Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:01, 30 August 2005

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

See Archive1 for older discussions.

Mind reading

Again, your edit to the George W. Bush article is fine, was made in good faith and isn't in any way controversial. The edits you removed were as well. It isn't necessary for Noitall to back up what he inserted because we are dealing with subject matter about an American and the information he inserted isn't POV or uncommon knowledge, at least not in the U.S. I can't read minds and I have no idea what you are talking about on that. Anyway, happy editing!--MONGO 02:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put the information in there to begin with. Not everything in the article requires a reference link especially if it isn't very controversial. These items are common knowledge...maybe not in Germany but they are in the U.S.--MONGO 14:39, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not restore personal attacks

Official policy on Misplaced Pages: No personal attacks --Witkacy 01:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That's really no excuse at all to delete all of TShilo12's statements, including the non-personal ones, especially not, Witkacy, if you're a fine one to talk: on the talk page you wrote in bold letters "If you are looking for Anti-Polish racists - check this talk page", which is much worse than TShilo12's statement() and although I don't actually care, I doubt these are the only statements by you which comment on the editor rather than the contribution. Why don't you delete it or them first? This is a good example of a double-standard. I told you: you can strike out his alleged personal attacks but as you do: don't forget yours. And this revert is not the self-criticism I demanded either.NightBeAsT 02:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"If you are looking for Anti-Polish racists - check this talk page" was not a personal attack.--Witkacy 02:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

So when you call several persons "anti-polish racists", then you don't comment in a negative way on contributors instead of contribtutions? He commented on you in a negative way, too, but he didn't insult you(). And speaking of personal attacks, this wasn't maybe a personal attack very similar to TShilo12's either? But since you now know the policy, let's forget about it.NightBeAsT 12:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Rudi

Hey, you exaggerate a bit on Gazeta Wyborcza the title of the article is Szef ziomkostwa Ślązaków oskarża Polskę o dyskryminowanie Niemców which transltates as The chief of Preußische Treuhand accuses Poland for discrimination of Germans and the article does not contain any sentence like Pawelka blamed Poland for WW2. Instead it relates what from the usual Preußische Treuhand arguments is in the speech and then covers in a detailed way the paragraphs we discuss on. In particular, this means it also contains a passage głęboko zawstydza mnie, co narobiło państwo narodowosocjalistyczne (I am deeply ashamed of what the Nazi state did). Alx-pl D 16:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

(Response NightBeAsT)

Oh it simply said that Pawelka blamed those events(made by Poles) as responsible for WW2, that started much earlier then 1939 or 1933. But I see you are resorting to cenzorship ;) So in effect Alx was deceiving you when he claimed that there is no sentence that mentions Pawelka blaming Poland for WW2 So i let him translate the sentence : Według niego Polacy nie przyznają się do powojennej grabieży, powszechnie przemilcza się też "cierpienia 2,4 mln Niemców w Polsce przed 1939 r." oraz "polskie agresje" po I wojnie światowej (wojnę z Rosją, wkroczenie na Górny Śląsk w 1921 r. oraz zajęcie Zaolzia w 1938 r.). Tymczasem wszystkie te wydarzenia wraz z "dyktatem wersalskim" w 1919 r. należą zdaniem Pawelki do historii II wojny światowej, która wcale nie zaczęła się w 1939 czy w 1933 r., lecz wcześniej. Of course if you want to censor facts be me guest, if you have no arguments besides"delete". --Molobo 23:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

America's Army

Hi Nightbeast, danke für deine Antwort zu meiner Frage auf der Talkpage zu "America's Army". Wie du es schilderst — und wie ich es mir schon gedacht habe — scheint ja die Vermarktung von "America's Army" ganz gut auf amerikanischem Heimatsboden anzukommen. Umso wichtiger finde ich es, in dem Artikel auch darauf hinzuweisen, wie das Spiel im Ausland, wie eben auch bei uns in D-A-CH, kritisch wahrgenommen wird. Und auch trotz Misplaced Pages:No original research bin ich der Meinung, dass man ohne wissenschaftliches Belegen in den Artikel reinschreiben darf, dass es vielen Deutschen eher missfällt, auf so eine Art Werbung für die eigene Armee zu machen. Ich werde mich daher mal in den nächsten Tagen mit dem Artikel nochmal beschäftigen und ihn diesbezüglich erweitern. Ciao, --Abdull 19:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Bismarck's Kulturkampf

(Response to Witkacy's revert: )

Yeah, we have a problem - you know nothing about the Polish history... You should read more about Poland under the partitions, and Prussian/German anti-polonism during the Kulturkampf--Witkacy 01:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I asked for proof of your allegations, not new accusations. I still don't see reliable sources proving Bismarck was motivated by anti-Polonism when he fought the Catholic church in Germany. You say I don't know anything of Polish history? Well, if you're so enlightened about it, why don't you just verify your claims? Simply saying that when Bismarck's Kulturkampf happened, there were anti-polonistic feelings in Germany doesn't justify anything. People at that time, for example, also built houses. Is there any need to add the category 'Architecture'? So let's be consistent with these issues and delete categories unconnected to the Kulturkampf. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category(Misplaced Pages:Categorization).NightBeAsT 01:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=pl&q=Bismarck+anti-Polish&lr=N --Witkacy 01:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You've 207 hits for 'Bismarck' in connection with 'Anti-Polish'. http://www.google.com/search?hl=pl&q=Bismarck+architecture&lr= I've 147,000 hits for 'Bismarck' in connection with 'Architecture'. How does it prove your point?NightBeAsT 01:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

