Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:18, 14 May 2006

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

• M:Foundation issues
• Misplaced Pages:Tutorial
• Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources
• Misplaced Pages:Help desk
• Misplaced Pages:Five pillars

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

I did some copyedit of the link description (the itself link was originally invalid). Pavel Vozenilek 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein's answer

They appear to be primary sources. Since they are verifiable they can be used in articles, but you cannot add your own interpretation or analysis of them. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you ask him what is the difference with secondary sources? His answer would apply in the same way if these sources were secondary sources because we should never add our own analysis or interpretation to any source (primary or secondary), unless we provide a source for this interpretation or analysis. So, his answer is not correct, or else there is no difference between primary and secondary sources. IMO, the correct answer is that you cannot use any analysis, evaluation, judgement, interpretation (of some other work) that is contained in a primary source to build a case, to defend a position or for anything, unless you provide a secondary source that uses this primary source in this way. By definition, primary sources must be used as primary ingredients in secondary sources. A primary source gets interpreted or evaluated in one of many possible ways in a secondary source. Misplaced Pages reports on these secondary sources, not directly on primary sources. For example, if a primary source reports that a researcher called FlatMan said the earth is flat, you cannot cite this primary source and write "FlatMan said the earth is flat" in a Misplaced Pages article to support the case that the earth is flat because this is giving a value to the primary source. You cannot use it to discriminate Flatmam either, which is another way to use the very same statement. You see the point: a primary source is a primary ingredient that can be used in different ways, to build different cases, etc. You need a secondary source along with a primary source to use it in one way or another. Note that it is perhaps what Slrubenstein had in mind, but what he wrote mean something else to me. Note that there are exceptions, but it is when the way to use the primary source is not subject to discussions and that every reasonable adult would agree. -Lumière 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to it when I've had some time to think it through, unfortunately a bit busy right now. Stor stark7 22:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is hidden in Saxifrage's answer to your second question:

No, allowed analysis comes from verifiable secondary (and tertiary) sources. Adding any interpretation that is novel ourselves violates Misplaced Pages:No original research, a peer policy to this one.

The allowed analysis cannot come from primary sources! Why? Primary sources, such as the transcript of an interview, may contain such analysis. So, why not use it? Because we cannot directly use a primary source for any analysis or interpretation that it may contain. This is the answer to your first question. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, which means that it must report on secondary sources. Given that an analysis or interpretation is provided by these secondary sources, then we can cite the primary sources that are the object of this analysis or interpretation. -Lumière 02:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How to get a user-unfriendly picture

There are two tricks that can work. First is that of print screen - i.e. screen capture. Press print screen button when you see the image, paste it into Paint, cut and paste again to a new picture parts that are useful and save it. I usually save it as bmp and then use ACDSee to convert it to more copyleft png format. This works 100% as long as the image is smaller then your screen. Alternatively, the second trick is sometimes much faster - but doesn't always work. After you open the image you can try to search your browser's cache for the image file (copy all recent files into new folder, change their extensions to graphic files, and look at the directory with ACDSee or similar image browser. Hope this quick tutorial helps :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I also reverted some of the edits you made in the "Czech Republic" section. However, I advise you not to use german nationalist materials as sources, even people connected with the "Centre against Expulsions" like de Zayas are not ok, as this information is officially rejected by the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland. The reason is not that noone knows that something terrible happened to ethnic Germans after WWII, but the fact that many of them try to exaggerate the numbers and some already tried to demand back their confiscated property - which is unjust as the Czechs cannot demand that German re-pay them all the damage that happened in WW2, wich destroyed their fairly prosperous state and left them prey to Stalin. Germans paid alot for the war - but to Russians etc, not to Czechs. ackoz 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's OK, I reverted back, and finished inserting references. If you want to remove the map again, then do it the normal way by editing, not by reverting.

I have not used de Zayas as reference, "yet". All references come from University sources.

However, if what deZayas is saying could cost Poland and Czechoslovakia lots of monney, then clearly those governments will be biased in the question, and hence unreliable. The German government on the other hand has always been very careful not to offend its neighbours and appear Nazi. If the German government rejects de Zayas, then I'll consider him untrustworthy. Have you any info about that? Stor stark7 21:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it makes sense to include it here - as it seems you have allready found the "truth"... but, why don't give it a try.

Because of this and the instrumentalization of "ethnic cleansing" during the Cold War, many Western publications on this topic are either politically biased or factually incorrect. For example, most West German publications described the expulsion as a martyrdom suffered by Germans only. (example of this is given: Alfred Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans from the East) Surprisingly, this assessment of de Zayas isn't by a Czech (that would be certain disqualification - all of them are completely blind defending national pride, especialy history scholars), but by a Harward fellow (you may probably derive more credibility from the fact he was born in Austria).

