User talk:John K/Archive 5

RfC[edit]

John, could you please take a look at Talk:Andreas Schlüter page? I'm affraid there are some, who think that Danzig (Gdansk) is not the compromise they would want.

Could you waste a little of your time by looking here: [1]?

Silesian Uprising[edit]

"However, most of area of Upper Silesia voted for Poland." That's wrong, as mentioned some lines above in this article. Most regions in the plebiscite area had a majority for germany, although some of them had a large polish minority. Interesting: Some parts with german majority (the industrial region) were transfered to poland, while some other parts with polish majority (more rural region) remained in germany. Somebody should fix this here. Nankea from german wikipedia 07:25, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suppose that I am right, but I don't have a proof. If the major cities voted by some majority for Germany and rural areas for Poland, most of area of Upper Silesia must have voted for Poland. If you try to balance pro-German votes of some dense populated areas with pro-Polish votes of some rural areas, you need to have much more area voting for Poland. However, most regions (meaning combined cities + rural areas) could have voted for Germany. Do you have some more specific data, separating also Silesian emigrants (voting mostly for Germany, but at the time of plebiscite lliving outside the area?

By the way, in history of autonomous Silesian Voivodship, Germans never got more then 33% of votes. Somebody can try to explain the difference between the plebiscite and later elections? I suppose that the plebiscite was performed in the atmosphere of violence and mostly from German side...Cautious 16:44, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is much better. The only what I dislike, is that comparison of 40% votes for Poland (out of inhabitants of the region and emigrants) and 48% of inhabitants only, that went to Poland. The last sentence should be balance by the sentence that rural areas, which voted for Poland went to Germany. In the matter of fact, when the city votes for one country and district otherwise, it is difficult to keep city where it voted, because nobody can make a city an exclave. The eventual balance depends on the population balance between city and district.

According to http://www.literad.de/regional/fremdspr_krei.html rural areas had up to 70% of Polish majority, cities otherwise. Cautious 17:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By the way, do you know that Grentzshutz educated many SA-man? Cautious 17:21, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me, that Landkreis was more populated then Stadtkreis:

Einwohner Stadt bzw. Stadtkreis Kattowitz

 16.513 (1890), davon 5.000 Polen 
 35.772 (1905) 
 43.173 (1910)

127.044 (1931)

Konfessionsstruktur Stadt Kattowitz 1890: Evangelisch: 2.866 Katholisch: 12.155 Juden: 1.483 Sonstige: 9

Einwohner Landkreis Kattowitz 120.762 (1890), davon 70.000 Polen 374.344 (1931)

Konfessionsstruktur Landkreis Kattowitz 1890: Evangelisch: 8.208 Katholisch: 109.145 Juden: 3.392 Sonstige: 17

If you want to find out real number of Poles, make some estimation between German number for Poles and German number for Catholics. Nevertheless, there were many Polish speaking Catholics, that were politically absent or pro-German.

Cautious 17:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bytom also had more people in Land then Stadt. Cautious 17:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

http://www.literad.de/regional/beuthen.html

I found detail results: Cautious 17:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

http://www.oberschlesien.de/Abstimmung/kattowitz.html

One example Tost-Gleiwitz: one of the kreise that wasn't eventually given to Poland. According to statistics, out of 100 places, merely 10 voted for Germany. Yes, those 10 were cities and it gave German side a lot of votes. What I said is true: most of area of voted for Poland. http://www.oberschlesien.de/Abstimmung/tostgleiwitz.html Cautious 17:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Try to color areas according to results, as it is done on Polish maps: most area goes red, while German blue is only showned on small islands. Germans do otherwise: they count totals and have clear German victory. Cautious 17:56, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure about the question of demographic changes after the unification with Poland. For sure there were complete freedom of movements, and Germans tend to avoid living outside Germany. Polish sources usually point to the fact, that German administration were sponsored from the Prussian budget and those people moved to Germany. Other factor can be, that those Polish speaking Silesians, who voted for Germany, this group can make a permament Polish affiliation, when they eventually live in Poland. This happenned to Kashubs as well. Communist Poland made completely different impression: 100% Poles, that had a chance to live under communism, did their best to reach German capitalist paradise (but only capitalist!). It is possible that processes of forming national awareness in natives are working in that way. Cautious 18:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Isn't Mommsen an ethnic German? Don't you think that his account will be little bit onesided? Wouldn't be better for you to read some neutral witness? Cautious 15:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Talk:Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen. There is a phrase I cannot understand in your recent edit to Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen. -- Jmabel 22:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good luck on the endeavor! You're clearly a man with a heart like a lion and nice thick, hip-high wading boots. It's a jungle out there, in the swamp. To mix a metaphor or so. <G> - Nunh-huh 07:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great work John. Now you are going to have to have the patience of Job to withstand the assaults of the politically-motivated and thoughtless folk who inhabit that page. You will have lots of support, though. How about we start on the Socialism article next? Sunray 17:54, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

I could use some help. The 'social democracy = fascism' crowd has found Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172. It would be great if I could get a couple of people to vouch for me, saying that while I might've been hastily reverting pages, I was hastily reverting fiction. If you have time, thanks in advance. 172 19:52, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

politically-motivated and thoughtless folk[edit]

