Talk:Centre Against Expulsions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Exhibition in Berlin

The exhibition of the Center against Expulsions in Berlin was certainly not revisionist. One ought to see it before one judges. I can understand there are fears with all the one-sided coverage of the media, but I was very surprised to see that it was a very ok exhibition. I need to admit, I am upset at my own prejudice. I went in there and thought I'd get lousy material presented. But it really wasn't like that at all. I am somewhat annoyed about the way certain biased parts of the media covered this exhibition, which they very obviously didn't even see. Now I think the coverage of the FAZ of the exhibition was the most decent one. This I say now, after seeing it. Before, I was very insecure about it. I don't think one should not be able to document all parts of history in a pragmatic manner, only because it doesn't always go with certain people's ideologies. I think the centre against expulsions is necessary, because we cannot omit parts of history. Museums documenting the shameful deeds of the Nazis already exist and rightfully so. Even if the major reason for the "collective revenge"/expulsions was a reaction to Nazi terror, the expulsion is worthy to be documented since it was a significant historic event (even if not as significant as the initial Nazi terror). And it is important to re-emphasize (the exhibition did not) that not all expellees had been war criminals. The exhibition did - I was glad about that - include the context information, including the awful fate of many Polish people before, during and after WW2, which I didn't know much about. For more detailed info I will visit the already existing Polish Historic museum in Warsaw in coming February. After the exhibition I am even more interested in Poland and the Polish people. Who would have thought?

Good to read all that. But, everyone's mileage may differ. BTW: You might also want to visit the museum of Warsaw Rising Museum while in Warsaw (which is different than the historic museum of Warsaw as it focuses on this single event only). --Lysy^talk 01:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure the Warsaw Rising Museum will be part of my visit.

The CAE acts since many years publishing documents, some of them available in the Internet. The president of the Center is anti-Polish. One cannot take the exhibition out of this context. Why someone misinforms in one text and doesn't in an another one? Xx236 07:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

---

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 Wikipedia: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.

[1] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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:".[2] That was in Febraury on Erika Steinbach. Not having succeeded there, you continued again here. Sciurinæ 15:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So lies are O.K., when they are German lies. Opposing them is unallowed because of Catch 22. Xx236 10:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly angry about not being allowed to express in a Wiki article what you think is the truth. It is absurd bureacracy to you that suppresses the truth, if I interprete your reference to Catch 22 correctly. But there's also a reasoning of NOR and I'm sure that sometime you'll also experience a situation where this official policy makes more sense to you.

Your ironic first sentence may be interpreted as lacking the assumption of good faith. Maybe this is not the case, anyway: I don't think lies are O.K, when they are German ones. Equally, you don't disrespect NOR, when you feel this would be in the interest of Polish POV, or just your, or whatever. On the whole such allegations just poison the atmosphere needlessly. Sciurinæ 15:05, 28 August 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)

Sure, the Germans have the right to make non-academic nationalistic propaganda in the Centre (www.z-g-v.de) and call it "facts". They have even the right to claim that the Earth is flat. But why do they break Euro rules and aren't punished? Xx236 14:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Xx236 14:41, 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. I think that that the Center adresses Poland makes it an issue for Poland.

They are invited to start a center (or pipeline) of their own, but they are not invited to judge about the German initiative. I am sorry but the fact that German state murdered 6 milion Polish citizens as a result of its national ideology makes Poland quite qualified to judge German national ideas. --Molobo 15:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This is getting rather offtopic, isn't it? Remember, we are not here to discuss the Polish-German relationship, we are here to discuss what should be in the article. The reaction to the center in Poland is an important issue, and should not be ignored in the article. What is wrong with

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 19 September 2003, in the daily Kieler Nachrichten. The Federation largely won the case against Lesser.

