Hi stark7, I saw in the Churchill's archived talk page you have commented on the paragraph about Europe partition. It is marked as cited but didnt find any good sources linked.
"On October 9, 1944, he and Eden were in Moscow, and that night they met Stalin in the Kremlin, without the Americans. Bargaining went on throughout the night. Churchill wrote on a scrap of paper that Stalin had a 90 percent "interest" in Romania, Britain a 90 percent "interest" in Greece, both Russia and Britain a 50 percent interest in Yugoslavia. When they got to Italy, Stalin ceded that country to Churchill. The crucial questions arose when the Ministers of Foreign Affairs discussed "percentages" in Eastern Europe. Molotov's proposals were that Russia should have a 75 percent interest in Hungary, 75 percent in Bulgaria, and 60 percent in Yugoslavia. This was Stalin's price for ceding Italy and Greece. Eden tried to haggle: Hungary 75/25, Bulgaria 80/20, but Yugoslavia 50/50. After lengthy bargaining they settled on an 80/20 division of interest between Russia and Britain in Bulgaria and Hungary, and a 50/50 division in Yugoslavia. U.S. Ambassador Harriman was informed only after the bargain was struck. This gentleman's agreement was sealed with a handshake.
I guess it is this paper that is refered to: [4] The problem is that it is listed under the teheran conference, which does not fly with the october 1944 date. Has there been a mixupp somewhere? --Stor stark7 Talk 11:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)"
I couldn't find sth good either. The British papers cited say nothing. ( http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/churchillstalin_58-1.pdf )
I am not a wikipedian and I dont have experience, can you refresh this topic a little bit to the churchill talk page?
Thanks for your time, keep the good work.
I did some copyedit of the link description (the itself link was originally invalid). Pavel Vozenilek 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you ask him what is the difference with secondary sources? His answer would apply in the same way if these sources were secondary sources because we should never add our own analysis or interpretation to any source (primary or secondary), unless we provide a source for this interpretation or analysis. So, his answer is not correct, or else there is no difference between primary and secondary sources. IMO, the correct answer is that you cannot use any analysis, evaluation, judgement, interpretation (of some other work) that is contained in a primary source to build a case, to defend a position or for anything, unless you provide a secondary source that uses this primary source in this way. By definition, primary sources must be used as primary ingredients in secondary sources. A primary source gets interpreted or evaluated in one of many possible ways in a secondary source. Wikipedia reports on these secondary sources, not directly on primary sources. For example, if a primary source reports that a researcher called FlatMan said the earth is flat, you cannot cite this primary source and write "FlatMan said the earth is flat" in a Wikipedia article to support the case that the earth is flat because this is giving a value to the primary source. You cannot use it to discriminate Flatmam either, which is another way to use the very same statement. You see the point: a primary source is a primary ingredient that can be used in different ways, to build different cases, etc. You need a secondary source along with a primary source to use it in one way or another. Note that it is perhaps what Slrubenstein had in mind, but what he wrote mean something else to me. Note that there are exceptions, but it is when the way to use the primary source is not subject to discussions and that every reasonable adult would agree. -Lumière 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The answer to your first question is hidden in Saxifrage's answer to your second question:
The allowed analysis cannot come from primary sources! Why? Primary sources, such as the transcript of an interview, may contain such analysis. So, why not use it? Because we cannot directly use a primary source for any analysis or interpretation that it may contain. This is the answer to your first question. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that it must report on secondary sources. Given that an analysis or interpretation is provided by these secondary sources, then we can cite the primary sources that are the object of this analysis or interpretation. -Lumière 02:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There are two tricks that can work. First is that of print screen - i.e. screen capture. Press print screen button when you see the image, paste it into Paint, cut and paste again to a new picture parts that are useful and save it. I usually save it as bmp and then use ACDSee to convert it to more copyleft png format. This works 100% as long as the image is smaller then your screen. Alternatively, the second trick is sometimes much faster - but doesn't always work. After you open the image you can try to search your browser's cache for the image file (copy all recent files into new folder, change their extensions to graphic files, and look at the directory with ACDSee or similar image browser. Hope this quick tutorial helps :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I also reverted some of the edits you made in the "Czech Republic" section. However, I advise you not to use german nationalist materials as sources, even people connected with the "Centre against Expulsions" like de Zayas are not ok, as this information is officially rejected by the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland. The reason is not that noone knows that something terrible happened to ethnic Germans after WWII, but the fact that many of them try to exaggerate the numbers and some already tried to demand back their confiscated property - which is unjust as the Czechs cannot demand that German re-pay them all the damage that happened in WW2, wich destroyed their fairly prosperous state and left them prey to Stalin. Germans paid alot for the war - but to Russians etc, not to Czechs. ackoz 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
On Ethnic Germans, doesn't correspond with credible maps and estimates of German population in neigbouring countries. It is used for several different periods in history and implies significant German presence in areas that had little German population. It conflicts with maps of distribution of ethnic Poles, and no mention of German settlement during WW2 is made when it is presented as placement of Germans in 1945, in other articles it serves as base for claims of German population in 1937... -- Molobo 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
And try to write in short clear sentences when you ask him, as english probably is not his first language... -- Stor stark7 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
But It was you who started to put it articles ? I am sorry but this is a problem on English Wiki, not German, and I am not fluent in Germany. This problem must be solved on English Wiki. Right now I am wondering why 530,000 Poles in German Silesia are barely noticable but 100,000 Germans in Pomorze are showed as dominating the region. -- Molobo 23:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