Hello, I just figured you might like a bit of praise from the opposite direction. I can tell that you don't intend to make a POV mess out of the article, and while I'm not overjoyed w what was done, or the other folks involved, I can tell that you are reasonable and truth minded. Now that you have rewritten it I request that you keep up w it, as I can se you being a part of the soloution. It just might take a year or two ;) Sam Spade 21:02, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Peerage pages[edit]

John, I've seen your new pages on peerages, and have a request that the dates of birth and death, for the sake of consistency, be linked: (1708-1765), as opposed to (1708-1765). On some pages, some of the dates were linked and some not. Otherwise, I have a question/ comment for you. When do you think it is appropriate to include a lower title's holders in the page for a higher title? For instance, Earl of Arundel and Duke of Norfolk have separate pages, but Viscount Townshend and Marquess Townshend are on the same. I think that we should apply the following rules:

If the two titles have substantially the same history, then they should be together. For instance, if the Barony of London is created in 1600, and the fifth Baron London is made Earl of Westminster, and the two titles have been united since, then they should have the same page, that is, "Earl of Westminster."
If the histories of the titles are distinct, they should be on different pages. For instance, if the aforementioned Barony of London is inherited, say, by the third Earl of Westminster, then the two titles could have different pages. Also, baronies by writ and other titles which pass through the female line could have distinct pages.

What do you think about these suggestions? -- Emsworth 17:06, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think that, if the titles have nothing in common except the name, as is the case with Albemarle, they should be on separate pages. -- Emsworth 18:05, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Definitely, Earl of Selkirk deserves a separate title, as do perhaps the other titles. If you would like to start with Duke of Hamilton, I will split Duke of Richmond and Lennox, and also create Duke of Gordon separately, rather than as a redirect. -- Emsworth 18:10, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

John, I can't add to the Nazism and socialism talk page because it's not sectioned and too long for my browser.

The point is that there is a debate on whether or not nazism is a form of socialism and the only way to write an article on the matter is to outline both sides of the debate. Taking out the competing debating points, in fact, makes the article NPOV by presenting the topic as if there is one right answer.

And I'm sorry, it's just ahistorical to say that conservatives opposed Nazism. Some did, but most didn't, most notably von Papen. The Nazis didn't win an electoral majority. The only way they were able to take power was with support from the centre and right.User:AndyL 18:43, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've started a new vote at Talk:Gdansk. It's quite silly and merely a response to User:Gdansk. Please do not take it too seriously. Nico 19:28, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi John, I just posted an answer to your question at Talk:Conventional Egyptian chronology. -- llywrch 01:39, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John, I see that the Handbook of British Chronology lists only Dukes, Marquesses and Earls. Do you have any ideas for how we can obtain a list of Viscountcies, not to mention Baronies? -- Emsworth 02:40, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)~

What the hell is to be done about stuff like this?[edit]

I'm pretty sure I'm not a libertarian, I always figured I was prob. a socialist, what with my definition being so impossibly broad and all ;). Actually my personal politics have very little to do w the nature of my edits, I am simply seeking to provide NPOV and factual accuracy, and most importantly learn something along the way (and maybe write a decent article to, eh ;). I'm not sure what my politics are; everybody always has a completely opposite opinion, esp. me. Anyhow, I have heard "socialism" applied to most everything. socialism

socialism

\Socialism\, n.

Socialism of the chair [G. katheder socialismus], a term applied about 1872, at first in ridicule, to a group of German political economists who advocated state aid for the betterment of the working classes. Sock \Sock\, v. t. [Perh. shortened fr. sockdolager.] To hurl, drive, or strike violently; -- often with it as an object. [Prov. or Vulgar] --Kipling.

socialism

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

We certainly want a true history of socialism, meaning by that a history of every systematic attempt to provide a new social existence for the mass of the workers. --F. Harrison.

Those are some source which agree w me. Sorry about the crazy citations before, but when I'm racing thru google to find something to prove a point, my standards are quite a bit lower than if I am looking to put a citation in the article itself. Anyways I'm really quite reasonable if you bother to talk to me, and as far as this particular, maybe we should go work on the socialism article first, and come back after we've decided what socialism is, once and for all ;). Cheers, Sam Spade 09:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I will be perfectly frank, I DO think the word socialism is pretty juch meaningless, and havn't seen anything from any of the many references I have reviewed, (much less the wiki article) to tell me any different. Doesnm't EVERYBODY claim to help the poor? If socialism does have an exact meaning, your talents are badly needed on the socialism page, because it is floundering. anyhow this 2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common. would strike me as particularly reminiscent of nazism, but I take it not yourself? Anyhow its nice to discuss something disagreeable w someone as polite as you, you really do deserve some substantial praise for your uncommonly fine manners. Cheers, Sam Spade 09:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

if you are correct...[edit]

"class struggle, egalitarianism [and no, egalitarianism was absolutely not a universal idea espoused by everyone], democracy [even Stalinists supported democracy in theory - Fascists did not] - while at the same time coming into quite close alliance with the very forces which the socialist movement had always opposed - crown, church, traditional elites. It also advocated an ultra-nationalistic and social darwinistic message that was at direct odds with the socialist tradition."