from the section #Migrated from Erika Steinbach above? Molobo's criticism of the center's homepage does not belong in the article, though. Kusma (討論) 15:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Molobo's criticism of the center's homepage does not belong in the article, though. Sure I don't intend to put my private opinion. However I see nothing wrong in presenting examples of historic statements that are presented by Center. Your proposal centeres on the other hand on mariginal and unimportant part of Polish reaction to Steinbachs attempts. There has been much larger protest made by almost all important Polish and Jewish historians and public figures. Public opinion both of the common men and intelectualls sees this as nothing more then German nationlism and attempt to play down responsibility for starting the war and supporting Nazism. I can gladly serve you with sources confirming that this is the view in Poland. --Molobo 15:45, 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.[3] [4]

Yes, Professor Doctor Guido Knopp is also a journalist, teacher, author and moderator[5]. 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)

Against the Centre

I believe that Salamon Salzborn opinions should not be ignored the way they are in the article. See [6]. An academic discussion should be mentioned, especially Eva Hahn's contribution: [7] Xx236 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Draft translation of German-language section

Here is a machine-assisted translation of the untranslated text in this article.

The Centre Against Expulsions seeks

• to document the escape and driving out of more than 15 million Germans just like also driving other peoples out, in particular in 20th-century Europe
• to bring together verbal and written time witness reports from all driving out and evacuation areas
• to make erfahrbar Culture, fate and history of the European, also the German refugees and their respective homeland in the connection
• remind of the integration of the refugees as well as their social reception in the Federal Republic of Germany and in the German Democratic Republic
• regenerate in drafting of a bill current expulsion happenings
• a requiem rotunda [memorial?] is to invite to the memory of the victims to the meditation and devotion.

This translation is not perfect, and should be reviewed by a native speaker of English. 206.223.165.253 00:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The center prefers German victims rather than victims of Germans. Such position should be called bias or nationalizm. The Center uses instrumentally some non-German victims to pretend neutrality. My family has been expelled, but I haven't asked the Center to represent me in any way.

See: http://www.z-g-v.de/ Xx236 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

The Centre against Expulsions seeks

• to document both escape and expulsion of more than 15 million Germans as well as the expulsion of other nations, focussing on the 20th century.
• to accumulate verbal and written accounts of all areas where expulsions took place.
• to facilitate an experience of the culture, the fate and the history of European and German refugees and their homelands.
• to record the refugees' history of integration and social reception in both West and East Germany.
• to document current events of expulsions in exhibitions. I did not really understand this bullet point and my "translation" of it is only an assumption of what it could mean.
• to display a "Requiem Rotunda" dedicated to the memory of victims as a site for meditation and reflection. Again, the word "devotion" seems oddly out of place here. Hence my choice of word - "reflection". But maybe some else knows how to translate this.--Chris Camp 09:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-germans expulsions

If in the Centre Against Expulsions will include forced expulsions of 115 000 Czechs and non-fascist 15 000 Germans (social democrats/communists) from Sudetenland after Munich treaty in same level of detail as to post-war Germans expulsions I will be happy.

But, one assumes, it doesn't and so you are not happy, right? Well, I agree that we should shine a light on any disparity between the Centre's purported purpose of representing all peoples and a bias towards emphasizing the suffering of the German people after World War II. Of course, this must be done in an NPOV way and with adequate citations. Can you find a reliable source who makes these criticisms? --Richard 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if in CAE will be focused mainly on German expulsion after WWII and ignoring others, I will be unhappy. Ooops I re-read source and must correct numbers - 350 000 Czechs and 30 000 germans flee to rest of Czechoslovakia, but part of these was forced back to Germany). But is posible my originals numbers was from another source,and showing peoples who were not forced to retun to Germany and remaing in Czechoslovakia. And source for these (corrected) number is book Osudove okamziky Ceskoslovenska y Karel Packner (Albatros 2001)- Decisive moments of Czechoslakia. But unfortunaly, these book show only numbers and not tu much info. Czert.

