Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:34, 23 May 2006

Factual dispute is about numbers. NPOV - article lacs any information about opposition to build C.A.G. in Berlin. I'm not going to revert war now :( 81.27.192.19 19:46, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the article as it stands now doesn't seem NPOV to me... I'm going to remove the tag and see what happens. Feco 05:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Migrated from Erika Steinbach

Hi there. I recently made a cleanup of the the article on Erika Steinbach and noticed the tag on this page. Fine with me, here's the info migrated from that article. Feel free to add it to this article. Halibutt 04:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Opponents of the proposed form of Centre object to emphasizing only German suffering; others see it as an inappropriate counter-balance to the Holocaust memorial. In the petition "For a critical and enlightened debate about the past" historians expressed concerns the centre would establish and popularize a one-sided image of the past, without historical context. Many well-known European intellectuals and politicians, including Germans Günter Grass and Hans-Dietrich Genscher, in 2003 expressed support for a centre devoted to all expelled during the 20th century, located in some place connected with expulsions, e.g. Wrocław (Breslau).

However, while Steinbach claims the Centre will represent the suffering of other nations as well, she believes that it is an internal German affair and rejects the proposal of creating the Centre under international control. "All victims of genocide and expulsion need a place in our hearts and in the historical memory. Human rights are indivisible," the Centre points out on its official home page. The Centre Against Expulsions have been supported by many human rights activists, historians, political scientists and politicians, including first UN High Commissioner for Human Rights José Ayala-Lasso , Nobel laureate Imre Kertész, Joachim Gauck, former Austrian crown prince Otto von Habsburg, Guido Knopp, György Konrád, Alfred M. de Zayas and others. The Bavarian Prime Minister and leader of CSU Edmund Stoiber argued that "the place for a museum showing the dreadful fate of expelled Germans is in the German capital". The CDU/CSU have decided to build the center and Chancellor Angela Merkel has explicitly declared her support.

German Foreign minister Joschka Fischer commented on Steinbach, and her initiative for a Centre Against Expulsions to ...have caused serious damage to German-Polish relations. Not amongst extremist nationalist forces that do exist in Poland, but amongst old friends and major agents for reconciliation between our two countries.

Among the German and Polish public, dispute has sometimes been fierce. Remainders of past mass murder of Poles by Germans have surfaced. For instance, the Polish newspaper Wprost published a cover photo-montage of Erika Steinbach in an SS uniform (photo). However, the then Polish Prime Minister Leszek Miller condemned this and apologized to the German Chancellor. As part of the same controversy, the Federation of Expellees and Erika Steinbach sued the German journalist Gabriele Lesser for defamation related to an article published on September 19, 2003, in the daily Kieler Nachrichten. The Federation largely won the case against Lesser.

==Exhibition on expulsions in 2006==

Steinbach's organisation will hold an exhibition on expulsions in the Berlin Kronprinzenpalais for 3 months during the fall of 2006. The exhibition will show expulsions from the genocide on the Armenians until the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. It will deal with the expulsion of Germans (a major exhibition on this was also held in 2005 in Bonn), and, for the first time in Germany, also on the expulsion of Poles from what is now Ukraine and Belarus after 1945.

Website

First of all, I don't think there is a need for any focus on "its" webpage. In general the article subjects' webpages seem to me to be rather unneccessary for inclusion. And if there was any need, (why would there be?) do not cherry-pick aspects and write a personal argumentation, especially not if you, Molobo, complain about original research less than one and a half hours later elsewhere. Sciurinæ 13:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

All the statements can be found on the Center Website, I see no reason not to include them as they are highly out of the ordinary when it comes to mainstream history --Molobo 17:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I won't waste my time on commenting on the irrelevance and bias you suggest be imposed but only on No original research.

WP:NOR:

Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

Molobo, this is a clear textbook example of original research. This case is even easier to understand than Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Example_of_a_new_synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.

You have two facts, a) what the website states and b) what a more reliable source states. So you bring in your interpretation, c), namely that a) is wrong.

[allright, in actual fact I'm not so sure whether you really stated what the website read

(eg. 460,000 was not the only entry for Poles.

also contains two more: 800,000- 900,000 Poles, Ukrainians and Jews were expelled in February 1940 to June 1941, and 1,530,000 Poles were expelled in the Autumn of 1944 - early 1949. So all tghe three together, the number is somewhere in the area of yours.]

the number is somewhere in the area of yours. No it isn't. These are Poles deported by Soviets, not by Germany. --Molobo 19:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, let's just pretend the above scenario was true. Compare that to Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Example_of_a_new_synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. Wouldn't you say that this case is much more straight-forward? Sciurinæ 18:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's no synthesis. Just a sample of statements from the Center. Please provide links in English I don't speak German. --Molobo 19:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You added the following text in bold letters.

"All victims of genocide and expulsion need a place in our hearts and in the historical memory. Human rights are indivisible," the Centre points out on its official home page. The Centre's homepage however contains several statements and data that is inaccurate and controversial:

, which is clearly c), a previously unpublished interpretation of a) and b), aimed at advancing your position. If this isn't origininal research, what is?? Sciurinæ 20:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope it isn't original research. That would be for example claiming Poles weren't persecuted by Prussia. Writing that claims that Gdańsk was founded by Germans is controversial isn't original research because it falls under e (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge,. Of course you might be an exception, since IIRC you viewed Germanisation as positive for example. But yes claims that Gdansk was founded by Germans would be very controversial to Poles, not to mention untrue. --Molobo 20:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The quotation is completely ripped out of its context. The full paragraph reads: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Misplaced Pages article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions." So where is your article? This case is a classic example of original research and you know that! Sciurinæ 21:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no original research. I simply gave examples of statements made by the Center. Would claims that Gdańsk was founded by Germans be controversial ? Of course, since it isn't historically correct. --Molobo 21:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Face facts – it is a perfect example of original research. You looked at the website and disagreed with its historical views. These views are the a) of Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Example_of_a_new_synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position.