These are strong words, and again, if you are correct, I strongly urge you to rewrite the socialism page. Also, if you are correct, I am more than not a socialist, I am dedicated anti-socialist, and perhaps have been generously given a label for my political opposition on the Left which I have been lacking for some time, which I'd have to sincerely thank you for. What the bottom line to me is, are you correct?. I actually don't know enough to say one way or the other, and I wonder if you can provide some references to go along with the above statements. If so, I will have to agree w you not only about Nazism not being socialist, but about most (nearly all) of my generalizations and opinions about socialism being wrong. I guess what it boils down to is I would like some references, and assuming you can provide them and demonstrate your accuracy, that you rewrite the socialism page, if at all possible. A large part of why I am here on the wiki is to learn, and I tend to edit pages I am reading, so its not remarkable to me that I often make edits in regards to subjects I am only newly becomming familar with. I will say this: in the USA, extremely broad definitions of Socialism ARE used, (correct or no) wherin items such as the 40 hour work week, govt. regulation of business, and various welfare and safety nets are used as examples of US socialism. Until I read you last message, I was convinced that the US was socialist. I am not yet solidly persuaded in your favor, but being open minded as I am, and aware of my relative inexperience on the subject, I cautiously await your documentation. Godspeed, good sir, Sam Spade 19:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

172's email troubles[edit]

I sent a reply to you comments on my talk page through the WP e-mail several minutes ago. However, I've heard about problems with the e-mail feature lately. Please tell me if it hasn't gone through.

Thanks again for your great work on the Nazism and socialism-related articles. 172 14:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My e-mail is sokolov47@yahoo.com. If you could send a blank message, I could post the message again in a reply. The Wikipedia e-mail feature doesn't seem to be working. Or if you don't mind having it out there on a talk page, you could send it to Talk:172. Sorry about that. 172 19:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

John, As you've noticed, I've been working bit by bit to fill in the blank for "History of the Soviet Union" within the "History of Socialism" article. I appreciate your corrections and additions to my efforts, including the change in the subhead itself. Since the over-all article is about the history of SOCIALISM, not about a specific nation, it makes perfect sense to treat the Warsaw block as a unit.

But I did want to say that I don't entirely agree with the elimination of all but a brief reference to "theories" that Stalin was assassinated. This is a view held by reputable historians, has plausibility (its not as if I'm developing a theory that Martians ray-gunned him to death) and should be spelled out a bit more, although I won't insist on a revert of what I had written initially on the subject. I'll give it some more thought, and await further thoughts of yours.

--Christofurio 21:54, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

I may be belabouring my point re TDC but it is fun to hoist him on his own petard! AndyL 22:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems appropriate, except that in [[Peerage of Scotland|Scotland]] seems to be used instead of in [[Peerage of Scotland]]. -- Emsworth 00:16, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER[edit]

John, I'd hold off. It's not a crime to be anti-Semitic here (much as you and I may loathe such opinions) -- it would, however, be wrong for him to bash the Jews openly. He's made one comment and gotten instantly reprimanded. If he never says it again, we can't really pursue anything against him for what he thinks. If he continues to make racist comments against the Jews, after three unequivocal racist statements, I think RFC is the right way to go. I'd rather wait and see if he can contain himself right now. Let's watch him closely, though -- I'm not going to stand for open Jew-bashing here. Thanks for the note, and do keep up the excellent work: it's much appreciated! Jwrosenzweig 20:22, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Royal geneology.

Personally, I take it with a grain of salt, I'm just using it to make a point. But then again I've heard geneticists say that *all* Europeans (and a lot of non-Europeans) at this point can legitimately claim to be related to Charlemagne so why not Charlemagne's aide:) (Seriously there's so much crossfertilisation that if you go far back enough everyone's related to everyone else. Take any individual who lived two thousand years ago who had enough children and grandchildren and that person would have hundreds of millions of "descendents". It's one reason why the concept of "race" and particularly "racial purity" is, to use a scientific term, completely daft.

Wheeler/Fascism[edit]

I don't have any particular thoughts on organising the fascism page, I just want to make sure the "Marxist Roots of Fascism" paragraph is balanced out (including the title) but I'm going to try to pull out of the debate with Wheeler (I've tried, I think I've said "let's move on" about five time now:) but I'm hoping that Wheeler and TDC have been put so far on the defensive that they won't be in a position to do any damage (although TDC claims to be "working on" a new passage.)

I think Wheeler in particular is about done - I'm just hoping he doesn't have a complete breakdown he really seems to be putting his entire psyche into this which is not healthy (I'm using the argument as a distraction from an essay I should be writing). We've talked by email so I can get him a photocopy of the relevent page of the original Fascismo article in Italian. I asked him for a mailing address. He gave me the address of a friend because WHEELER himself is homeless so that gives me a better idea of what's going on. I admire self-taught people but the risk of auto-didactism is that if one doesn't acquire the basic skills of how to think critically, assess evidence, research opposing positions etc one tends to just follow a course of inquiry that reenforces and even accentuates ones own prejudices and intellectual ideosyncracies. Auto-didactic thinkers tend to be the most rigid and the least able to deal with debate and contrary evidence and the least capable of reevaluating their own position and changing their minds because what they've trained themselves to do is to just look for "evidence" that "proves" they are right. They also are the most likely, I think, to get into really marginal and ideosyncratic dogmas.