If the user is concerned with English wiki I will gladly engage in dialog here. I believe the burden of defence of the image is on the person who tried to include it here. If you believe my arguments against it are incorrect state so with arguments.With all due respect I do not believe defending your actions is my duty here. -- Molobo 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Instead of source we have a lengthy speach unconnected in several parts to the map and full of error's combined with attacks on Polish state. Not to mention the absurd usage of votes to indicate presence of German's. It seems author doesn't know for example that hundreds of thousands of Germans were moved to Silesia in order to vote.And of course using data on presence of Germans in 1919 in Poznan when German Army was moved there isn't POV at all...Anyway the author hasn't presented a source of the map. -- Molobo 17:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed in series of your edits (ironically, described like Use references, otherwise everything is just allegations [2]) referenced statements about expulsion from Czechoslovakia disappeared, along with reference to Facing the history. Later, some of them were replaced by more vague and less accurate statements from the European University Institute study which you favour. Now, the way the sources are cited, the EUI study is given as much prominence as possible, and Facing ... as little as possible. However, the case of Postoloprty completely lacking in EUI stayed... Also, while you're obviouisly reading the pdf copy of Facing..., and included link to pdf of EUI study, Facing is not linked. Altogether it makes the impression you pick from the sources what seems to be useful for the POV you advance and try to suppress the rest. Please avoid doing that. -- Wikimol 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The Italians are neutral in this mater, and an Italian publication can be expected to be more objective than a purely Czech publication. If we would use your logic, no Italians couldn't be seen as neutral since Italy was part of Axis during WW2 and it could be argued that they have more sympathy for Germans. -- Molobo 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The Italians also fought on the side of the Allies during the end of the war I disagree with your statements against Czechs using the logic you provided since some Czechs fought for Germans also. Unlike Germany in WW2 Wiki doesn't state that nationality determines thinking process and we should stay with such position. Please don't continue to alledge that being of certain ethnic group indicates some views-for people coming from ethnic groups that have been targeted of such policy by Germany in the past such opinions are always sounding dangerous. -- Molobo 17:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Look it is you who started to alledge that Czechs as an ethnic group have certain views. Please stop from such commonts. -- Molobo 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Basically I said that as perpetrators of ethnic cleansing against germans they can not be relied upon to be fully objective when it comes to research on the topic I urge you again to stop this insulting allegations against other ethnic groups. -- Molobo 18:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
And I would like to urge you to stop stalking me and to stop trying to pick a fight. Do you seriously think that for instance the thinking and what is published in Germany, for example, is not affected by what germany did to the Jews? Everybody carries their past with them as luggage, regardles of nationality -- Stor stark7 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
After seeing your very POVish contributions I am under impression that your edits need a lot of corrections as you push the view that Germany was the main victim of WWII by the aggresive Allies(which is perfectely demonstrated by your edits on Effects of the Second World War). Perhaps I am wrong, I don't know, but certainly articles where you contribute are in need of POV check. As to your comments against other nations on Wiki we have other means of determing validity of sources then looking at the ethnic group of the author. -- Molobo 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
you said you could not because of lack of time. Describing in detail the devestation and mass murder Europe experienced in WW2 due to actions of German state will be a very lenghty process. Don't worry though I assure you I will contribute to the article. -- Molobo 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC) You are not intrested in adding material on topics making it more balanced Oh I already inserted info on how Germany behaviour in Poland and plans to eliminate 50 milion people from Central Europe. -- Molobo 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If you stop rejecting sources based on nationality of the author I don't believe there will be a conflict. However claiming somebody has certain views because he is of certain ethnic group is very provacative. I am surprised you don't understand this. -- Molobo 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Stor Stark, I understand why you feel using Czech sources for the article could be inappropriate. Especially sources published before 1989 would for sure be biased. But this is a topic that will not be solved by anybody. There is noone who could tell exactly what happened - if it was 10 000 people less or more - the documentation could have been manipulated either by Czechs or Germans. The differences are unimportant today: the future doesn't rely on these questions. There is no court in Europe to judge that Czechs should return the property they gained after the expulsion, as there is no court in Europe to judge that Germans should go back in history and undo all the harm of WWII. Saying that it doesn't count as war damage because it happened after the war is hypocritical and everybody knows that. More to the numbers you mentioned: a friend of mine has a grandfather, who is ethnically German. He was allowed to stay here (lucky him ;-) because they measured his face somehow and said he looked more slavic. Weird eh? There are still around 50 000 ethnic Germans in the Czech Republic. Maybe the numbers you have talked about in Brno don't correspond because someone didn't have to join the march or weren't forced to leave at all after the war. But I have some points though I would like you to understand:
The czech article http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyhnání_Němců actually mentions the number of 18 816 victims. We can dispute the number, it seems too "correct" to me. But - the article uses the correct formulation "had signs of genocide", describes the discrimination of Germans who were allowed to stay (not allowed to speak German, property confiscated etc.) and uses "murder" for what is called "killed" or "died" in the english article. It mentions a murder of a 8 months child and 80 yrs old man in Horni Mostenice near Prerau (but no public burning of children on the main squares of Prague). The literature used for this:
Literatura:
Turnwald, W.: Dokumente zur Austreibung der Sudetendeutschen,.München, 1951. Hentschel, E.:. Den Opfern zum Gedenken. In: Heimatbrief Saazerland, Forchheim, 1995. Staněk, T.: Perzekuce 1945. Praha, 1996. Staněk, T.: Tábory v českých zemích 1945-1948. Opava 1996. Borák, M.: Spravedlnost podle dekretu. Ostrava 1998. Hanzlík, F. a Pospíšil J.: Soumrak demokracie. Vizovice 2000. Sborník Vězeňství ve střední Evropě v letech 1945-1955. VS ČR, Praha 2001. Sborník Vězeňské systémy v Československu a ve střední Evropě 1945-1955. SZM Opava, 2001. Brandes D.: Cesta k vyhnání. Praha 2002. Staněk T.: Retribuční vězni v českých zemích 1945-1955. SZM Opava 2002. Hanzlík, F.: Vojenské obranné zpravodajství v zápasu o politickou moc 1945-1950. ÚDV ZK, Praha 2003. Prameny: Archiv ministerstva vnitra Brno-Kanice, fond A 2/1, Porevoluční události 1945 Příslušné fondy státních okresních archivů Děčín, Žatec, Louny a archivu města Ústí n.L. Technické zpracování: Obsah expozice dokumentů bude uveden titulním panelem s uvedením názvu, motta, hlavní realizační teze a autorského kolektivu. Dále bude prezentován na 9 panelech s rozdělením do tří tématických celků dle dílčích realizačních hypotéz.
