User talk:Sca/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{talkarchive]]

Contents 1 Arthur Schopenhauer 2 Szczecin 3 So, that's you 4 Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote 5 Wrzeszcz 6 Talk:Gdansk/Vote 7 Poles in Vilnius 8 schopenhauer

[edit] Arthur Schopenhauer

I have created a temporary version for Schopenhauer at Arthur Schopenhauer/Temp, trying to include as much info as possible. Comments are welcome. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Related to this conflict, I think that you are about as neutral as someone can be, you're neither german nor polish, you know a lot about history, and the only thing which could be interpreted as bias is that you lived in poland for a long time - and that would count as a pro-polish bias. I really hope the Schopenhauer problem can be solved, maybe even the danzig/gdansk problem. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 17:19, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Szczecin

Please do not start a revert war about Szczecin. The language you are using is quite POV and really against the very neutral tone of the whole article. "Repatriated" is a much better word to describe what has happened after the war to the German people living in Stettin and sure "conquered" to describe Red Army's liberation of the city is too strong a word. I will not revert the article to its former version yet, if you don’t agree with my wording please suggest what you would consider to be appropriate but please note I do not agree with the current version.--Roo72 01:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Editing someone's user page instead of Talk page is VERY rude.--Roo72 20:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My response:

First, I am very sorry that I apparently screwed up your user page, and I do aplogize most sincerely. Whatever I did, it was a mistake, inadvertent and unintended.

Now, as to your comment on my user page (above):

Why is "conquered" too strong a word? Germany and the USSR were at war, savagely so on both sides. Germany was defeated and conquered by the Big 3 allies. Eastern Germany was conquered by Soviet forces. You can't really believe this constituted "liberation" for the residents of these areas -- unless you are an unreconstructed Stalinist, which presumably you're not.

Stettin was a German city at the time. (Not even Emax would contest this.) It was the capital of the German province of Pomerania (German: Pommern), the primary port for Berlin, and it was not close to any prewar border with Poland. As a result of Germany losing the war, Stettin's inhabitants -- all of them who survived -- were indeed expelled. I suppose we could say "transferred," which is a neutral word, but the action itself was obviously not a neutral one, so even this is glossing over reality.

In anticipation of something like this exchange, over the weekend I dragged out my old college textbook on 20th C. European history -- from a box in the garage -- and found the following entry about Stettin/Szczecin:

"In 1945 Russia unilaterally handed over the city of Stettin on the left bank of the Oder to the Poles, who soon converted it into the completely Polish city of Szczecin." -- C.E. Black, E.C. Helmreich: Twentieth Century Europe: A History. Knopf, New York: 1950, 1959, 1966, p. 696.

At the time this textbook was written, the information summarized in the above sentence above was general knowledge among historians and others concerned with the ramifications of World War II. There was nothing controversial about it. It was a simple statement of fact.

Since then the West seems to have forgotten about some of these details, to the point where one sees casual references to places that were indisputably German BEFORE the Nazi period, and within the 1919-37 borders of Germany, as having been "in occupied Poland." This should concern anyone interested in historical accuracy.

I don't know whether you're a native English speaker, but the use you are proposing for "repatriated" is inaaccurate. "Repatriate" is defined as: "To send back or return to the country of birth, citizenship or allegiance," and gives as it's most typical example "to repatriate prisoners of war." (From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the most often used dictionary in the U.S.)

Please notice the words BACK TO and RETURN. The residents of Stettin were not sent "back to" someplace they had been before or "returned" to some country that was different from the one which, until then, their city had been -- they were evicted from their homes in their own country. They hadn't taken these homes from Poles or anyone else; Stettin was their city. The Soviets took it from them and gave it to the Poles.

Whether that was justified given Nazi Germany's aggression, or as "compensation" to Poland for Poland's losses to the USSR (Wilna, Lwow, etc.), is another debate. The point here is simply WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED on the ground. If what actually happened is upsetting to Polish readers, too bad -- that doesn't change history. Sca 20:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about any "compensations" and I don't know why you mentioned them, I only care that the history is represented as it actually happened using words that are not biased and the previous version of that part of the article was IMO biased. We seem to have reached an agreement about "conquered", now let's talk about "expelled":

The verb repatriate has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1: send someone back to his homeland against his will, as of refugees

Meaning #2: admit back into the country

and,

Military

repatriate

(DOD) A person who returns to his or her country or citizenship, having left said native country either against his or her will, or as one of a group who left for reason of politics, religion, or other pertinent reasons.

