Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 24 March 2013

This is IIIraute's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Christoph Waltz - Nationality

May I ask why you reverted my changes to the article about Waltz? 91.61.99.184 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

a. because there has been editor consensus for this stable version; b. because your changes are unsourced; c. why stretch the Nationality section unnecessarily? --IIIraute (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

a. there does not seem to be any talk in the discussion about the nationality wording at all. Just "he's German - no, now he's Austrian, too"...

b. My changes are more close to the actual sources, thus I changed it. I will explain: The original sentence was "Waltz received Austrian citizenship in 2010 thus holding citizenships of both Austria and Germany, but considers his German passport a "legal, citizenship law banality"."

I regard this as misleading and wrong for the following reasons:

1. The order of the two clauses suggests a temporal order which does not reflect the truth. He did not first receive the Austrian citizenship and then talked about the German one, but the interview was actually before he got the Austrian citizenship.

2. My sentence is closer to Waltz's actual words - the current sentence is wrong. He did not simply call call his German citizenship a banality, but said that he will "also" become Austrian, adding the fact the he "also" holds the German citizenship would be "banality", not the German passport itself. He defended his "Austrianness" despite not holding the citizenship.

What the current version totally misses is the dispute over his nationality (which is the reason why there's an extra "Nationality" paragraph for Waltz, unlike for other people who just have this info somewhere in-between the rest of their bios), i.e.: 1. The fact of him being a German citizen was totally unknown to the public until 2010, 2. that there was a media debate that started the movement to make him an Austrian citizen in the first place. He didn't get it for 54 years of his life, after all. (The part about the media debate should also be added - my suggested version misses that as well.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.99.184 (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

the current version is fine and doesn't need to be stretched. it states exactly what's in the sources. technically speaking, Waltz is a German-born actor, residing in berlin, who also received Austrian citizenship a couple of years ago. please note: the section is about "nationality", not "ethnicity"! P.S. His father, Johannes Waltz, is German. --IIIraute (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A version that suggests a wrong chronological order and also alters the source is "fine"? I have to disagree strongly. Also, I have no idea what you are trying to say with your ethnicity talk - I never went in that direction at all. 91.61.99.184 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

it states exactly what is in the source. maybe we should remove his comment, since it doesn't really matter what mr. Waltz has to say anyway. if tomorrow he told us he "felt" Korean, it still wasn't going to change the change the fact that he is German by birth and only received Austrian citizenship in 2010. So, for ca. 54 years he was a German national only, who now also holds Austrian citizenship for ca. 2-3 years. Ethnically he's half German - half Austrian. Hard, bold facts - nothing else. --IIIraute (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem I have is that the source is put into a misleading context. For an uninformed reader it suggests that he - as the owner of both citizenships - called his German passport a banality. What the reader does not know is that he kept this a secret for over 50 years and the interview was made in the context of journalists questioning him after a newspaper uncovered that he was a German citizen. He defends himself being Austrian despite not being a citizen (and not bothering to apply for over 50 years) - not actually suggesting him not being a German citizen. Also, he did not call the German passport a banality, but the fact that he also owns a German passport. I cannot accept the current phrasing, though I would agree that his feelings normally wouldn't matter. The problem is that the topic of his nationality seems to be a touchy subject, so his own words may actually be of relevance as an exception. If we really deem the topic irrelevant the whole paragraph ought to be removed and the outlines be incorporated into the rest of his bio.

In short it misses or represents: 1. the interview was made at a time when he did not have Austrian citizenship, shortly after the media found out he was a German citizen 2. it drops the words "also", while he himself actually said that he will "also" be Austrian, just like his "also" being German.

It would be better to either completely remove it or just quote his own words fully (basically a single sentence that doesn't require a summary), instead of trying to alter his words to make them sound more like this or that. If the topic is still warranted to get its own paragraph it should also add the part about his citizenship being unknown to the public until 2010 and the media debate the uncovering of the truth started, which eventually lead to his naturalization. Right now it misses the reason why he chose to become Austrian in 2010, even though he talks about legal banalities, which is the natural question you would come up with after reading the current section.91.61.103.108 (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

bring it to the articles' talk page, although the facts speak for themselves. --IIIraute (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Trying to (finally) close the discussion with a conclusion

Hi! Here’s what I wrote: .

Is there anything you would like to add? I tried to summarize it as much as possible, hope I didn’t skip anything worth mentioning! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus and the Danzig vote

Hello Illraute,

I noticed that you reverted the edits of a user named Skoranka, that changed the names of several places in the Copernicus article from German name (Polish name) to Polish name (German name), contrary to what the Danzig Vote requires, or so it appears to me. After you last reverted the changes another user changed your revert back again. Before I wade in to that hotly fought over article I'd like to hear from you about what might be the best approach. Should I just go in an change things back, according to the Danzig vote? What should be done if somebody claims the Copernicus article is a biography about an _obviously_ Polish person? I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.

Best regards, Larkusix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkusix (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Larkusix, thank you for your message. Yes, there has been a hot debate, although the Danzig Vote clearly states that the names should be in German first: ""In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above."

It was decided, that for the period between 1308 to 1945 the German names are to be used first (see vote#2-5,⇒⇐), and how to implement the result of the vote: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). All later occurrences of the name follow the rules for the periods as voted above." and "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin)."

Please also have a look at the "Enforcment" guideline: "Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Misplaced Pages:Dealing with vandalism"

That the article is not about an obviously Polish person, becomes very obvious when looking the the Nationality section of the Copernicus article, as well as the debate at the talk-page that has been going on since the introduction of this article to the WP. Please have a look at the talk#archive of the Copernicus article → Asserting a nationality to the article clearly violates the editor consensus. Best regards, --IIIraute (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. It seems as if the Google Doodle honoring Copernicus birthday brought some Polish nationalists to the article who disagree with you. An additional pair of eyes on the article, and if time allows an additional reasonable voice would be much needed and appreciated, for sanity's sake.

Best regards, Larkusix (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Great power

You are aware that "right" is actually the default position for images, right? So removing them doesn't actually change anything. I was only reverting it back to the last stable version by User:Moagim, who had removed the clutter (sizes and superflous placement definitions, according to the WP:MOS), but which an IP had subsequently clumsily undone. Your edit summary thus doesn't make any sense and your version is against the WP:MOS. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Adjust the images, if you want - but don't change their position, or the content. Regarding your Stettin edit, maybe you're interested in this → . --IIIraute (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

European cuisine

Great, so now you're taking the line of someone you were reverting on the Germans article? (Collabois) For the food, we are not going to list every country that eats a dish/lays a claim to it being a dish of their country, are we? Hey, I saw Turkish kebab, why don't we change that to Greek/Turkish kebab? Wow, I saw meatballs too, guess those Swedes are not the only ones who thought of making balls out of meat etc. Look, a quick shuffle around the web gives me (German roast-pork) recipes, but the photo descriptor describes it as being typical Austrian (and Bavarian) food, now Bavaria is not the whole of Germany is it, but the point is, if you think it's more a typical German dish then say so, add refs or discuss on talk, but please do not do this Austrian/German/Serbo-Croat/Norwegian dish thing, it's rubbish and confusing and also aesthetically unpleasing.CaptainScreebo 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)