One reason, I think, why he is unable to deal with a flexible concept like "right wing" and "left wing". Right wing means what it did when the term was coined during the French revolution. Monarchists and supporters of the ancien regime on the right, revolutionaries on the left and any other application of the term is just wrong because it doesn't meet the original usage. See Left-Right_politics - he's stuck on the historical origin of the term and can't grasp the fact that meanings evolve as words are applied to new situations. AndyL 21:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Same analysis here. I think he's confusing the modern usage of "left wing" (which, broadly speaking, generally refers to people seeking the reinforcement of the power of society at the expense of private ownership, if necessary) and the 19th century usage in Europe (which, for a long time, a person supporting a republic was "left wing", even if that person was very much in favor of private ownership). David.Monniaux 07:02, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Problem is the old version of the Gregor article just consisted of lenghty quotations from book reviews which isn't really appropriate for a biographical article. I agree there should be more on his more recent career but not in the form it was previously.AndyL 03:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And how do you NPOV the fact that the guy was a eugenicist who praised Nazi racial theory and fought desegregation? If there's any evidence that he's changed his views we can put that in but I can't find anything. Seems he just doesn't talk about it now (which is understandable). Apart from putting in the dates (which are there) I don't know how it can be handled differently. Add a line that says "but that was all a long time ago and he might not think that anymore" ? :) AndyL 03:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand but the problem is putting that reference in begs a response ("some people disagree that Stalinism is an extension of Marxism"). I don't think it take anything away just to leave it out. AndyL 04:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re Gregor: It gets worse. See ISAR - Bibliography: A. James Gregor

Okay. I missed a lot of today's debates because I was at work till very late. I've seen the POV pushers push silliness, but this one takes the cake. btw, I wonder if Sam knows that Anton Drexler considered himself a socialist, or even who Anton Drexler was ... Danny 05:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I guess WHEELER can now claims that Fascism is leftist because Gregor says it is and Gregor's a fascist:) (Though I think considering his views on race he's more of a Nazi), whatever he is the guy's a crackpot.AndyL 05:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, what really surprises me is that no one in the nazi/socialism discussion has brought up the Molotov/Von Ribbentropp pact. AndyL 06:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John Kenney, what do you think about Cecropia's nominations for adminship? Get-back-world-respect 13:49, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just saw this on the Wikipedia:Deletion log: Adam Bishop deleted "Once Upon A Time In Mexico": content was: 'Selma Hayek is a living breathing 3rd generation clone of Adolf Hitler. This is a very good movie, I have watched it 84 times in a row since I bought ...' Since TDC and WHEELER are allowed to continue writing about Nazi Germany, I don't see why there wasn't a fair hearing for this Selma Hayek thesis. 172 14:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John I quoted directly from The Birth of Fascist Ideology by Zeev Sternhell with Mario Sznajder and Maia Asheri, Princeton University Press, l989. Mr. Sternhell is a Leon Blum Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I think the your editing needs to be reversed.WHEELER 15:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Upper Silesia discussion[edit]

John, did have a time to read stat materials I posted to you? There are still some sentences, I would like to discuss. Especially, confirmation, that most of villages voted for Poland, therefore most of area of Upper Silesia. Cautious 08:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

http://www.gutenberg.net/etext06/7iboh10.txt "At the bottom of his heart he was at one with the radical Pan-German writers, like Lagarde, Treitschke, Mommsen, Naumann and others, who openly declared that the Slavs should be subjugated and the Czechs, as the most courageous and therefore the most dangerous of them, crushed." Cautious 15:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe he is left-wing historian, but this do not guarantee that his view is not biased. Try to read also more neutral accounts. Cautious 07:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More neutral accounts? What on earth would that be? His is the standard account of the history of the Weimar Republic in German and English. He may be somewhat biased (as all historians are), but he's certainly not biased in a pro-pan-Germanc way. And you have no idea what you're talking about. What books are you using as your source? john 18:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are not very polity, are you?! First of all, I am not convinced by any standard resources. Before Copernicus everybody where using standard theories. Did you ever consider to read some accounts from Polish Silesians? I am using Polish Silesian sources and I confront them with German standard sources. I already posted to your talk page some of web address, basically German Silesians. Cautious 18:43, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to see the Fascism page protected -- yet it needs protection from WHEELER and TDC. If you think mediation is a bad idea, what else could we do? It is very important that constructive and informed contributers like you and Formeruser-83 be able to work on it without having your energy be drained by trolls. Slrubenstein

I agree with everything you wrote. And it troubles me that you (who know a lot more about Fascism than I) feel overwhelmed by the stupid arguments on the Talk page. I've participated in Wikipedia for a while and you are the kind of contributor we need. May I suggest that you and Formeruser-83 discuss between yourselves the ideal structure of the article, hopefully taking into account my and 172's suggestions -- and then go ahead and change the page? I'm sure I'd support anything the two or three of you agree to. My suggestion is not meant to exclude others from contributing -- it is only meant to provide an immediate way to move beyond this impass to the next stage. Slrubenstein

John, do you happen to have a complete list of Chancellors of the Exchequer? If so, then the list on the page can be made to include earlier chancellors. -- Emsworth 23:30, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, thank you in any event. -- Emsworth 23:55, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I have a request to you. Please, mediate in the article about Erika Steinbach. Regards, Yeti 00:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Foreign Minister of Prussia[edit]

My understanding is that while responsibility for foreign affairs rested with the Chancellor, the closest approximation to a Foreign Minister in Prussia would be the State Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That distinction can certainly be made in the article. There's no use in listing Chancellors twice. What I am not sure of is the status of the foreign office before 1871. Mackensen 19:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My bad...I was aware of the distinction between German and Prussian (hence no German War Minister), but for some reason thought that the secretaries of state were Prussian, not German. Mackensen 16:39, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lord Great Chamberlain: I haven't quite understood what exactly his functions are in the House of Lords! What does he do exactly? David.Monniaux 22:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Eden[edit]