Care to explain why this word is not appropriate?--Roo72 20:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry but as a 1) native English speaker, 2) writer, 3) sometime historian and 4) editor, I cannot agree to your use of "repatriate" in this context.

As outlined above, the primary and original meaning of repatriate is to return to one's country of origin. People who are evicted from their place of origin or residence, which until their eviction was part of their country of origin, cannot be described as "returning" to their country of origin. This applies whether those involved are Germans, Poles, Russians, Armenians, Greeks, Turks, Chinese, etc. ad infinitum.

I've mentioned the Webster's definition of repatriate. Here are some others, including one that is irreverent but on the mark:

1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000: repatriate TRANSITIVE VERB: To restore or return to the country of birth, citizenship, or origin: repatriate war refugees. ETYMOLOGY: Late Latin repatrire, repatrit-, to return to one's country : Latin re-, re- + Latin patria, native country.

2. wordreference.com: repatriation the act of returning to the country of origin

3. freesearch.co.uk: repatriate verb {T}

to send or bring someone, or sometimes money or other property, back to their own country:

-- The government repatriated him because he had no visa.

4. The Urban Dictionary: repatriate "Politically-correct bullshit for DEPORT. The foreigner was repatriated to his home country because he tried to find a job so he could pay his medical bills.

One common use of "repatriate" in historical writing involves diplomats and other foreign nationals present in one country when their own country declares war on the host country. In WWII, Germans in Britain, Brits in Germany, Japanese in the U.S., etc., were "repatriated," usually by being transhipped via neutral countries to their countries of origin. (Some Americans in Japanese hands had other experiences -- as did some Japanese in the U.S.)

I will grant you that "repatriate" is sometimes used in the manner you are employing it, but usually to serve political or nationalistic propaganda. Using "repatriate" to refer to uprooting human beings of whatever nationality from their established homes is political doublespeak and cannot equated with historical accuracy; it is a corruption of the basic meaning from RE and PATRIA.

[edit] So, that's you

Nice to see you - at last. I don't know why (should ask my mom, she's a psychologist-to-be), but it's always easier to talk to someone who has a face :) ...

As to the other pics you've sent me - I really love these guys who spend half a day at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (have you read the article?). One of my friends from Kiev once told me that he was disappointed with the way the soldiers in Poland look and that the guys at the Red Square in Moscow could march much, much better, but still.~.. Those pals stay there, at the holiest of all places in Poland, and they do it voluntarily. That's really something...

And about the way the Polish soldiers look - I really miss the days when the Polish soldiers used the pre-war uniforms. Nowadays there are some plans to restore the Polish uniforms of 1936, but (as always) the army is lacking money... Fortunately, the founder of the Polish GROM special unit was not only a soldier, but also a guy with some taste, and decided to introduce the 1936 uniforms in his newly-established unit. Hopefully some day the rest of the Polish Army will follow.

BTW, from my words you could draw the conclusion that I'm Kierkegaards' "aesthetic man". That's right... Halibutt 03:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of Polish/German locations, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozends-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 00:37, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sca, I really seriously contend that the city at the head of the Vistula was predominantly Polish in the period from 1466 to 1793. Or rather it was a part of a predominantly Polish state, where the Polish language was one of the two official languages of the state (German was not the other one). As I told you already, I don't give a darn about the languages and cultures of the local inhabitants, since I don't like applying 19th century standards to 15th century people. The only serious criterion for me is the name used by the monarch when referring to the place. If so, the name should be either in Polish or in Latin. Halibutt 22:03, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

To ask you in a similar way: do you really believe that the city of New York is predominantly English nowadays? If not, then why do we keep referring to it with its English name? Halibutt

Dear Sca, apparently I didn't make myself clear enough. In my comment the adjective "Polish" refers to the Polish State (Poland-Lithuania, the Crown of Poland, Kingdom of Poland - whatever), not to the 19th century concept of the Polish ethnicity. In this context Gdansk was as Polish as Cracow, Posna, Kiev or Smolensk. It does not mean that most of the inhabitants of the city were ethnic Poles with Polish ancestry and/or speaking Polish as their primary language. It does, however, mean that the city in question was a part of Poland which used the Polish language as one of two or three state languages (the other being Ruthenian and Latin).