According to some sources (e.g. Hans Lemberg) Germans expelled over 20 million people during WW2, including 5 million Poles forced to work in concentration camps and 3 million other Pole as forced labourers elsewhere throughout the Reich. Also 1.25 Poles were expelled from the areas of Poland annexed to the Reich. The property of all these obviously lost (usually confiscated and taken by ethnic Germans or Volksdeutsche). --Lysy^talk 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The German state robbed Poles since September 1939. but I don't think Polish forced workers were robbed more than other non-Jewish Poles.

Xx236 06:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Often lost their houses to Germans. --Lysy^talk 07:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was also explicitly mentioned in the exhibition of the Centre against Expulsions. The Polish forced workers in Germany were mentioned as well as Hitler's program to re-settle Germans to East Poland and move them into houses from which the Nazis army had expelled Poles. However, these "settlers" were not the majority of the German expellees (this the exhibition didn't mention). So I believe that one should see the exhibition before coming up with things that are not true. I understand the fears, and I think some media are very biased and are supporting this misrepresentations. But we ought to judge the real project and not some construct by some writers who never even saw the exhibition.

Centre's purpose - huh?

In the "Purpose" section, one of the bullet points reads "in change displays current expulsion events work up". What is this intended to say? Makes no sense to me. --Richard 19:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Too hard to grasp indeed. That's because the Purpose-section was translated from German to English very roughly. I'll try to improve it tomorrow, if I have enough time. Sciurinæ 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make some sense out of the "Purpose" section, but it's beyond my language abilities, i.e. I have a feeling that good kowledge of both German and English is needed, which I lack. Hope someone will deal with. --SWojczyszyn 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My German skills are also lacking. I have added back the original German text into the article (but commented out). It would be very helpful if the English translation was cross-checked against the original German text by someone who has a good command of both German and English.

--Richard 07:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia (check for NPOV Template)

I actually came to this article purely for purposes of obtaining balanced and objective information about the project of the Center (sorry, Centre ;). What made me do that? I was reading some articles in Polish online newspapers and couldn't stand how subjective they were. So I tried English-based info, but in UK and US the topic is receiving very low publicity. So I came here and got quite disappointed in the level presented by this article.

I read the above discussions, specifically the sections "Website" and "Only German critics is allowed?", and I'd just like to say... Well, let's just not discuss things that way. Does it lead somewhere?

I am Polish, but before you stereotype me let me just add that I lived in Germany for three years and I'm personally very furious at how Polish authorities are dealing recently with PL-DE relations. Due to some strange ways my life went I happen to have friends in Germany, descandants of expelees and some other friends in Czech Rep, to whom at some point I've happened to talk about the Centre. Right now I live in UK, and all in all, I (unmodestly) consider myself to be able to look at this issue objectively.

I would like to point out:

• While it is true, to cite Matthead, that "This here is mainly a German issue...", that is no longer true with respect to WP article. WP article, specially one that is not on de-wiki, but on en-wiki is NOT a German issue. It is an article about a thing, in this case a certain project, which should talk about significant issues related to it, while preserving NPOV. Perhaps, one of the significant things is the opinion that it's none of Polish business, but that should be cited and written in. It does not imply that citations of Polish opnions may be deleted from the article.
• How many Poles, Jews, Czechs, Germans died/were expeled during/after WWII does not in any way influence the issue of how we should structure the article about the Centre and whether or not include certain opinions in it. Some Germans believe that Centre is not an Polish issue at all. But some Polish strongly disagree with that. Let's find citations supporting both views and include them here, instead of arguing who has the right to talk about the Centre. Let's keep some distance and perspective.