"Neubach, Helmut: Eduard v. Hartmanns Schlagwort vom "Ausrotten der Polen". Antipolonismus und Antikatholizismus im Kaiserreich. Mit einer Vorbemerkung von Gotthold Rhod. --Witkacy 01:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What is this? A book? Post claims of the book if you like but don't distract from your inability to prove the Kulturkampf was motivated by an "irrational fear or malicious hostility toward Poles". Your link to anti-catholicism is acceptable because it is rather self-evident and uncontroversial but your link and category to the poorly written article for anti-polonism is not self-evident and at best controversial, at worst laughable, at any rate Witkacy's mere POV. If you cannot prove the self-evidence and undisputability, the official guideline says no to this category.NightBeAsT 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nightbeast please... buy some books about Polish history and then contribute to the Polish-related articles on Misplaced Pages... Good night--Witkacy 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know yet whether or not you've realized it, but Polish history is a looking-glass through which only Witkacy sees clearly. His reverts are a reflection of the simple fact that nobody other than him understands TRUE Polish history. You have no hope, all your base are belong to us, after all, someone set up us the bomb. :-p Tomer 11:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I know just what you mean, Tomer. Witkacy, don't take it personally but Poland is not the centre of the universe - not that Germany is but, if anything, the Kulturkampf is part of Germany's history so buy some books on German history.NightBeAsT 19:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Except of course in that time Germany was in control of Polish territory, and Polish people were being persecuted by it. http://www.pgsa.org/US/pittsburgh_poles.htm It was not until the year 1875 that the Poles built their own parish, St. Stanislaus Kostka on 21st Street in the Strip District. During the mass migrations from Poland to the United States in the 1870's, it is estimated about 152,000 Poles left the provinces of Poznan, Bydgoszcz and Silesia. Many settled in the areas around Pittsburgh and Erie. They were mostly well educated "intelligentsia" escaping the Kulturkampf campaign going on in the Prussian partition at that tim http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/Slavonic/slav2ARomanticism.htm "1871 Foundation of GERMAN EMPIRE under Prussian rule, following Prussian defeat of France in 1870-71 War. Poles represented in imperial parliament. However, Chancellor Bismarck initiates KULTURKAMPF, against Catholic Germans in south, but particularly the Poles. Results in Germanization, colonization of Polish territories by German farmers, restrictions on teaching in Polish." http://h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/speech.html Bismarck and the "Polish Question." Speech to the Lower House of the Prussian Parliament, January 28, 1886.

Nevertheless, the struggle for existence between the two nations, which are allotted the same hearth, goes on unabated, one could even say, continues with strengthened forces. The era of peace has not been an era of reconciliation and accommodation on the Polish side. Strange to say, it is not as many foreigners and our own optimists believe that the German population has been the victor in the struggle and that Germanism advances. Rather, the opposite is the case. The Polish population makes indubitable progress. And we ask ourselves how this can be so, given the allegedly great support which the German element has received from the government. Indeed, gentlemen, this perhaps instructs us that the support given the Poles by the opposition is stronger than that which the government can render according to the current constitution. But the fact is that the Poles can say of themselves: Vexilla regis prodeunt (the banners of the king go forward). This is beyond doubt.

When I think about the reasons for this, there comes to mind the Catholic department which, until its abolition by my direct intervention as minister-president, possessed the character of a Polonizing organ inside the Prussian administration. (Unrest in the Center Party and among the Poles). Under the direction of Herr Kraetzig--I hope he lives still, it had become an institute of a few great Polish families, in whose service these officials pushed Polonization in all the contested German-Polish districts. That is why it became necessary for me to agree to the abolition of this department. And this is actually the reason I generally concurred in the Kulturkampf.

Yes NB as you see Kulturkampf had NOTHING to do with Poles at all... Try learning something before vandalising pages all the time. Molobo.

You know what, Molobo? I'm really sick of your writing. The first thing I read was the last line to see who has written it. To my dismay I discovered that it was you, someone whose neutrality and factual accuracy I highly doubt. Since I hoped that you could offer me a summary what you wrote (because it's almost criminal to force someone to read this text), I read the last sentence. This sentence mingled aggressive irony with insulting accusations of ignorance and vandalism. Luckily I've read by who they were written, so they weren't insulting at all any more. Your last sentence also included your summary: 'the Kulturkampf had also got something to do with Poles', which I never doubted - in a way it had to do with anyone anywhere because for example even an American Catholic who might have read about the Kulturkampf in a newspaper at that time is affected by it ... to some irrelevant degree, but my point was that the Kulturkampf was not motivated by or had a significant effect on anti-Polonism, which the category alleges. So I read the first sentence of Molobo, which doesn't convince at all: I already pointed out that at that time people also build houses but noone would add the category 'Architecture' only because of it and google goggled in approval. The next line is a quotation without quotation marks or a negligible claim by Molobo. Maybe you took a lot of time to write all that, whatever it is, yet not the one minute required to make it clear what you wrote. What did you quote, what did you write yourself - what is fact, what is fiction. "You can make it clear by writing it in italics or/and with quotation marks, like this" for example. Just make it readable enough that it doesn't look careless next time. I'll delete it all but - just to let you know - wrote this comment so you know why I do so and if you can learn so well, you've learnt something today. Rants who insult me as their bottom line are not a place for my talk page. I don't know what you've posted but if it isn't careless and comes to a better conclusions than 'Poles were affected by it too' or 'there might have been anti-Polonism at that time', post it in a readable form to the talk page again, that is, of course, without personal attacks and if you still believe you'd be right.NightBeAsT 13:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)