Then you collected statements which you feel contradicted them, b), and then published this previously unpublished research concluding that "The Cenre's homepage however contains several statements and data that is inaccurate and could be considered controversial if not nationalistic:". That was in Febraury on Erika Steinbach. Not having succeeded there, you continued again here. Sciurinæ 15:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Only German critics is allowed?

There is no word about non-German critics of the Center. There is also no word about terribly biased "Facts" presented on www.z-g-v.de. I don't know why so many respected people support historical revisionism. Xx236 13:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a word anywhere about the 'terribly biased "Facts" presented on www.z-g-v.de'?

There should be an inclusion of this source, it fascilitates understanding some attitudes and actions towards the center remarkably. Sciurinæ 15:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be inclusion of Polish sources. The source you gave was already presented by you and shown to be very biased and innaccurate in regards to historical data. Can you answer question why opinion from Poland isn't acceptable despite the fact that involves Poland ? --Molobo 15:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

*LOL* Yes, indeed, on single person complained about it, claiming it was a very POVish article — you. If you disagree with Pawel Lutomski, a Professor of Standford University, tell him. The source is from October 2004 and sheds light on the reception of the Polish press, elites etc, which is better than wondering whether you've actually properly quoted a notable statement from a source I cannot read. Sciurinæ 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, on single person complained about it, claiming it was a very POVish article — you Indeed a single person asked for the article to be included because its biased and inaccurate portayal of events fits with his private views:you. The fact that the author makes no research but simply prefers to state his own views and opinions and judges Poles speaks that it isn't a scholary work but an opinion piece. I ask again. Why is opinion from Poland ignored and unaccaptable in the article ? This thing is related to Poland and Poles have made many statements on the issue. Certainly such statements are more interesting then personal views of somebody living in San Francisco. --Molobo 16:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Give proof of its biased and inaccurate portrayal of events. Give proof that this fits my private views. Prove that the author makes no research, not overlooking the forty-five footnotes for the sixteen pages. Prove that he simply prefers to state his own views and opinions over research. Prove it isn't a scholary work but an "opinon piece". Prove that because he lives in San Francisco makes him less detached (in the sense of impartial). You only have claims to offer, which you can on no account prove, knowing though that others would hard-pressed trying to disprove them. The burden of proof for your claims is, of course, on you. Sciurinæ 20:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I ask again why opinions from Poland shouldn't be presented in the text instead of your cherry-picked document that is an opinion piece. --Molobo 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Same as in too many other articles. Your private opinion is insignificant. Not every quote you drag along is worth mentioning. And you certainly don't represent Poland. And even if a large majority in Poland would be outraged about the center, it would only be worth at max. one sentence in the article itself, as it is Centre Against Expulsions and not Polish opinion about Centre Against Expulsions. Don't continue to try hijacking articles for your POV purposes. --Matthead 21:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Center is discussed by President of Poland and President of German and topic of every meeting between both states so Polish opinion is of equall value, especially since the attempt it relates to Poland. Your private opinion is insignificant Just as yours. In any case you failed to notice that it wasn't me who questioned that opinion from Poland is being deleted. And you certainly don't represent Poland Neither do I quote myself in the articles. Not every quote you drag along is worth mentioning. You have a hard time finding a quote represneting a positive view of this attempt from Poland.

it would only be worth at max. one sentence in the article The Center is now the main issue of Polish-German relations and certainly this should be the main part of the article. --Molobo 22:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Similar to the Polish "interest" in the pipeline from Russia through the Baltic Sea to Germany? --Matthead 23:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion isn't "the pipeline". Xx236 07:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the discussion is that some Poles should better take care of their own business. This here is mainly a German issue, it does not require a permission by Poland. They are invited to start a center (or pipeline) of their own, but they are not invited to judge about the German initiative. --Matthead 14:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Guido Knopp

Guido Knopp is a journalist rather a historian. Eventually "journalist and historian". Xx236 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you actually questioning Guido Knopp's place in this list?

"Among them first UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Dr. Jose Ayala Lasso, Nobel laureate Imre Kertész, Joachim Gauck, former Austrian crown prince Otto von Habsburg, well known German rabbies Walter Homolka, Eckart Klein, and historians such as Guido Knopp, György Konrád, Hans Maier, Christian Tomuschat and Alfred M. de Zayas."

Two links about his being a historian.

Yes, Professor Doctor Guido Knopp is also a journalist, teacher, author and moderator. But how many historical books is he still supposed to write and awards to win to assure his being a historian? Unless he shouldn't be described at greater lenght, the current entry is fine. Removing him would be unacceptable. Sciurinæ 15:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never questioned his place on the list, because the list has been published by the Center. One of the quoted links supports my version "journalist and historian". He teaches journalists. Some of his books are probably printed versions of TV series. Are such books regarded as historical research or rather popular texts? Xx236 06:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)