What I believe this article should contain, but what I can only partially work on, since my DE isn't too good:

• I'd like to see sources. If the article says that Angela Merkel supports the Centre to be in its current proposed form in Berlin, I'd like to read about it. It's an important and not obvious fact that shouldn't be left unsourced.
• I'd like to see more about the foundation. How many memebers. Who is on the board. How is it financed. The purposes are here, which is good, that should be rewritten to be in English not in consist of English words, but that's minor.
• Support of the Centre to be located in Berlin
• Opposition against the Centre to be located in Berlin
• by the two above I don't mean reception in other countries. I mean inside Germany. How come CDU/CSU is mentioned twice, we have a mention of Stoiber and Merkel, while there is not a word about what's SPD position, what was Shroeder's position (ok, fine, he's not Ch any more. but then what about some leading SPD politicians?), not even to mention that perhaps FDP and the greens should be mentioned too. We have statement by "left-wing historians" and by Fischer. Let's add his party affiliation, and let's state opinions of other parties.
• Another point: the article mentions 3 people opposing the Centre in its current proposed form to be located in Berlin, on the other hand it mentions 14 supporting it. And why is it mentioned that Imre Kertész is Nobel prize winner, but that same fact passes unnoticed near the name of Günter Grass? What about the Rabbies? Doesn't mentioning them only in the supporters and neglecting any opinions on the topic by Jews, Israel or other Rabbies as opposition create the impression that the Centre, in its current proposed form and location, is in fact supported by people of Jewish faith? Isn't that misleading? The things I mentioned in this bullet point quite clearly show I believe that the article is far from NPOV. I wouldn't call it manipulation, but it comes close.
• Reactions abroad. It is significant. Whether or not you like it, the various events caused by the issue of erecting a Centre caused significant diplomatic events and a lot of comentary in German, Polish, Czech and some commentary in other press. As such it deserves more than a sentence, probably a paragraph. If there is to be more, it should be put in separate article, short paragraph here and Main template placed. Let me stress that by abroad, I don't mean Poland. I mean Tukey (Armenians), Czech Rep, Slovakia, Russia (Konigsberg, Soviet role in expulsions), Lithuanua and also Poland. I'm not too familiar with the topic - perhaps there is a strong support for the Centre in some countries. That should be mentioned. There was also idea of forming a network of Centres instead. Perhaps that should be mentioned as well.

Just my thoughts on the subject. --SWojczyszyn 23:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Today I've added POV-check template. Please don't remove it just because you disagree. I have laid out my reasons above. Let's discuss it. --SWojczyszyn 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want you to know that I agree very much with what you have written. Unfortunately, I do not have adequate knowledge to answer the questions that you raise. However, I do believe that these issues need to be addressed as long as it is done in an NPOV way. --Richard 07:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The recent exhibition should be mentioned. Polish "Karta" didn't cooperate but the Center presents pictures from "Karta" collection. Xx236 14:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Articles in Polish Wiki aren't Polish-only matter, the same German Wiki isn't a German matter. If such things happen, they should be opposed. Any Wiki has the same rules, any language is a tool only. If someone wants a nationalistic or Nazi Wiki, he can run it on his computer.
• The foundation demanded money from German communes (Gemainde) and many of them supporte the project [8]. German Government finances the Union of Expelled.
• Many prominent activists oppose the Center - Marek Edelman and Władysław Bartoszewski in Poland, Hans Henning Hahn and Eva Hahn, Samuel Salzborn, Alexandra Kurth, Tobias Weger.
• If there exist texts supporting the Center they should be listed in the article. The alleged supporters seem to be very pasive, the site doesn't contain any their texts supporting the Center. They don't answer any individual critics, the Center doesn't, too.

Xx236 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Xx236 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles for possible sources

All from DW, some of which on the topic of recent exhibit in Berlin: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

--SWojczyszyn 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits and comments

I did some minor edits to clean up the English but there are still some bits that are unclear:

• Relatively neutral positions - "relativate" is not a word, suggest "corrupt" "change" or "alter" be used instead. Can the original author have a look and decide since I'm not sure what they intended? (or as has been suggested someone that can read German and English)

• "The expulsions were always put into the unique historical context in order to not equate them" - not sure what this means. More explanation perhaps? And a reference would be handy.