User:Adam Carr moved it by cutting and pasting it. I repaired it by deleting the page he's cut and pasted it to and moving it properly. I couldn't remember what the rules was. I thought that hereditary peers were meant to be with their title. so I left the title as Adam Carr had left it. Mintguy (T)

Fair enough. I'd forgotten. I've already told off Adam Carr for cutting and pasting. You can tell him off for moving it if you like. Mintguy (T) 15:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fascism and Communism[edit]

Is there anything that can be done re TDC's idiotic changes?AndyL 21:35, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you deleted the "Futurist" from the Fascism article? I quoted from a major work by Zeev Sternhall, who is a Leon Blum Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It is from l989.WHEELER 15:25, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

British Government[edit]

I think that that's a good idea. The WikiProject could also standardise articles on the Departments and Secretaries: some lists of Secretaries of State are at Secretary of State for X, while others are at Department of X. As I've been putting tables in, I've ordered them by date. However, if one held a position twice with another position intervening, then the intervening position is not shown in between the others, rather, it is below:

Preceded by: The Earl X	Secretary of State for War and the Colonies 1800-1810	Followed by: The Duke of W
Preceded by: The Viscount Y	Secretary of State for War and the Colonies 1820-1830	Followed by: The Lord Z
Preceded by: The Marquess of V	Lord President of the Council 1810-1830	Followed by: The Duke of W

Do you think they should be in chronological order? Or in the order indicated above? -- Emsworth 21:44, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

I've started Wikipedia:WikiProject British Government. -- Emsworth 22:41, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Why have you reversed my redirection of Anthony Eden to Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon? That was his full and correct name, and my recollection is that after lengthy discussion it was decided that there was no fixed policy on this and people could edit peerage articles as they saw fit. Adam 01:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I remain completely mystified by this attitude. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to give readers new information, not just confirm them in what they already know. The fact is that after 1961 he was not Anthony Eden, he was the Earl of Avon, and I fail to see why this should not be reflected in the title of the article. The beauty of the online encyclopaedia is that we can do this without making the article any harder to find, since a search for "Anthony Eden" will take the reader directly to the article whatever it is titled. I am still of the view that the opposition to the obvious logic of giving all peers their correct titles comes from the anti-British prejudice of Americans who think that all titles are silly. Given my conversations with you on other subjects, I had thought better of you. Adam 04:25, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) (cc: Lord Emsworth).

Hi - Im a bit tired to really give your comment a good read. I undertand what your'e saying, though, and thats really an issue with the whole open editing thing - how do articles develop? etc. -Stevertigo 05:05, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Heads of State sections on year pages[edit]

The problems with 1876 now are that the Heads of State section is a) full of red links) and b) longer than all other sections combined. I'm thinking we ought to find some middle ground; perhaps adding some of the ones on the 1876 page but not others. Austria-Hungary, Brazil, Egypt, Greece, India, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Portugal, Romania, Siam, Sweden, the UK, and Vietnam would probably be good ones to have. Even that is a bit long. Do we really want to list all the principalities and dukedoms in Germany after 1871?

I love the rulers.org site. Thank you! It is wonderfully useful, if hard to decipher at points.

Jonel 05:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

what do I have to do?[edit]

I waited until it was clear that you all were done editing, and then I started to fix up the article. You interupt half way thru, w/o discussing, and undo much of what I have done. This is not the first time this has happened on this page. Normally its a simple give and take, but w this article its all rewrites and overhauls. Can you understand that the article will never settle down until we begin to compromise? I know your at least half-way reasonable, and I'd love to talk about it, but if you can't compromise their arn't many other options than more of the same, ad infinitum. Sam Spade 06:18, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

hehe, I think I've explained pretty well my objections, and I have yet to see any refutation of them. I'm going to copy this to the article talk. Sam Spade 06:24, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Polish history[edit]

I have taken the horrible mess at List of concentration camps for Poles and moved it to Camps in Poland during World War II, where I have tried to write a decent article. I expect to be attacked by the Polish Nationalist faction, and it would be nice to get some support from people who care about history at Wikipedia. I am getting tired of fighting this battle by myself. Adam 09:51, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Brittanica[edit]

John, I've never imported articles from the 1911 EB; I do think it's a bad idea as it was done there and I'm just totally perplexed as to how that edit ended up ascribed to me. I'm going to look into that -- it seems like a serious database error. -- Seth Ilys 13:49, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I took another look at that edit, and I suppose I have a vague recollection of it. "Please don't shoot me," though, just doesn't sound to me like something I would say, so I'm still a bit perplexed. Either way, yes, it wasn't a great idea. I imagine that I dropped the text in in order to turn an incoherent sub-stub into something meaningful instead of deleting it. I have no attachment to that edit, though (especially as I don't really remember it) so feel free to do with it was you think is best. :) - Seth Ilys 13:59, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Leader of the House of Lords[edit]