What I am trying to say, be bold in describing the facts as they are. There were murders, largely unpunished (occasionally punished), still murders. The whole thing had signs of genocide. Then call these thing murders and genocide. But please try to be very sensitive about any hints, that Bohemia or Moravia is somehow a German land. That's what matters the most. ackoz 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
To illustrate my point, here http://www.aligisassu.it/u/un/universitat_wien.html is an old version obviously of a wikipedia article about Universität Wien. It contains the sentence: Prag war zu dieser Zeit deutsch. Its a total Quatsch, and a newer version of the article already explains the facts correctly. ackoz 22:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Please insert correct images. You are confusing Soviet Union with Russia, the two are different entites. I advise you to be more carefull in creating maps and you will avoid such mistakes. While it is possible that somebody refered to it as Russia, you should not spred this incorrect view by creating incorrect maps. -- Molobo 20:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on German wiki regarding "a number of Polacks and Czechs" are very disturbing [5]. The term Polacks is used as insult in English and German. In view of this I am starting to think your contributions regarding relations between Germans and Poles might be influenced by POV. I hope this was a mistake on your part and you want do it again. -- Molobo 22:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a well known term. http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/polack.htm Polack Definition: 1. usually disparaging: a Pole or person of Polish extraction (from 20th Century) 2. (Mainly Jewish) a Jew whose family comes from Poland 3. a Pole, Russian, Czech dealing in Polish Jewesses: white slavers’ cant from 20th century. 4. an immigrant from Poland Other forms used : Pollack or Pollack or Pollock or Pollock or Polak or polak. Perhaps Stork made a mistake. But certainly usage of such term shouldn't be made. -- Molobo 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry then for disturbing you and I apologise for the mistake. But understand that term in German is an insult and please avoid it in the future. Have a good day. -- Molobo 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I was going to upload that image to commons, but it's copyright status needs some clarification. While the tag states cc-by-sa2.5 license, the textual desciption from de: contains this note for visitors from other countries: This image is copyrighted and is used in the Wikipedia with permission.. On hu: is some text in hungarian and cc-by-sa1.0 license... I'm a bit worried wether the image wasn't "liberated" during its voyage on several Wikipedias, initialy used with Wikipedia-specific permission, and at the end declared free content. I think it would be reasonable to start backtracing, so, please, as the uploader, how did you come to cc-by-sa2.5.license? -- Wikimol 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I will do a map. Adam 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC) A pleasure - I love cartography. Adam 14:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that the plan was never developed beyond the "sketch map" stage, I think the map that's there is adequate. Adam 14:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for adding to the discussion. I have used your reference to the telegram distancing him from these events in the article. It just shows what is in his mind. His extreme language like "wanton distruction" would not be acceptable in Wikipedia, normally, but he wrote it himself! Wallie 15:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I will see what I can come up with. Adam 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to nominate (or grant if it takes just one person) for a random-act of kindness award. As a nubee … I do not know the procedure for such a think here in Wiki. Would you know? Nonprof. Frinkus 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
For sources see the footnotes in Geneva Convention (1929)#Capture and in Disarmed Enemy Forces. As good as one can expect as they come from the ICRC Commentaries:
Hope this helps -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes the article is a stub and needs to be expanded. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We were talking for over two months about the sources and content of the article. We've reached some consensus and we are trying to write a NPOV article. If you will insist on biased words and if you will insist that "long march to Austria and Germany" is a source for "died on the roads" and if you will continue in breaking our effort to fulfil consensus and breaks NPOV we will ask for admin actions, even at ARBCOM. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Stor stark7, Maybe you should combine the footnotes 28 – 36 into just one (?) as I shall add even more footnotes when editing to the still missing parts of the article. However, regarding the heated discussion on the article Red Army atrocities and some of those Stalinists trying to deny the undeniable about the glorious freedom fighters of the Red Army, almost each and every word should have a footnote quoting references, to avoid senseless arguing in the future. Best regards -- Dionysos 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Im glad we have restored cordiality. I'm not much bothered either and I think we are arguing over a rather subtle and inconsequential issue, more related to opinion than to hard fact. In any case, the main reason I intervened in the article was that I was worried over the other fantasy theories about European origins of Guanches being given undue weight on the article.
Cheers. -- Burgas00 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Norman Davies writes that in 1945 they were 33,297 Poles in Wrocław. You can find this in Microcosm , page 451. In 1918 they were 4-5,000 Poles in Wrocław(page 394), but the population went smaller. However it was large enough to hold rallies and have buildings for Polish organisations. On page 397 he writes that German police plundered "Dom Polski" a cultural institution in 1938. There was also a Polish School led by Helena Adamczewska. In march 1939 Poles held a rally under the title "Faith of the Fathers", its leaders were sent to concentration camps. I hope we will avoid disagreements. If you want to know more about Wrocław's Polish history just ask, I have Davie's book by me, and I enjoy it. Do you know anybody that says Davies is wrong on the subject ? Also page 424-at the end of 1944 30-40 Polish civilians were sent to Wrocław after failure of Warsaw Uprising. (Ethnic) situation was complicated by fact that some Poles were classified as Germans(Volksdeutsche). Later Davies writes that illegal masses in Polish took place in Wrocław church of Saint Roch. On 11 November 1944 Poles took part in mass singing "Boże coś Polskę" risking being arrested by Gestapo. -- Granet 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be working now, either there was a typo in it yesterday or my ISP couldn't resolve the hnn.us domain. I see the information you added is indeed included under that link, so unless you have reinstated the reference I will do it later today.-- Caranorn 11:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Historical_context.2F.22US_and_Australian.22. Grant | Talk 11:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, I will gladly look at it. For the record, if anybody criticizes you for informing me, feel free to quote my thanks for informing me about a discussion I am interested in but wouldn't know of otherwise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw you added a section. Could you elaborate it? In most cases there are neither dates, nor any references to what triggered these actions. I´m particularly interested in additional information on the destruction of Bruchsal. When did it happen and how? Markus Becker02 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Following your request here for a new map for 1945 Germany, I've made this image. If you have any suggestions, I'd be interested to hear them. Regards. - 52 Pickup 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that; it's clear to me this guy needs watching v. carefully and especially since he came out of a one year ban only a few months ago. I've put all relevant pages on watchlist. -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your recent query/request here. Hope this assists .. Cheers Bruceanthro ( talk) 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your kind words regarding my recent adminship. I hope I can continue being of help here.