Even better is this review of A Terrible Revenge (in German). --Wikimol 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My german is not good enough to be able to digest the last link. However. Philip Their works at the Freie Universitet Berlin. He spent maybe a year in harward on a fellow-ship, i.e. he was an advanced student, which he was when he wrote the article. Furthermore He does not "reject" deZayas, as your predesessor in this discussion claims that the Czech government does. He just states that

"For example, most West German publications described the expulsion as a martyrdom suffered by Germans only" (See Alfred Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam: The Expulsion of the Germans from the East (London: Routledge, 1977), and ibid., A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), reviewed on HABSBURG, http://h-net2.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1720863819285)

This reference to deZayas is ambiguous. Either he uses deZayas work to show that there were also expulsions of other nationalities besides Germans, i.e. the 3,000,000 Poles expelled by Russia. Or, he uses deZaya as an example of works that do not mention them. Either way, this does not make deZayas work any less usable for a work on the expulsion of Germans. It could make deZayas unusable for a work on the expulsion of Poles. But the article in question is about expulsion of Germans, not about expulsion of Poles or expulsion of Czecks. Maybe there are other articles about that, which I suggest you focus your efforts on then if you want to mention them. Are authors writing about the expulsion of Polacks biased if they do not devote equal space in their books to the expulsion of germans? Stor stark7 16:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your map

On Ethnic Germans, doesn't correspond with credible maps and estimates of German population in neigbouring countries. It is used for several different periods in history and implies significant German presence in areas that had little German population. It conflicts with maps of distribution of ethnic Poles, and no mention of German settlement during WW2 is made when it is presented as placement of Germans in 1945, in other articles it serves as base for claims of German population in 1937... --Molobo 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No. not my map.

The map is linked from Wikimedia!!!. I doubt that the author of it will even be aware of what is written here, as he is German. I suggest you ask your questions directly on his talk page, at de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Postmann_Michael

And try to write in short clear sentences when you ask him, as english probably is not his first language... --Stor stark7 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But It was you who started to put it articles ? I am sorry but this is a problem on English Wiki, not German, and I am not fluent in Germany. This problem must be solved on English Wiki. Right now I am wondering why 530,000 Poles in German Silesia are barely noticable but 100,000 Germans in Pomorze are showed as dominating the region. --Molobo 23:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you at least try asking him in English. Since he seems intrested in languages, maybe he even knows Polish if English doesn't work out for you. Stor stark7 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If the user is concerned with English wiki I will gladly engage in dialog here. I believe the burden of defence of the image is on the person who tried to include it here. If you believe my arguments against it are incorrect state so with arguments.With all due respect I do not believe defending your actions is my duty here. --Molobo 23:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The author has now added a substantial amount of text describing the origins of the map. Maybe you should read that before you spam the german wikipedia forum with your old comment-list which they were perfectly capable of reading on the polish forum, to which they already had a link in their map-topic. --Stor stark7 16:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of source we have a lengthy speach unconnected in several parts to the map and full of error's combined with attacks on Polish state. Not to mention the absurd usage of votes to indicate presence of German's. It seems author doesn't know for example that hundreds of thousands of Germans were moved to Silesia in order to vote.And of course using data on presence of Germans in 1919 in Poznan when German Army was moved there isn't POV at all...Anyway the author hasn't presented a source of the map. --Molobo 17:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of reference

Hi, I've noticed in series of your edits (ironically, described like Use references, otherwise everything is just allegations ) referenced statements about expulsion from Czechoslovakia disappeared, along with reference to Facing the history. Later, some of them were replaced by more vague and less accurate statements from the European University Institute study which you favour. Now, the way the sources are cited, the EUI study is given as much prominence as possible, and Facing ... as little as possible. However, the case of Postoloprty completely lacking in EUI stayed... Also, while you're obviouisly reading the pdf copy of Facing..., and included link to pdf of EUI study, Facing is not linked. Altogether it makes the impression you pick from the sources what seems to be useful for the POV you advance and try to suppress the rest. Please avoid doing that. --Wikimol 08:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wikimol. I think you are being careless by using the "diff" you provided. I was still editing at that point, as can be clearly seen from the history. This diff is much better if you want to show what I did. . Based on the very bad english grammar of your edit, and the fact that the "reference" did not lead anywhere when i clicked on it, I thought that it was just the usual vandalism. I then realised that it was just a bad edit on your part, and made sure to also use your reference, including some extra data from it. I se that I made some spelling mistakes in my edit, but it still is much better english than yours, if I may say so myself.

Also, from the begining it was aparently you that had first replaced my previous edits, which were strictly based on * The Expulsion of 'German' Communities from Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War European University Institute, Florense. EUI Working Paper HEC No. 2004/1, Edited by Steffen Prauser and Arfon Rees, and replaced them with data taken from * Facing History - The evolution of Czech and German relations in the Czech provinces, 1848-1948, Z. Beneš, D. Jančík, J. Kuklík, E. Kubů, V. Kural, R. Kvaček, V. Pavlíček, J. Pešek, R. Petráš, Z. Radvanovský, R. Suchánek, Gallery, Prague, ISBN 80-86010-60-0 online downlown in PDF format from Czech governmental website. Your edits can be seen from

I have not had time to read the reference you provided, more than looking up the pages you got your data from. The reason I gave the EUI paper prominence is that I feel that the European University Institute paper probably is a more reliable source than the Czech paper. The Italians are neutral in this mater, and an Italian publication can be expected to be more objective than a purely Czech publication. I say this in the same sence that I would much more trust a paper on the Armenian genocide published in Czhechoslovakia, than I would trust a paper on the same subject written and published in Turkey. The Turks have just to many emotional attachments and national reputations to defend to be expected to be objective on the subject. The same applies to the Czech. How reliable would you feel a Russian account of the soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia would be? For instance, the Italian paper says that there were 30,000 german civilians in Brno. The Czech paper says that there were just 20,000. I feel this is an example of Czech tendensies to try to downplay the real number of Germans that were expelled. In addition, the author of the Sudeten part of the Italian paper seems to be Czech himself, and has provided a number of references, most of which come from Czech books.Stor stark7 20:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)