My source for Viscount Haldane being Leader of the Lords in the first Labour Government is 'Twentieth Century British Political Facts' by David Butler (page 69). While he was also Lord Chancellor there is no formal rule that the two jobs can't be done by the same person. There was no Labour Party in the House of Lords until 1924, and I guess Macdonald wanted as Leader of the Lords someone who was experienced. According to Henry Pelling, "A Short History of the Labour Party", Macdonald relied on Haldane for advice on procedure. I will check the 1924 Hansards on Tuesday to make sure. Dbiv 21:30, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aha, I have the solution, from A Who's Who of British MPs, Vol. II (M. Stenton and S. Lees, taking entries from Dod's Parliamentary Companion). It says on pages 83 and151 that Haldane and Parmoor were Joint Leaders of the Labour Party in the House of Lords in 1924. This seems to explain the confusion. Dbiv 21:45, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's one more missed out - Lord Lloyd who was appointed in December 1940 and died in February 1941. Will add him and put some precise dates on. Dbiv 22:00, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Prussian Balts[edit]

Dear Mr. Kenney,

Wikipedia is clearly maintained by compromise and co-operation with the community. If you have something worthwhile to contribute to an article you should do that. Blanking out the bulk of others' work is not contribution and is in violation of Wikipedia's expressed policy (q.v.).

The whole point of the article, and what makes it interesting and relevant, is that they are still an identifiable ethnic group and some among them wish to revive certain markers. The current movement of cultural revival was sparked by their physical removal from the lands which they have inhabited since before history. Their plea for an independent ethnic identity amidst a materially wealthy country such as Germany is interesting and challenges conventional assumptions of culture and quality of life.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But that's it -- it's an opinion. By the same logic, there are no Tibetan people and no Hawaiian people. By this logic, Koreans have no continuity with Koreans of the past because they were ruled so long by China and Japan. By this logic, Aborigines removed from their native lands cease to be Aborigine if they speak only English. This is ridiculous and offensive to people the world over. Needless to say, such an unfair racial stance is clearly inappropriate on Wikipedia.

Intelligent conversation should be encouraged, not attacked. Without compromising neutrality, you could make an intelligent note of your opinion without gross censorship and Wikipedia:Vandalism of an article. You could, for example, ask the question: "If an ethnic group no longer speaks its native language, does it cease to exist? Does it thereby lose the right to discuss its history since the said change?" If you are entitled to your opinion, others are entitled to theirs. Some Prussians do believe themselves to exist and wish to be heard, wrongly or rightly.

Perhaps that it is amusing to you. It is to me. Perhaps you could add a statement like this: "Some events in the aftermath of WWII are unfortunate. However, it is amusing, if not laughable, that a group should remind itself of such grievances in a romantic look to a past which it is unlikely to recover successfully."

That said, do you have any knowledge of the Old Prussians to make an intelligent contribution? For example, Tacitus referred to them long before Adalbert. Moreover, there is a corpus of archaeological data from the region. If you have access to a university library, you could provide some intelligent input about this information. As it is, blanking out the bulk of an article doesn't simplybenefit the community.

Respectfully,
--Wighson

Why are you reverting Erika Steinbach? Please restore the last version. Space Cadet's POV is not acceptable in an encyclopedia article, and I have gone as far as possible in order to make a compromise. Nico 05:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Or how about "George Bush usually lives in occupied Mexico"? Mexico has never recognized the occupation of Texas. However, we refer to Texas as US-American because it is de facto part of USA. Nico 06:11, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: " (although I'd hesitate to say it's not fair, given the enormity of German crimes during the war=

I find you last remarks very unpleasant. How about if someone decided to kill and expulse million of people from USA because of the enormity of American crimes during the existence of USA, from slavery and murder of million of Africans until genocide in Japan and Vietnam and the, according to the international law you are referring to, illegal attack on the souvereign state of Iraq and war crimes they have committed there since last year (including massacres of thousands of civilians)? Would it be fair? And also, does Wikipedia use such loaded terms as I did now? No, because contributors from the USA object to that. I also object to calling a province then in Germany de facto, de jure and from my point of view rightfully, "occupied Poland".

I have now made some changes which describes the circumstances of Rahmel, that it was reannexed in 1939. Nico 06:19, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It deeply disappoint me that you force me to revert the page to NPOV on a daily basis. I really did what I could to make a compromise which should be acceptable to everybody. If I had been User:Gdansk I had now started to change all references to cities which may be considered "occupied Germany". However, I believe in NPOV, for Polish as well as German cities and towns. Nico 07:01, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spritual Peers[edit]

John, how do you think spiritual "peers" should be dealt with in the article Peerage? Debrett's suggests, "The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first peer of England ... The Archbishop of York ('Primate of England') is the third peer in the United Kingdom ... Diocesan Bishops of England in the Lords are also peers of the kingdom and of Parliament" (Debrett's - Lords Spiritual). On the other hand, the 1911 Britannica suggests, "the spiritual lords are not now regarded as peers" (http://7.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PE/PEERAGE.htm "Peerage"). Emsworth