A while ago I started on a translation of de:Deutschland 1945–1949 - [7] - but I haven't actually started any of the translation yet. I was thinking that this page, when it is finished, would be the linking page between Nazi Germany and East/West Germany, instead of Allied Occupation Zones in Germany as is currently the case.
And for your reference: while I still haven't decided on a final version for the post-WW2 map, I came up with this post WW1 map a while ago. I'm pretty happy with this one. So if you have any new thoughts on the post-WW2 map, I'd be happy to hear them. - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that this user commented on the Polish edition of the article; it is only expected to ask for more input from interested editors.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just moved my response onto the article's talk page. cheers, -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(Hope I've got this in the right place, below your banners instead of above them.) I trust Nick, and we speak pretty freely to each other. However I do value my integrity, and I'll take a close look at the article. Have you requested the JSTOR article through any of the JSTOR-capable editors on the project? Regards 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been removing all the Google book search URLs that you've been using as references. Take a look at WP:CITE and Template:Cite book for tips on how to cite books. Binksternet ( talk) 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Start your own article on war crimes or human body parts as war trophies, but this subject has no place in an article about hunting animals. Bugguyak ( talk) 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stor, Please note that I have been going through articles which reference the H-net review of the GI War Against Japan and removing statements which are not supported by the book. In particular, Schrijvers did not say that rape was a "general practice" - this seems to be the reviewers' POV and he shouldn't have attributed to Schrijvers - and neither the review nor the book support the claim that the rapes were motivated by the dehumanisation of Japanese people as was being claimed in the Occupation of Japan article (Schrijvers argues that they were motivated by a desire to "sharpen the agressiveness of soldiers" and "establish total dominance" and makes no reference at all to dehumanisation in this context). Nick Dowling ( talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Casablanca directive -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the extensive analysis that you have presented on my talk page. Actually, I find it a bit too long (cluttering) but I really appreciate your effort. Also, I want to tell you that I agree with the many quantitative reasonings that you have made. There are many assumption (original research if you want) but they appear logic and reasonable. In deed, I was mentally approximating similar figure. Of course, I did so much less precise and not in this breadth. All that does not change the fact that 100% is always wrong for a group of 2.7 mio. people, but I also think that the actual number is close to that.
Only one thing I do not agree with. Most people do not want to leave their home place. If I put myself in the position that you have explain with everything turning foreign, I might have left the place. But I know that most people love the place they grew up so much (one might call it inertia as well) that they can only be displace by force. Also, i do not understand why you have it about Russian in this paragraph, whereas in Breslau everything became Polish.
Thanks also for you interpretation of the German Jew's lot after war. I think this is in big parts what has happend. However, I wonder if there is really no official Polish or Russian document on what should have happened (or rather not happened) with them.
I would like to suggest you to share your research with user: Molobo. I had some words with him about the issue and I feel he likes to ignore that German Jews existed on the questioned territories and that their lot is of interest. Moreover, he might disagree that the German percentage in the Breslau area was above 99%. I tried to avoid to detailed discussion on this end, but you seem to have the energy for that.
A last thanks, for the clarification on the Germany talk page. I hope now it is clear for everyone. Amazing, how many things can go wrong in a discussion :-) Tomeasy T C 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You last two contributions to the section Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II#June 1946 are not in my opinion likely to help in the development of the article. Please do not make any similar comments as they are confrontational and make it more difficult to build a consensus on how to develop the article. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion about Captain Obvious ongoing. Feel free to contribute Here -- FilmFan69 ( talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian article is not by a journalist it is by Beevor himself. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
So, we have saying that "some minister", said that Polish troops will be in Berlin. Said minister opinion was in contrast to all plans made by Polish military and Polish government (strangely, all plans were about defense and withdrawal). Not to mention Davies's credibility is nto that great: he for example said once to Churchill that opposing to communism is staying in the same league as Hitler and Goebbels, he thought Stalin is great man. "His arrogance and incompetence drove the embassy personal to the despair" (Gazeta Wyborcza: http://wyborcza.pl/1,75515,2636138.html). Szopen ( talk) 07:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your comments at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Since you put it in a well sourced and comprehensive way, I urge you to somehow integrate it in the article rather than letting it rot at the talk page. I already to some degree expanded and cleaned up the Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II and Recovered Territories articles, but I am all with you that they are still far from perfect. But you should have seen the shape they were in before - you just might want to check the edit history for your amusement. The information and sources you provided would surely help a lot. Note also that there is another subarticle Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia, which I guess would also profit from your sources (my primary scope of interest (and knowledge) is Pomerania). I would really appreciate having more serious editors on the before mentioned articles who know what they are writing about and add referenced material, and not just - well let's not go into detail about that. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bainer, regarding your recent votes. I'm a bit pussled by them as regards me and as regards Molobo.
I have repeatedly asked that a comment be made on the way the diffs used against me were presented, to no avail. It seems to me as if in some cases the workshop pages are irrelevant to the decision process.
Since you are voting against me, and considering the comment you made, could you please provide me with some advice on how I can improve, especially considering my evidence analysis
Could you please also provide some feedback to these accusations, since in view of your vote on Molobo I would dearly like to know exactly what constitutes an infraction in these proceedings.
Regards -- Stor stark7 Speak 11:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
Please see the above link to read the full case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I've undone your edit to this article, I checked the source, and your text is not supported by the cite you provided. -- Stor stark7 Speak 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi stark7, I saw in the Churchill's archived talk page you have commented on the paragraph about Europe partition. It is marked as cited but didnt find any good sources linked.