As to the American example: perhaps whole New York City is not the best choice here, but there are zillions of other places in the US of A that are inhabitated mostly by immigrants: Cubans, Poles, Russians, Africans... As long as Wikipedia refers to those places with their official, English names (not used by the local inhabitants who speak Spanish, Polish or whatever other language) rather than by the names used by local inhabitants, I believe we should use this scheme for all other places in the world. Official languages and official names should be followed at all times, not only when someone finds it plausible. Otherwise we'd have double standards here. Of course, one day the name of the Green Point area of the NYC might be officially changed to Jackowo - and then we could change the WP naming of that place as well. But as for now, the name used by the locals is completely irrelevant and could be mentioned in the article, but not as the principal name.

BTW, thanks for the postcard, it arrived the day after my birthday, so I took it as a gift :) Could you send me your address as well so that I could reply?

--Regards, Halibutt 02:42, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wrzeszcz

Vgeshch. "g" pronounced as in "massage", "protege" and "beige". Easy! Good luck!Space Cadet 21:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You couldn't have picked an easier name, could you. :) In IPA it's ['vʒεʃʧ]. In "English approximation" it would be something like "Vzhehshch" (V zh eh sh ch - sounds separated). I prepared an .ogg key for you - check the Wrzeszcz article. Halibutt 22:12, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt there is an exact translation of "yikes". It all depends on the context:

• yikes (like oh wow!) - świetne (lit. it's great)
• yikes (like gosh) - rany (lit. wounds, as in for the wounds of Christ), rety (slightly old-stylish, like whoopsie daisies)
• and many, many more... :)

Cheers, Halibutt 22:19, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Thanks for the compliments. It worked out rather well. Of course, in retrospect i would have done some things differently (e.g. not mention vandalism on the enforcement vote), but otherwise it looks good. Many thanks also to User:John Kenney and you for keeping up the discussion on the vote page! Also, the Biographies section was a great idea of yours. That's why i have named you and John also as organizers on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-21/Gdansk or Danzig. I am currently preparing the text for the vote results, see User:Chris 73/Work#In preparation for the ending of the vote if you are interested. Comments are welcome.

About editing user pages - it has happened to me, too, especially if there is only a blank user page. Guess we have to live with that. Best regards -- Chris 73 Talk 04:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poles in Vilnius

Regarding your question in Talk:Vilnius about 18% of Vilnius population being Poles (with over 70% being Lithuanian or Russian). Compare today's ethnic composition of the city with any of the pre-war censae. Vast majority of the people living in Vilnius today were migrating into the town in this or the previous generation. I'm not claiming that this is good or bad, it's just the fact implied by these figures. Now, what happened to Jewish and Polish population, that constituted over 90% before WW2 ? Lysy 06:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

More on that: together with some Lithuanian contributors we've came to a conclusion that the majority of the present 18%-strong Polish minority must've migrated to the city from the surrounding areas and other parts of the Soviet Union, along with members of other nationalities (there are even Ukrainians there nowadays). This is most probably tied to the general trend of depopulating villages and urbanisation of cities. More on that you can find in the Talk:Vilnius archives.

Also note that not all Poles were forced to leave the area and some of them effectively opposed it (the same happened with Germans in post-war Poland). After all many people believed that a war between East and West would start soon and that the city will once again be returned to Poland, so they ignored the NKVD and all the Soviet terror and simply decided to stay. Others were forced to adopt Soviet citizenship because they were speciallists and were needed by the Soviet industry or were inhabitants of pre-war Lithuania and as such were not subject to the "population exchange" (according to Polish estimates there were ca. 200.000 Poles in pre-war Lithuania, Lithuanian censae place that number at 20.000). Finally, the push to expell the Poles was much weaker in the countryside than in the city itself. That's why the Poles still constitute the majority in several communes to the south and east of the city itself. Many of them might've simply migrated to the city somne time in the 1950's or 1960's. Halibutt 10:56, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] schopenhauer

should the "poland" in the infobox at schopenhauer be changed? --goethean ॐ 18:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't let your own fascination with Danzig's German culture fool you. I have yet to meet a Pole to believe that the Germans of Danzig or Stettin were not Germans in terms of ethnicity. Yet, you accused me of such stupidity just because I took part in a discussion of political ownership of the city at the time Schopenhauer was born. Watch out for your own phobias before you accuse others of spreading them... Halibutt 03:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)