walter Kuhn, is inappropriate for the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Using work by dedicated Nazis is obviously non-acceptable, it can only be used in articles about Nazi propaganda. This should be fundamental in understanding of Wiki.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi map 

message: This article has been reverted to facilitate cleanup of a copyright problem. Content added by User:Silar duplicates multiple external sources. For instance, see:
*
This is just one of many passages he placed in this and related articles which precisely duplicated external publications. 
In accordance with copyright policy and Terms of Use, we may not duplicate previously published content, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, unless they are demonstrably public domain or compatibly licensed. Please see Wikipedia:Copy-paste. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems

message: This is a very poor article, a strange mix of propaganda, bad English, nationalist mythology and (occasionally) history. It needs to be rewritten from scratch by someone who is across the sources, and not affiliated with any school of nationalist apologetics. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Very poor article

message: I have removed map that was copied from map prepared by known Nazi Walter Kuhn.We should only use reliable works.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed map=

message: Most of this article treats it as a time period, but I fail to find a range. I did some online searching, and some people treat it as spanning from Charlemagne's subjecting the Saxons till the end of WWII. Tinynanorobots (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the geographical area you're talking about. And it is a bit of a judgement call because you have to separate "regular" migration from mass migration and settlement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the Ostsiedlung? 

message: In connection with the town laws applied a few sentences  in the article are marked with why and dubious, e.g. in the introduction: 
According to Jedlicki (1950), in many cases the term "German colonization" does not refer to an actual migration of Germans, but rather to the internal migration of native populations (Poles, Hungarians, etc.) from the countryside to the cities, which then adopted laws modeled on those of the German towns of Magdeburg and Lübeck.
or in the Poland section: 
Since the beginning of the 14/15th centuries, the Polish-Silesian Piast dynasty –  (Władysław Opolczyk), reinforced German settlers on the land, who in decades founded more than 150 towns and villages under German town law, particularly under the law of the town Magdeburg (Magdeburg law).
Does someone know where the remarks came from and what exactly is here questionable or dubious?!--Zarbi1 (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You could dissect article's edit history to elicit who added this sentences and ask them this questions. D_T_G (PL) 12:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Town law 

message: I think (in those times) Walloons spoke sundry Romance tongues akin to French but NOT French itself. The following needs citations and dates, it reads: "Significant numbers of Dutch as well as (though to a lesser extent) Danes, Scots or local Wends and (French speaking) Walloons also participated"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:226:8FF:FEDC:FD74 (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems most unlikely whomever were said to be 'Walloons' were 'French-speaking' at the time? 

message: You may critizise me for doubling in some respects the text of the Ostsiedlung/kolonisation lemma. Soberness would have been better. I am sorry. But what I added was an  important source contribution too (two German and one Polish, English translated). And without such sources and their contents the text cannot be called balanced, with the present dominance of English and Polish references. Now, you are complaining of a bias ??? 
 
Kwaremont (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is much too long for a lead section. Condense it.Ernio48 (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ernio 

message: Hi everybody!
I am attempting to clean up here! The article is pretty messy, though. I am certain, i am going to miss and confuse stuff. Please join in and help, criticise, correct etc. All the best Wikirictor 18:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: Irrespective of what the term “Ostsiedlung” represents, the literal translation can be expressed as “east settling”. “Eastern settlement” in that formation conveys not the process of “colonisation” or “settling”, but rather a settlement, like a village or colony, which is not what “Siedlung” means in this context. I have altered the translation accordingly.  Steepleman (t) 04:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a question of how its translated in RS. How common is "eastern settlement"? (I'm certain that no one uses "Eastern settling" but you might find "settlement of the East".--Ermenrich (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that very few sources I can find provide a “literal translation”. Rather, they use an idiomatic translation like “settlement in the East” or “eastward settlement”. It seems the consensus above has been not to provide an idiomatic translation given the controversy over whether it is colonisation or settlement or migration or whatever. A literal translation would not even necessarily be one used in the literature relating to Ostsiedlung, but one based on dictionary translations of Ost and Siedlung in my opinion. Steepleman (t) 08:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal translation of Ostsiedlung. 

message: Can we change this article's spelling style from American to British English? Any objections? Crainsaw (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Template:Use British English, since there was no response. Crainsaw (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English 

message: As noted in the map file, this animated map cites no sources and strangely includes contemporary Belgium and the Netherlands until the 20th century. BCorr|Брайен 02:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing animated map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians!
I have made a large number of changes to the section on Bohemia, which was incredibly messy, inadequately sourced, and contained sentences that were borderline unintelligible as well as irrelevant and downright incorrect content. Please take a minute to review my changes, if you will. (Further improvements are needed, but I have no more time for now).
Sincerely, Nikolaj1905 (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bohemia section