"On October 9, 1944, he and Eden were in Moscow, and that night they met Stalin in the Kremlin, without the Americans. Bargaining went on throughout the night. Churchill wrote on a scrap of paper that Stalin had a 90 percent "interest" in Romania, Britain a 90 percent "interest" in Greece, both Russia and Britain a 50 percent interest in Yugoslavia. When they got to Italy, Stalin ceded that country to Churchill. The crucial questions arose when the Ministers of Foreign Affairs discussed "percentages" in Eastern Europe. Molotov's proposals were that Russia should have a 75 percent interest in Hungary, 75 percent in Bulgaria, and 60 percent in Yugoslavia. This was Stalin's price for ceding Italy and Greece. Eden tried to haggle: Hungary 75/25, Bulgaria 80/20, but Yugoslavia 50/50. After lengthy bargaining they settled on an 80/20 division of interest between Russia and Britain in Bulgaria and Hungary, and a 50/50 division in Yugoslavia. U.S. Ambassador Harriman was informed only after the bargain was struck. This gentleman's agreement was sealed with a handshake.
I guess it is this paper that is refered to: [4] The problem is that it is listed under the teheran conference, which does not fly with the october 1944 date. Has there been a mixupp somewhere? --Stor stark7 Talk 11:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)"
I couldn't find sth good either. The British papers cited say nothing. ( http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/churchillstalin_58-1.pdf )
I am not a wikipedian and I dont have experience, can you refresh this topic a little bit to the churchill talk page?
Thanks for your time, keep the good work.
I did some copyedit of the link description (the itself link was originally invalid). Pavel Vozenilek 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you ask him what is the difference with secondary sources? His answer would apply in the same way if these sources were secondary sources because we should never add our own analysis or interpretation to any source (primary or secondary), unless we provide a source for this interpretation or analysis. So, his answer is not correct, or else there is no difference between primary and secondary sources. IMO, the correct answer is that you cannot use any analysis, evaluation, judgement, interpretation (of some other work) that is contained in a primary source to build a case, to defend a position or for anything, unless you provide a secondary source that uses this primary source in this way. By definition, primary sources must be used as primary ingredients in secondary sources. A primary source gets interpreted or evaluated in one of many possible ways in a secondary source. Wikipedia reports on these secondary sources, not directly on primary sources. For example, if a primary source reports that a researcher called FlatMan said the earth is flat, you cannot cite this primary source and write "FlatMan said the earth is flat" in a Wikipedia article to support the case that the earth is flat because this is giving a value to the primary source. You cannot use it to discriminate Flatmam either, which is another way to use the very same statement. You see the point: a primary source is a primary ingredient that can be used in different ways, to build different cases, etc. You need a secondary source along with a primary source to use it in one way or another. Note that it is perhaps what Slrubenstein had in mind, but what he wrote mean something else to me. Note that there are exceptions, but it is when the way to use the primary source is not subject to discussions and that every reasonable adult would agree. -Lumière 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The answer to your first question is hidden in Saxifrage's answer to your second question:
The allowed analysis cannot come from primary sources! Why? Primary sources, such as the transcript of an interview, may contain such analysis. So, why not use it? Because we cannot directly use a primary source for any analysis or interpretation that it may contain. This is the answer to your first question. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means that it must report on secondary sources. Given that an analysis or interpretation is provided by these secondary sources, then we can cite the primary sources that are the object of this analysis or interpretation. -Lumière 02:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There are two tricks that can work. First is that of print screen - i.e. screen capture. Press print screen button when you see the image, paste it into Paint, cut and paste again to a new picture parts that are useful and save it. I usually save it as bmp and then use ACDSee to convert it to more copyleft png format. This works 100% as long as the image is smaller then your screen. Alternatively, the second trick is sometimes much faster - but doesn't always work. After you open the image you can try to search your browser's cache for the image file (copy all recent files into new folder, change their extensions to graphic files, and look at the directory with ACDSee or similar image browser. Hope this quick tutorial helps :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I also reverted some of the edits you made in the "Czech Republic" section. However, I advise you not to use german nationalist materials as sources, even people connected with the "Centre against Expulsions" like de Zayas are not ok, as this information is officially rejected by the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland. The reason is not that noone knows that something terrible happened to ethnic Germans after WWII, but the fact that many of them try to exaggerate the numbers and some already tried to demand back their confiscated property - which is unjust as the Czechs cannot demand that German re-pay them all the damage that happened in WW2, wich destroyed their fairly prosperous state and left them prey to Stalin. Germans paid alot for the war - but to Russians etc, not to Czechs. ackoz 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
On Ethnic Germans, doesn't correspond with credible maps and estimates of German population in neigbouring countries. It is used for several different periods in history and implies significant German presence in areas that had little German population. It conflicts with maps of distribution of ethnic Poles, and no mention of German settlement during WW2 is made when it is presented as placement of Germans in 1945, in other articles it serves as base for claims of German population in 1937... -- Molobo 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
And try to write in short clear sentences when you ask him, as english probably is not his first language... -- Stor stark7 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
But It was you who started to put it articles ? I am sorry but this is a problem on English Wiki, not German, and I am not fluent in Germany. This problem must be solved on English Wiki. Right now I am wondering why 530,000 Poles in German Silesia are barely noticable but 100,000 Germans in Pomorze are showed as dominating the region. -- Molobo 23:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