• Other criticism - The phrase "left-wing historians" smacks of POV bias. What makes them "left-wing"? Nothing in the linked reference indicates the political leanings of the signatories. I'll remove it.

• The "Polish criticism" section starts well, with references and a reasonbly NPOV voice, however the second paragraph has a lot of sketchy statements like "_Many_ Poles oppose the Centre", please provide a reference if you can.

--Nickj69 17:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The list of the Poles, who support the center is rather short - a small group of members of the Union of Siberian prisoners, who were victims of Soviets and didn't met any Germans during WWII, a small group of historians publishing in Germany.

Since 1945 rightg wing CDU politicians support the expellees, left wing politicians attack them. Erika Steinbach has changed the simple division, but she has still limited support of the SPD and Greens. SPD policians come to Poland and try to solve the problem, the CDU ones don't. Xx236 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

just not true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.218.141 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Analysts claim

Who are those analysts? Their nationality is probably German, so lets write rather "Some Germans claim". Xx236 15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Check this out [15] (after The New York Times). --Lysy^talk 09:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Absurd.Xx236 15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What's absurd about it? Please explain your comment. --Richard 16:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

White masters describe degenerated Polish niggers. It's absurd for me. Read Orientalism.Xx236 07:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Xx236, please note that this is not a blog --Chris Camp 21:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Polish criticism

"Some politicians claimed that the main reason for the criticism is Polish domestic politics". The word "some" is a weasel word. We should name one or two such politicians and provide citations to reliable sources quoting them. --Richard 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting pissed off here. I believe it was you Richard who moved my sourced text here [16]. Then the Polish editors went to work on it, first Lysy (talk · contribs) turned "German officials and other analysts" into just Analysts, and then xx236 (talk · contribs) true to form changed analysts to "Some politicians". What the source says be damned, why bother with such trivialities eh?.

What the New York Times said was "German officials have tried to take the high road, but privately they express deep frustration with Warsaw, which they believe is exploiting anti-German sentiment to fuel a new wave of Polish nationalism" and "Domestic politics plays at least as big a role in Poland's reaction. The Kaczynski brothers, analysts say, are exploiting antipathy toward Germany to shore up their shaky government." and "With local elections this fall, "it will be relatively easy for them to play this anti-German card," said Ostrowski, of the magazine Polityka. "They will say they were not personally offended, but that the Polish people were offended.""

But then again, why bother with letting accurate and sourced text remain when you're on a weasling POV crusade.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

, yes - crusade is a perfect word to describe German propaganda of the last year.

NYT doesn't construct the world. It presents - sometimes a biased - description of it. I don't see any reason to quote the NYT here. What was the context of Ostrowski's statement - the ZgV or rather the Kartoffel article? http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=32309 http://www.dw-world.de/popups/popup_printcontent/0,,2238668,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4788167.stm Why do discuss the last year local elections here? Why not any German elections during which German politicians visit revisionistic meetings?Xx236 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wont respond to your attempt to muddle the issue. The issue is very clear. The sourced text said "Analysts". You for whatever reason wanted to change it to Some politicians. Lysy (talk · contribs) pointed you to the source of the text to explain why it was wrong to change it. You obviously read the source, since you "responded" to him. Then you went ahead and changed the text anyway. I don't think POV pushing and going against the wikipedia spirit can be any more obvious than that.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 15:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands articles about Germany, Poland, CAE. Why exactly this article should be quoted? Because you like it? It's not enough.

The spirit of the Wikipedia is to describe the real world, not the NYT ideas of the world. So the paragraph should be rewritten, including many points of view. Xx236 07:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Many Poles oppose the Centre Against Expulsion, expecting it would muddy the issue of responsibility."