Burke's says, in Glossary- Lord, "Not every lord, even one with a seat in the House of Lords, is a peer. Bishops, for instance, are spiritual lords." -- Emsworth 19:09, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Then again, Burke's suggested that "The idea that a person who receives a writ of summons to the House of Lords as a result of a mistake should ipso facto be created a hereditary peer is repugnant to common sense"—ignoring the fact that peerages have often been created as the result of an error. I just remembered, when Black Rod summons the Commons to the state opening, he says that Her Majesty demands the presence of this house in the "House of Peers"—is this significant, in your opinion? -- Emsworth 20:30, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to put the question on Talk:Peerage. Lets see what others think. Meanwhile, do you know what the bright minds at alt.talk.royalty feel? -- Emsworth 20:35, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Would you be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Quickpolls? It seems pretty unfair that I'll be banned for having a stalker (e.g., VV's expedient newly found interest in the Origins of the American Civil War). 172 04:02, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I hardly know what's going on myself, especially on the Pinochet page. Cantus kept on trying to rewrite the talk page, and then VV, having had nothing to do with what Cantus was doing, but in the mood to start bothering me, started arbitrarily reverting my edits incessantly. I'm just going to leave this site permanently after this. Someone playing tricks on the right community info pages at the right time has the final say in things here. 172 04:32, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words. I'd be basing the choice to leave, though, on a realistic assessment of the situation. This is proof that I have no business on this site. This is my chance to leave Vietnam, e.g., in '63 rather than '72. 172 04:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's impossible. I made exhasuting attempts to do this for a while, but it's pointless. VV's just here to push a rightwing agenda in articles. He'll play tricks on anyone who crosses paths with him and gets in his way on the talk pages and community info pages. I'll give him credit for that. He's a pretty smart trickster. 172 04:51, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BTW, ironically, VV has been making interesting conclusions lately. On the Fox News talk page, he started arguing, albeit indirectly, that the use of American English was against WP policy (WP seems to have lost its consummate foe of anti-Americanism, it seems). And on the Civil War he's now a follower of Charles Beard! His love of edit warring has turned him into a pinko, anti-American commie lately! At least I'll get to leave WP with a good laugh. 172 05:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's true. Since moving down from NY to FL years ago, I've actually gotten to know some of those types. But being able to conjure up a not-so-baseless argument that they're Marxists is a lot of fun. 172 05:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But RickK was doing me a favor! Contributing to this site is masochistic. Oh well, goodnight and thanks for the support. 172 05:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at [this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War&diff=0&oldid=3224804]. Has Sam Spade been cloning himself? This site seems to have a burgeoning community of "Austrian" users. 172 09:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi About Great Britain changes....

I object when somebody uses the term Great Britain incorrectly. There are correct uses of the term, but you have to know which those are. So it is best to avoid the term entirely if you don't know what you are doing. It can be regarded as offensive to get the name wrong.

The name for the nation state is United Kingdom. If you say Great Britain, it is linked with the language of terrorism and is actually closer in meaning to Lesser Britain or Partial Britain today. Many people do not object to the use of the term Britain (i.e. without the modification Great). So I was left with a choice:
1. Change incorrect usage of Great Britain to United Kingdom
2. Change incorrect usage of Great Britain to Britain
In most cases I chose (1), in some cases I chose (2). It was just quicker to choose one option as the default.

So I would prefer it if you did not revert the pages back to the wrong term. But feel free to modify my use ofUnited Kingdom to Britain (as long as you are sure of the link between the various names and the geopolitics and that it is the correct name that suits the surrounding text!).Bobblewik 14:53, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have just reread your comment and it appears that you do indeed note that Great Britain should not be used in many cases. Sorry for trying to tell something that you probably know already. So in summary, I don't mind if you prefer the term Britain. In a few cases, I did actually change Great Britain to Britain. On the basis of your request, I will be more inclined to do this. However, please do not revert any more of my edits. I would be delighted if you were to ensure that the correct term appears on pages that you happen to be editing. Thanks.Bobblewik 14:53, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi John, the reason that all those articles are Canada-centric is because I got the info from the Governor General's website, which naturally focuses on their careers in Canada. You can pare down some of the unnecessary trivia...I just didn't have any detailed information about their careers as viceroys of Ireland or India or wherever. Adam Bishop 16:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks for drawing that to my attention. I replied over on Talk:Congo Free State. Best. Tannin

Would you be able to protect Origins of the American Civil War and Congo Free State? The usual's going on. 172 08:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Opps, you read my mind. I saw that you'd already protected right afterwards. 172 08:07, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John - 172 violated the 3-revert policy (he at least was the most recent person to do so on that page). You should therefore have protected the version right before his last revert. Please do so. --mav 08:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Heads of State[edit]

Could you link to Kingdom of Great Britain and Kingdom of Ireland instead of Great Britain and Ireland, respectively, in the heads of state listings? The former two describe the historical political entity while the latter two are on the geography. Maybe the format [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] and [[Kingdom of Ireland|Ireland]] (one line for both) should be used to save room. --Jia ng 19:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Heads of state timeline -- Jonel 20:58, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please see Incumbents_by_year#Suggestion, make comments, etc. ugen64 02:36, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche[edit]

Hi, just wondering why you reverted the edit by 134.53.177.195 to Lyndon LaRouche. It was a minor change, but it seemed to me the edit was made in good faith and moved a little towards NPOV. Thanks and hope I'm not nitpicking. Wmahan . 04:17, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I guess I saw "frightening" as belittling the view being described. But I won't take any more of your time--I just hope we don't reach a point where anon. edits are automatically viewed in a negative light. Wmahan . 04:37, 2004 Apr 25 (UTC)

Congo Free State[edit]

Did you miss my note above? --mav 08:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David.Monniaux#Arguing_with_WHEELER[edit]