If the user is concerned with English wiki I will gladly engage in dialog here. I believe the burden of defence of the image is on the person who tried to include it here. If you believe my arguments against it are incorrect state so with arguments.With all due respect I do not believe defending your actions is my duty here. -- Molobo 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Instead of source we have a lengthy speach unconnected in several parts to the map and full of error's combined with attacks on Polish state. Not to mention the absurd usage of votes to indicate presence of German's. It seems author doesn't know for example that hundreds of thousands of Germans were moved to Silesia in order to vote.And of course using data on presence of Germans in 1919 in Poznan when German Army was moved there isn't POV at all...Anyway the author hasn't presented a source of the map. -- Molobo 17:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed in series of your edits (ironically, described like Use references, otherwise everything is just allegations [2]) referenced statements about expulsion from Czechoslovakia disappeared, along with reference to Facing the history. Later, some of them were replaced by more vague and less accurate statements from the European University Institute study which you favour. Now, the way the sources are cited, the EUI study is given as much prominence as possible, and Facing ... as little as possible. However, the case of Postoloprty completely lacking in EUI stayed... Also, while you're obviouisly reading the pdf copy of Facing..., and included link to pdf of EUI study, Facing is not linked. Altogether it makes the impression you pick from the sources what seems to be useful for the POV you advance and try to suppress the rest. Please avoid doing that. -- Wikimol 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The Italians are neutral in this mater, and an Italian publication can be expected to be more objective than a purely Czech publication. If we would use your logic, no Italians couldn't be seen as neutral since Italy was part of Axis during WW2 and it could be argued that they have more sympathy for Germans. -- Molobo 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The Italians also fought on the side of the Allies during the end of the war I disagree with your statements against Czechs using the logic you provided since some Czechs fought for Germans also. Unlike Germany in WW2 Wiki doesn't state that nationality determines thinking process and we should stay with such position. Please don't continue to alledge that being of certain ethnic group indicates some views-for people coming from ethnic groups that have been targeted of such policy by Germany in the past such opinions are always sounding dangerous. -- Molobo 17:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Look it is you who started to alledge that Czechs as an ethnic group have certain views. Please stop from such commonts. -- Molobo 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Basically I said that as perpetrators of ethnic cleansing against germans they can not be relied upon to be fully objective when it comes to research on the topic I urge you again to stop this insulting allegations against other ethnic groups. -- Molobo 18:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
And I would like to urge you to stop stalking me and to stop trying to pick a fight. Do you seriously think that for instance the thinking and what is published in Germany, for example, is not affected by what germany did to the Jews? Everybody carries their past with them as luggage, regardles of nationality -- Stor stark7 18:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
After seeing your very POVish contributions I am under impression that your edits need a lot of corrections as you push the view that Germany was the main victim of WWII by the aggresive Allies(which is perfectely demonstrated by your edits on Effects of the Second World War). Perhaps I am wrong, I don't know, but certainly articles where you contribute are in need of POV check. As to your comments against other nations on Wiki we have other means of determing validity of sources then looking at the ethnic group of the author. -- Molobo 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
you said you could not because of lack of time. Describing in detail the devestation and mass murder Europe experienced in WW2 due to actions of German state will be a very lenghty process. Don't worry though I assure you I will contribute to the article. -- Molobo 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC) You are not intrested in adding material on topics making it more balanced Oh I already inserted info on how Germany behaviour in Poland and plans to eliminate 50 milion people from Central Europe. -- Molobo 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If you stop rejecting sources based on nationality of the author I don't believe there will be a conflict. However claiming somebody has certain views because he is of certain ethnic group is very provacative. I am surprised you don't understand this. -- Molobo 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Stor Stark, I understand why you feel using Czech sources for the article could be inappropriate. Especially sources published before 1989 would for sure be biased. But this is a topic that will not be solved by anybody. There is noone who could tell exactly what happened - if it was 10 000 people less or more - the documentation could have been manipulated either by Czechs or Germans. The differences are unimportant today: the future doesn't rely on these questions. There is no court in Europe to judge that Czechs should return the property they gained after the expulsion, as there is no court in Europe to judge that Germans should go back in history and undo all the harm of WWII. Saying that it doesn't count as war damage because it happened after the war is hypocritical and everybody knows that. More to the numbers you mentioned: a friend of mine has a grandfather, who is ethnically German. He was allowed to stay here (lucky him ;-) because they measured his face somehow and said he looked more slavic. Weird eh? There are still around 50 000 ethnic Germans in the Czech Republic. Maybe the numbers you have talked about in Brno don't correspond because someone didn't have to join the march or weren't forced to leave at all after the war. But I have some points though I would like you to understand:
The czech article http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyhnání_Němců actually mentions the number of 18 816 victims. We can dispute the number, it seems too "correct" to me. But - the article uses the correct formulation "had signs of genocide", describes the discrimination of Germans who were allowed to stay (not allowed to speak German, property confiscated etc.) and uses "murder" for what is called "killed" or "died" in the english article. It mentions a murder of a 8 months child and 80 yrs old man in Horni Mostenice near Prerau (but no public burning of children on the main squares of Prague). The literature used for this:
Literatura:
Turnwald, W.: Dokumente zur Austreibung der Sudetendeutschen,.München, 1951. Hentschel, E.:. Den Opfern zum Gedenken. In: Heimatbrief Saazerland, Forchheim, 1995. Staněk, T.: Perzekuce 1945. Praha, 1996. Staněk, T.: Tábory v českých zemích 1945-1948. Opava 1996. Borák, M.: Spravedlnost podle dekretu. Ostrava 1998. Hanzlík, F. a Pospíšil J.: Soumrak demokracie. Vizovice 2000. Sborník Vězeňství ve střední Evropě v letech 1945-1955. VS ČR, Praha 2001. Sborník Vězeňské systémy v Československu a ve střední Evropě 1945-1955. SZM Opava, 2001. Brandes D.: Cesta k vyhnání. Praha 2002. Staněk T.: Retribuční vězni v českých zemích 1945-1955. SZM Opava 2002. Hanzlík, F.: Vojenské obranné zpravodajství v zápasu o politickou moc 1945-1950. ÚDV ZK, Praha 2003. Prameny: Archiv ministerstva vnitra Brno-Kanice, fond A 2/1, Porevoluční události 1945 Příslušné fondy státních okresních archivů Děčín, Žatec, Louny a archivu města Ústí n.L. Technické zpracování: Obsah expozice dokumentů bude uveden titulním panelem s uvedením názvu, motta, hlavní realizační teze a autorského kolektivu. Dále bude prezentován na 9 panelech s rozdělením do tří tématických celků dle dílčích realizačních hypotéz.