"Many Poles oppose" - the word "many" here is a weasel word and is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. As it stands, it contains zero information value and I am going to edit it as soon as the slave server catches up with the master (that is, unless somebody else is going to do it first). --Chris Camp 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

her status as a person representing the expellees is questioned

The subject is discussed in Erika Steinbach and anyone can find links to sources there.Xx236 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Poor Polish puppets manipulated by bad K. brothers

This article suggests that Poles are people without views, manipulated by bad politicians, mostly the K. brothers. It happens that millions of elderly Poles have their opinions about WWII and about recent German politics. It happens that the majority of Poles have their own views, frequently wrong, but not controlled by media or politicians. There are two exceptions - the liberals quoting Gazeta Wyborcza and the nationalists quoting Radio Maryja.Xx236 09:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

An editor has removed POV template without any discussion.Xx236 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please quote sources, rather than your OR. "Expulsion" in BdV texts isn't English dictionary "expulsion" but "Vertreibung".Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor pushes his POV or OR, removes POV template. Please stop it. Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I have informed the editor about his errors on his talk page. His policy is to remove the comments, so I'm starting to discuss the problem here. "Vertreibung"/"Expulsion" in z-g-v pages doesn't mean "expuslions after the war". Please don't misinform. The reliability of the z-g-v site should be discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Please have a very thorough read of WP:VAND#Types of vandalism and WP:VAND#What is not vandalism. Skäpperöd's edits fall squarely in the second of those categories. Unjust accusations of vandalism achieve nothing but disruption.
2. Please keep related discussions on the talk page together. It makes it much easier to identify where responses should go and keeps a logical thread to the conversation.
3. Please be absolutely explicit in your complaints. Your complaint in the section above is hopelessly vague - exactly which words in the article are the problem ones? How do these words contradict the sources? It's very hard to act on what you think the article "suggests".
4. Please give sources for your personal claims. When claiming a source is "POV", "biased", "nationalistic" etc. remember this is a claim that should be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Who claims the source is biased or incorrect? - give names of publications. Which sources do they contradict? - give citations.

These are really fundamental and basic editing courtesies. Ignoring them repeatedly when they have been pointed out is disruption. Knepflerle (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Paternalistic teachings are also disruptive. Why don't you correct errors made by Skäpperöd instead?Xx236 (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How can anyone "correct" anything when you stubbornly refuse to make clear what you think is wrong? What sources are we going to "correct" anything when you stubbornly refuse to provide any? How many times do you have to be asked?

If you want to work on a community-based project, help other people to help yourself. Instead of repeating the same unsupported arguments, make it once with some sources, and save everybody's time. It might actually improve an article for once. Knepflerle (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Xx236, please provide the POV dispute you see and back it up with something. The POV tag is meant for cases when an editor finds that the presentation of sources violates WP:NPOV, and you have not yet outlined which POV of what source is misrepresented. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If not POV so Lies or Ignorance. You are free to choose. Xx236 (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Continuous misquoting

Where the z-g-v site says about "after war" expulsions? You break any rule of this Wikipedia.Xx236 (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk with Molobo sockpuppet