I responded to you here, and I have to say your ill will towards wheeler is particularly unnatractive. Sam Spade 00:25, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. And I would caution you about assuming bad faith, or saying things which are likely to be hurtful. Read thru wikiquette and/or wikipedia:civility when you have a chance. Sam Spade 00:38, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So you think I am either a dullard, or I am up to something you cannot fathom? Haha, you are part right. I am an ordinary person, who happens to love encyclopedias, and (shocks and horrors) appears not to share your POV. Wheeler is likely a "differently articlulate" (I do so love PC nonsense ;) version of myself. Someone who is well read, loves learning, and having made use of encyclopedias for years, has decided to give something back. While you may be more articulate at times than he, I would say that he is less POV (altho to his detriment I sometimes don't quite know what he's getting at, esp. w the greek references and socratic dialogue, etc... ;). Anyways, thank you for your civility. Despite the near constant debating, I can't say I havn't enjoyed talking to you and I'd love to find out just what you think I'm up to, quite open to any questions, they do amuse me so (as a psychoanalyst in training, I tend to do the asking ;) Sam Spade 00:58, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I personally have not yet decided whether WHEELER was simply obsessive about some fringe political ideas and pushing POV into Wikipedia, or whether his expression is so bad that it appears as such. David.Monniaux 06:59, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Henry Taaffe[edit]

I wonder if you have any references that give the date of death of Henry Taaffe, 12th Viscount Taaffe. The Complete Peerage gives the date he was deprived of his titles, but stops there. I can't find a death date on any of the usual places on the Internet, either. Perhaps he has still walks among us, like Count Dracula, in the peerage of the undead?! - Nunh-huh 03:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John,
Thanks for looking! It's definitely not in The Complete Peerage or its "Addenda" volume, so there's no need to look there. Very peculiar that he just sort of fades out with no death date! - Nunh-huh 20:00, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Papua[edit]

Could you have a look at User_talk:Daeron/WestPapua and let me know what you think, thanks very much:)Daeron 10:50, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Imperial War Cabinet[edit]

Is there anything you can add to Imperial War Cabinet? There isn't a lot of information on the web. AndyL 16:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of WHEELER, please take a look at the Fascism article and fix the damage he's done where you deem necessary. It's just too much for my browser (or my patience) to handle. AndyL 06:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Better yet, check your e-mail and use a sock puppet to fix the damage there. Try it out! 172 06:49, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I deleted my earlier posting, if that's alright. 172 06:53, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jacob, Jacques etc...[edit]

You're of course right. Jacob (Jacobus) => Jacques in French, James in English. This WHEELER guy is driving me nuts.

Talking about this, is there a list of first names with their translations on Wikipedia? David.Monniaux 06:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's all yours now. Goodnight. 172 07:06, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The USPD, Trotskyists and the like. AndyL 08:01, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, there was some small socialist group Trotsky referred to somewhere as being between social democracy and revolutionary socialism (ie "centrist" in Marxist jargon, like Britain's ILP or the POUM). Don't remember the name but they probably weren't represented in the Reichstag. AndyL 08:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment about Wik[edit]

Dear John: Hi1 I like your name. It reminds me of a certain, great American President...even though Im voting Republican this year, Im not Rep, Dem or Lib, I vote for the candi0date I like. And that certain President, who shall remained unnamed as I assume you know who Im talking about, was, in my opinion, one of the great human beings in history.

That said, wik has a personal teeny war against me. He fixed 60 articles that I originated at the minute (in a row), before I told him that Im ok with any editions as long as they are good for the article, but that 60 fixings in a row and the minute I posted the article seemed like a persecution of his against me, of sorts.

He proceeded by asking people to take away my rights as administrators, only because I told him I was feeling persecuted. Ever since, hes been provocking these little teeny wars with me, like the ones you see at movies, where the bullish boy or popular girl provockes the tranquil guy.

Calling me a moron based on the fact that it was voted 21-0 in favor of me to stay as an administrator was another one of his ways to try to keep provocking me, and I admit, I fall into his wars because Im not gonna let a fellow wikipedian call others names, for example. I think us wikipedians are higher intellectual people and as such, shall feel respect, if not friendship, for each other.

Actually, I like the term of friendship. I like to make friends over-here. That way, we all gain spiritually speaking, and grow intellectually speaking.

See, I did not want to abuse my sysup rights because I believe in respecting wikipedia laws. Thats why I asked if we should protect his page. I think its wrong to disrespect other wikipedians, specially when not provocked.

He keeps provocking me, and I might be stupid and always fall for it, if you will, I realize that. But he has no right to call me a moron only cause I was not voted off admin. Actually, I had told him a long time ago thjat we should let it go and I believed we had a truce, then he goes and calls me a moron without telling me!

I think, and again, I might be overstating here, but we at wikipedia are smarter than that 2 percent of MENSA. We are DEFINITELY NOT morons!

I come here to make friends, make life a little wild n' fun with all of us as a community, and learn. While this might sound a little Spice Girls, I am Spice Boy, so heck.

Wik should respect too. He thinks he's the ultimate authority, and there is no ultimate authority but God. But Wik should respect, if he doesnt want to have fun or make friendships here, at least, respect those who have worked hard here, like you, me, and the others.

I hope you and I at least can be friends and cooperate on our articles mutually and respectfully.

Thanks, and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Masked Bandit Martin

(ps: dont worry about the nickname, those are just other ways of mine to put a little bit of light fun here)