What I am trying to say, be bold in describing the facts as they are. There were murders, largely unpunished (occasionally punished), still murders. The whole thing had signs of genocide. Then call these thing murders and genocide. But please try to be very sensitive about any hints, that Bohemia or Moravia is somehow a German land. That's what matters the most. ackoz 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
To illustrate my point, here http://www.aligisassu.it/u/un/universitat_wien.html is an old version obviously of a wikipedia article about Universität Wien. It contains the sentence: Prag war zu dieser Zeit deutsch. Its a total Quatsch, and a newer version of the article already explains the facts correctly. ackoz 22:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Please insert correct images. You are confusing Soviet Union with Russia, the two are different entites. I advise you to be more carefull in creating maps and you will avoid such mistakes. While it is possible that somebody refered to it as Russia, you should not spred this incorrect view by creating incorrect maps. -- Molobo 20:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Your comments on German wiki regarding "a number of Polacks and Czechs" are very disturbing [5]. The term Polacks is used as insult in English and German. In view of this I am starting to think your contributions regarding relations between Germans and Poles might be influenced by POV. I hope this was a mistake on your part and you want do it again. -- Molobo 22:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a well known term. http://kpearson.faculty.tcnj.edu/Dictionary/polack.htm Polack Definition: 1. usually disparaging: a Pole or person of Polish extraction (from 20th Century) 2. (Mainly Jewish) a Jew whose family comes from Poland 3. a Pole, Russian, Czech dealing in Polish Jewesses: white slavers’ cant from 20th century. 4. an immigrant from Poland Other forms used : Pollack or Pollack or Pollock or Pollock or Polak or polak. Perhaps Stork made a mistake. But certainly usage of such term shouldn't be made. -- Molobo 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry then for disturbing you and I apologise for the mistake. But understand that term in German is an insult and please avoid it in the future. Have a good day. -- Molobo 21:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I was going to upload that image to commons, but it's copyright status needs some clarification. While the tag states cc-by-sa2.5 license, the textual desciption from de: contains this note for visitors from other countries: This image is copyrighted and is used in the Wikipedia with permission.. On hu: is some text in hungarian and cc-by-sa1.0 license... I'm a bit worried wether the image wasn't "liberated" during its voyage on several Wikipedias, initialy used with Wikipedia-specific permission, and at the end declared free content. I think it would be reasonable to start backtracing, so, please, as the uploader, how did you come to cc-by-sa2.5.license? -- Wikimol 21:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I will do a map. Adam 01:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC) A pleasure - I love cartography. Adam 14:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that the plan was never developed beyond the "sketch map" stage, I think the map that's there is adequate. Adam 14:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for adding to the discussion. I have used your reference to the telegram distancing him from these events in the article. It just shows what is in his mind. His extreme language like "wanton distruction" would not be acceptable in Wikipedia, normally, but he wrote it himself! Wallie 15:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I will see what I can come up with. Adam 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to nominate (or grant if it takes just one person) for a random-act of kindness award. As a nubee … I do not know the procedure for such a think here in Wiki. Would you know? Nonprof. Frinkus 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
For sources see the footnotes in Geneva Convention (1929)#Capture and in Disarmed Enemy Forces. As good as one can expect as they come from the ICRC Commentaries:
Hope this helps -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes the article is a stub and needs to be expanded. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We were talking for over two months about the sources and content of the article. We've reached some consensus and we are trying to write a NPOV article. If you will insist on biased words and if you will insist that "long march to Austria and Germany" is a source for "died on the roads" and if you will continue in breaking our effort to fulfil consensus and breaks NPOV we will ask for admin actions, even at ARBCOM. ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Stor stark7, Maybe you should combine the footnotes 28 – 36 into just one (?) as I shall add even more footnotes when editing to the still missing parts of the article. However, regarding the heated discussion on the article Red Army atrocities and some of those Stalinists trying to deny the undeniable about the glorious freedom fighters of the Red Army, almost each and every word should have a footnote quoting references, to avoid senseless arguing in the future. Best regards -- Dionysos 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Im glad we have restored cordiality. I'm not much bothered either and I think we are arguing over a rather subtle and inconsequential issue, more related to opinion than to hard fact. In any case, the main reason I intervened in the article was that I was worried over the other fantasy theories about European origins of Guanches being given undue weight on the article.
Cheers. -- Burgas00 22:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Norman Davies writes that in 1945 they were 33,297 Poles in Wrocław. You can find this in Microcosm , page 451. In 1918 they were 4-5,000 Poles in Wrocław(page 394), but the population went smaller. However it was large enough to hold rallies and have buildings for Polish organisations. On page 397 he writes that German police plundered "Dom Polski" a cultural institution in 1938. There was also a Polish School led by Helena Adamczewska. In march 1939 Poles held a rally under the title "Faith of the Fathers", its leaders were sent to concentration camps. I hope we will avoid disagreements. If you want to know more about Wrocław's Polish history just ask, I have Davie's book by me, and I enjoy it. Do you know anybody that says Davies is wrong on the subject ? Also page 424-at the end of 1944 30-40 Polish civilians were sent to Wrocław after failure of Warsaw Uprising. (Ethnic) situation was complicated by fact that some Poles were classified as Germans(Volksdeutsche). Later Davies writes that illegal masses in Polish took place in Wrocław church of Saint Roch. On 11 November 1944 Poles took part in mass singing "Boże coś Polskę" risking being arrested by Gestapo. -- Granet 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be working now, either there was a typo in it yesterday or my ISP couldn't resolve the hnn.us domain. I see the information you added is indeed included under that link, so unless you have reinstated the reference I will do it later today.-- Caranorn 11:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Historical_context.2F.22US_and_Australian.22. Grant | Talk 11:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, I will gladly look at it. For the record, if anybody criticizes you for informing me, feel free to quote my thanks for informing me about a discussion I am interested in but wouldn't know of otherwise.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw you added a section. Could you elaborate it? In most cases there are neither dates, nor any references to what triggered these actions. I´m particularly interested in additional information on the destruction of Bruchsal. When did it happen and how? Markus Becker02 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Following your request here for a new map for 1945 Germany, I've made this image. If you have any suggestions, I'd be interested to hear them. Regards. - 52 Pickup 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that; it's clear to me this guy needs watching v. carefully and especially since he came out of a one year ban only a few months ago. I've put all relevant pages on watchlist. -- Rodhullandemu ( talk - contribs) 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 16:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've replied to your recent query/request here. Hope this assists .. Cheers Bruceanthro ( talk) 03:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for your kind words regarding my recent adminship. I hope I can continue being of help here.