== Information removed == The article is BdV propaganda-the information about the truth that Nazi Germany soldier's daughter is being removed. Information that people removed support for this center is removed. Information about claims of the center is removed. --Gwinndeith (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Welcome. Your edits were made in good faith. Yet, you may want to make yourself familiar with the policies linked in the welcome message on your talk page. This is not the Steinbach article, details of her life are WP:UNDUE here. Also be careful not to violate WP:BLP. For the "claims" the "center" makes: This article is about the project in Berlin, not about the scholary debate when "Gdanzig" was founded, WP:UNDUE. Please add information where appropriate and keep your language neutral, see WP:WTA. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC) 1.The withrdaw of support by former supporter is notable and should be in the article. 2.Some details of Steinbach life's are more important then others-here the nature of her controversy to opponents is notable and needs to be covered. 3.Show me "scholary debate" about begining of Gdańsk-there ain't one. Show me a scholar that denies it was founded by Mieszko. BdV is a political organization not scholar. 4.Remove the POV template after the discussion is over.--Gwinndeith (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC) To 1) depends on how notable it is. It would be if he was the only supporter or one who has something to say about the center, which is not the case. To 2) To insert that Steinbach is the "daughter of a Nazi soldier" etc is a schoolbook example of a WP:UNDUE violation and may even violate WP:BLP. These are both core policies that must not be violated. To 3) The burgh of Danzig was probably founded by Miezko, the town certainly not. This has NOTHING to do with the center against expulsions. To 4) You must outline a WP:NPOV violation at talk, otherwise tagging is not valid. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC) 1.It is notable-media have reported on it calling it important.2. Maybe it is undue for you but for 38 milion country next door to Germany involved in dispute it is not undue. Fact of her birthplace is needed to understand why this is controversial.3 Your opinion is not important, the city dates its beginning to Mieszko. You haven't showed any scholars as I asked you that would confirm the debate exists. It has everything to do with Centre as it is published by Centre itself. 4. I outlined them above and here, as you are part of dispute you can't judge if I am right or wrong as you are a side to it. --Gwinndeith (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC) To 1) ok let's mention him along with the others, but not with a whole paragraph. To 2) This is not about "me" and "Poland". You misunderstand WP:NPOV, a policy of how sources are to be presented. To 3) no connection to the center. To 4) I am not part of any scholary dispute. Regarding the section "Jewish criticism" you introduced: A Polish Jew and a German Jew don't make Jewish criticism. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC) To 3) no connection to the center. Directly connected to the center as it makes the claims. 1. Oppose, mention him seperetly as he is most notable person who withdrew support and high moral figure in Germany. 4. Yes, you aren't and you failed to show any scholary dispute over founding of Gdańsk-which you claimed before was disputed by scholars. Centre is not a scholar so they are disputing the founding of Gdańsk by politics. 2. Sources now are wrongly presented and in POV which harms the article. There is lack of critical sources.--Gwinndeith (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Giordano is a notable person. He is not "most notable" in regard to the center, neither is he a "high moral figure" in a sense that the German public shapes their views about the center after his views. He certainly does not deserve an elevated position here, this pretty much would unbalance the article. Neither does Angela Merkel have her own paragraph here, who certainly has exponentially more weight, and I'd oppose her having one. Now Gdansk. You were the one who introduced the foundation date of Gdansk to the article and said the "center" (which does not yet exist btw) has made untrue claims. When I replied that this article "not about the scholary debate when Gdanzig was founded". Thereby I intended not to go in any further detail. It is very very unimportant for the project whether the date a burgh was build or the date a town was build and chartered in Gdansk is taken as the foundation date. This has no impact whatsoever for the project center against expulsions. Now please outline what sources are not presented according to WP:NPOV. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Notable person who was widely noted by media as withdrawing from the project is notable for inclusion. You haven't shown more notable person covered by media who withdrew from the project.--Gwinndeith (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC) He didn't withdraw from the project. He never was a part of it. He is just a writer who changed his personal oppinion regarding the project. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Following that argument supporters who are not part of the project should be removed. He withdrew his public support-it was notable as he is important moral authority--Gwinndeith (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC) The Centre has a webpage and it is within this article. It is very very unimportant for the project the project is of other opinion, and as seen serves other goals as outlined. Other claims of the centre are that Gdańsk was illegaly part of Poland and Poles were not expelled but "deported" while Germans were "expelled". All those claims are by Centre webpage and notable.--Gwinndeith (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC) You seriously conclude from the facts that the foundation's website a) gives the date of foundation of Danzig with the year the town received town law and b) that they used "deported" when in your oppinion they should use "expelled", that the center has other goals than those outlined? Come on. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC) My opinion is irrelevent. We should only state facts-such as the Centre claims Poles were deported not expelled, lowers their number, Gdańsk was "illegaly" Polish and so on. Obviously the center message isn't only about the post-1945 transfer of Germans to Germany. I saw nowhere the information about settelement of milions of Germans to Germanizse conquered countries-notable lack of information. I see that you dropped your opposition to including Jewish survivors criticism and other parts that will make this article neutral.--Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC) "My opinion is irrelevent.". Exactly. "We should only state facts" Yes, but thereby adhere to wikipolicies. Relevant policies are WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:WTA. I created sections for the issues you want to introduce, so we have issue-related discussions and not a mess. See below. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC) "Centre claims Poles were deported not expelled" "Centre claims Poles were deported not expelled" (cut from above statement of --Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)) "Deportation" and "expulsion": These terms are to a certain degree redundant. Deportation can be a form of expulsion, and this is the case here. Thus, this is no "claim" of the "center" (which btw does not yet exist, you certainly refer to the Foundation Centre agains Expulsions of the Federation of Expellees). Not in any way notable for inclusion in this article. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Your and my view are not important. We should just write facts-that the centre calls Germans expelled and Poles deported. Expulsion has unlawflul meaning while deportation has lawflul meaning. Notable.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC) "Centre lowers the number of expelled Poles" "...lowers their number..." (cut from above statement of --Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)) First, if the Foundation Centre agains Expulsions of the Federation of Expellees uses another figure than the one you have in mind, this is not "lowering their number". Second, it is not in the scope of this article to compare/evaluate/list figures of how many Poles were expelled. Not in any way notable for inclusion in this article. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC) It is in the scope to show what the centre will present and what it already does. --Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC) "Gdańsk was "illegaly" Polish" "Centre claims [...] Gdańsk was "illegaly" Polish" (cut from above statement of --Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)) Please cite. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Will cite in the text.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC) http://www.z-g-v.de/english/aktuelles/?id=56 As an almost independent city republic, it held its own more than other cities of so-called "Royal Prussia" in the following centuries even after the unilateral and thus illegal Polish act of incorporation of 1569. --Gwinndeith (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC) "center message isn't only about the post-1945 transfer of Germans to Germany." "center message isn't only about the post-1945 transfer of Germans to Germany." (cut from above statement of --Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)) Yes, it is not limited to expulsions of Germans, these expulsion are however in the particular focus of the Foundation Centre agains Expulsions of the Federation of Expellees. This is why the line reads "... planned German documentation centre for expulsions and ethnic cleansing, particularly the Expulsion of Germans after World War II." (and not ... "only" ...) Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC) And also documentation for claims like "Gdańsk was illegaly Polish and a German city"-as on the Centre's own page.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC) "information about settelement of milions of Germans to Germanizse conquered countries" "I saw nowhere the information about settelement of milions of Germans to Germanizse conquered countries-notable lack of information." (cut from above statement of --Gwinndeith (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)) This is not in the scope of this article. This article is about the planned center, not about specifics of the demography of wartime German populations. Inclusion thus in violation of WP:UNDUE Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Unsupported by the link you gave. The statements of the Centre are important just as what it is not saying if it is a important part of the topic it showes-Nazi colonists are important part of that topic that is going to be shown by the Centre. The Centre project is led by a women critised by that very aspect of her life.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC) "Jewish" criticism Two people of Jewish descent are not "Jewish critricism". Extra section violates WP:UNDUE. Also, inclusion of the particular views of Giordano and Edelman, especially if they are redundant with the already stated ones, is also WP:UNDUE. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Does not violate anything-your are using WP:IDONTLIKEIT as argument shielded by giving links to policies that do not support your personal dislikes.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Steinbach "born to a Nazi soldier" Completely WP:UNDUE and the implementation made by this statement violates WP:BLP. Placing tags instead is disruptive WP:POINTing. That Steinbach is one focus of criticism in Poland is already stated. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Since it was the argument given by Polish govenment it is notable and important.WP:IDONTLIKEIT claim again.--Gwinndeith (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1