A while ago I started on a translation of de:Deutschland 1945–1949 - [7] - but I haven't actually started any of the translation yet. I was thinking that this page, when it is finished, would be the linking page between Nazi Germany and East/West Germany, instead of Allied Occupation Zones in Germany as is currently the case.
And for your reference: while I still haven't decided on a final version for the post-WW2 map, I came up with this post WW1 map a while ago. I'm pretty happy with this one. So if you have any new thoughts on the post-WW2 map, I'd be happy to hear them. - 52 Pickup (deal) 07:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that this user commented on the Polish edition of the article; it is only expected to ask for more input from interested editors.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just moved my response onto the article's talk page. cheers, -- Nick Dowling ( talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(Hope I've got this in the right place, below your banners instead of above them.) I trust Nick, and we speak pretty freely to each other. However I do value my integrity, and I'll take a close look at the article. Have you requested the JSTOR article through any of the JSTOR-capable editors on the project? Regards 21:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been removing all the Google book search URLs that you've been using as references. Take a look at WP:CITE and Template:Cite book for tips on how to cite books. Binksternet ( talk) 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Start your own article on war crimes or human body parts as war trophies, but this subject has no place in an article about hunting animals. Bugguyak ( talk) 23:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stor, Please note that I have been going through articles which reference the H-net review of the GI War Against Japan and removing statements which are not supported by the book. In particular, Schrijvers did not say that rape was a "general practice" - this seems to be the reviewers' POV and he shouldn't have attributed to Schrijvers - and neither the review nor the book support the claim that the rapes were motivated by the dehumanisation of Japanese people as was being claimed in the Occupation of Japan article (Schrijvers argues that they were motivated by a desire to "sharpen the agressiveness of soldiers" and "establish total dominance" and makes no reference at all to dehumanisation in this context). Nick Dowling ( talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Casablanca directive -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the extensive analysis that you have presented on my talk page. Actually, I find it a bit too long (cluttering) but I really appreciate your effort. Also, I want to tell you that I agree with the many quantitative reasonings that you have made. There are many assumption (original research if you want) but they appear logic and reasonable. In deed, I was mentally approximating similar figure. Of course, I did so much less precise and not in this breadth. All that does not change the fact that 100% is always wrong for a group of 2.7 mio. people, but I also think that the actual number is close to that.
Only one thing I do not agree with. Most people do not want to leave their home place. If I put myself in the position that you have explain with everything turning foreign, I might have left the place. But I know that most people love the place they grew up so much (one might call it inertia as well) that they can only be displace by force. Also, i do not understand why you have it about Russian in this paragraph, whereas in Breslau everything became Polish.
Thanks also for you interpretation of the German Jew's lot after war. I think this is in big parts what has happend. However, I wonder if there is really no official Polish or Russian document on what should have happened (or rather not happened) with them.
I would like to suggest you to share your research with user: Molobo. I had some words with him about the issue and I feel he likes to ignore that German Jews existed on the questioned territories and that their lot is of interest. Moreover, he might disagree that the German percentage in the Breslau area was above 99%. I tried to avoid to detailed discussion on this end, but you seem to have the energy for that.
A last thanks, for the clarification on the Germany talk page. I hope now it is clear for everyone. Amazing, how many things can go wrong in a discussion :-) Tomeasy T C 21:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You last two contributions to the section Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II#June 1946 are not in my opinion likely to help in the development of the article. Please do not make any similar comments as they are confrontational and make it more difficult to build a consensus on how to develop the article. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 21:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion about Captain Obvious ongoing. Feel free to contribute Here -- FilmFan69 ( talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian article is not by a journalist it is by Beevor himself. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
So, we have saying that "some minister", said that Polish troops will be in Berlin. Said minister opinion was in contrast to all plans made by Polish military and Polish government (strangely, all plans were about defense and withdrawal). Not to mention Davies's credibility is nto that great: he for example said once to Churchill that opposing to communism is staying in the same league as Hitler and Goebbels, he thought Stalin is great man. "His arrogance and incompetence drove the embassy personal to the despair" (Gazeta Wyborcza: http://wyborcza.pl/1,75515,2636138.html). Szopen ( talk) 07:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your comments at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Since you put it in a well sourced and comprehensive way, I urge you to somehow integrate it in the article rather than letting it rot at the talk page. I already to some degree expanded and cleaned up the Expulsion of Germans after World War II, Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II and Recovered Territories articles, but I am all with you that they are still far from perfect. But you should have seen the shape they were in before - you just might want to check the edit history for your amusement. The information and sources you provided would surely help a lot. Note also that there is another subarticle Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia, which I guess would also profit from your sources (my primary scope of interest (and knowledge) is Pomerania). I would really appreciate having more serious editors on the before mentioned articles who know what they are writing about and add referenced material, and not just - well let's not go into detail about that. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Bainer, regarding your recent votes. I'm a bit pussled by them as regards me and as regards Molobo.
I have repeatedly asked that a comment be made on the way the diffs used against me were presented, to no avail. It seems to me as if in some cases the workshop pages are irrelevant to the decision process.
Since you are voting against me, and considering the comment you made, could you please provide me with some advice on how I can improve, especially considering my evidence analysis
Could you please also provide some feedback to these accusations, since in view of your vote on Molobo I would dearly like to know exactly what constitutes an infraction in these proceedings.
Regards -- Stor stark7 Speak 11:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
Please see the above link to read the full case.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I've undone your edit to this article, I checked the source, and your text is not supported by the cite you provided. -- Stor stark7 Speak 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)