Talk:Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mvjs: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
→‎Oppose: expand
 
Line 1: Line 1:
===[[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mvjs|Mvjs]]===
{{WikiProject Germany|class=B|importance=High}}
<span class="plainlinks">'''[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mvjs|action=edit&section=4}} Voice your opinion]'''</span> ([[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mvjs|talk page]])
{{controversial}}
'''(5/1/0); Scheduled to end 06:57, [[18 October]] [[2008]] (UTC)'''
{{archive box|
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive1|Early undated discussion (probably before 2004-03-23)]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive2|2004]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive3|2005]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive4|Jan-Apr 2006]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive5|May 2006]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive6|May-June 2006]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive7|June-August 2006]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive8|August-October 2006]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive9|October 2006-January 2007]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive10|January 2007-March 2007]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive 11|March 2007&ndash;November 2007]]
# [[Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II/Archive 12|December 2007&ndash;May 2008]]}}


{{User|Mvjs}} - I love Wikipedia. I think I could go as far as calling myself a Wikipedia adherent. My aim is to make Wikipedia the best it can possibly be and I believe that adminship is the next step in my Wikipedia journey. I hereby present a self nomination of Mvjs. I've been an editor since August 2006 but my active involvement in Wikipedia really didn't start till March this year. My primary contributions are (and probably always will be) in the mainspace with the vast majority of my edits being there. I believe thoroughly in consensus and consensus is what makes Wikipedia what it is and I utterly respect that. I've noticed a lack of administrators in the Australia-field and I think I can back up the hundreds of [[WP:AUSTRALIA]] members. I no doubt, as any user would, have had some learning at the beginning but I strongly believe that my Wikipedia skills, knowledge and ability have matured to the point of adminship.
== Distrust of and enmity towards Nazi-influenced German communities ==


I've been an active Twinklier and revert any vandalism I come across. I occasionally patrol new pages and recent changes. The admin tools would allow me to more effectively patrol these facilities. I intend to help out any new or established editors with anything, and utilise the administrator tools in anyway I can. I've been approached by numerous new editors and have attempted to help them wholeheartedly.
A user recently added the following to the section ''Distrust of and enmity towards Nazi-influenced German communities'':
[[Image:NSDAP Wahl 1933.png|thumb|left|200px|Level of support for the Nazis during the 1933 elections]]


I would like to thank all the people who have guided me through the Wikipedia process and have taught me the ropes, particularly [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] and [[User:Michellecrisp|Michellecrisp]] whom I look up to immensely. I would be glad to take any advice on board and any suggestions are much appreciated. Cheers and thanks for considering me. [[User:Mvjs|Mvjs]] ([[User talk:Mvjs|talk]]) 06:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
''During the German elections of 1933, the Nazi party's areas of strongest support was in those eastern areas of Germany whose population was later expelled. The German provinces of East Prussia, Pomerania, and Frankfurt on the Oder were the only ones where the Nazis received over 55% of the vote. The Nazis obtained over 50% in much of Silesia. ''


====Questions for the candidate====
While the facts of course are true, they do not fit in the section (which is on Selbstschutz actions) nor should they be included in the article at all. Reasons:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
*No source (so far) is shown that this really was an argument for the expulsions
:'''1.''' What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
*The vote was 14 years earlier - back then only a few could predict what the Nazis really were up to. These 1933 votes should not be held as expressing a Nazi attitude of all the voters.
::'''A:''' I plan to initially focus on five main areas. I intend to partake in the blocking of users that are obvious vandals at [[WP:AIV]]. It would be my aim to keep [[WP:PER]] under control, as there's quite a backlog developing there. In fact, it was my recent frustration with the edit protected action timeframe that has provoked me to look at adminship. After some initial teething, I've become quite acquainted with the [[WP:CSD]] process and would like to help out there, particularly with blatent image copyvios. I take Wikipedia's copyright policy extremely seriously. I would like to participate in [[WP:RPP]] to ensure this fantastic project is not tarnished. Lastly, I intend to help out at [[WP:RM]] as it seems to be usually underserved by admins. I've started and participated in a few requested moves, notably [[Talk:Canberra_International_Airport#Requested_move|this one]].
*The text could imply that the people deserved expulsion because they were the "worst" of the evil. Both of course is wrong, but that association is put forward by having that text integrated.
For these reason, I moved the edit out here for discussion. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


:'''2.''' What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
:That's a pity, when I saw the map, my impression was it nicely illustrated the issue discussed in the section. I don't think you should be removing it because "it could imply that the people deserved expulsion". Political correctness is nice but the section discusses the various reasons given by various groups to justify the expulsions. We are not arguing if these reasons were right or wrong, only presenting them. To this end, the map nicely explains why the Germans could have been perceived as Nazi supporters. As for the argument that the vote was "14 years earlier", let me ask you: in which areas was nazism most supported in 1939 ? The map should definitely stay in the article. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 18:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
::'''A:''' My proudest contribution so far has been the promotion of [[Melbourne Airport]] to good article status (additionally, it recently narrowly missed featured article promotion and is currently having an A-class review). I've also created around a dozen start and stub articles, lists and templates on more niche topics. These are listed on my user page. I undertook a significant cleanup of [[Xavier College]] which I am proud of. I intend to continue my mainspace contributions after adminship more than ever. The articles of Wikipedia are after all what makes this encyclopaedia what it is.


:'''3.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
::I agree, which is why I put it in the article. The article states that one reason for the expulsion is the perception of incompatibility of the Germans there with Polish rule/living within a Polish support. The election results help explain that perception. The fact that Germans from those regions, as reflected in the elections, were more often supporters of the Nazi party than were Germans from other regions seems to be important and worthy of inclusion.[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] ([[User talk:Faustian|talk]]) 18:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
::'''A:''' I have had several encounters with users and have dealt with them extremely successfully. I received a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mvjs&diff=216606261&oldid=216594992 heated comment] from someone and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blackspurboys&diff=216607814&oldid=216599827 I responded] calmly and the other editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mvjs&diff=216797808&oldid=216607958 calmed down and apologised]. I've had some other minor encounters with editors in which I kept my cool and the situation has been resolved every time. I see no reason why this can't continue after adminship.

<!-- ;Additional questions from [[User:Example|Example]]: -->
Please provide a source that the elections of 1933 played any role at the [[Potsdam Conference]]. [[User:HerkusMonte|HerkusMonte]] ([[User talk:HerkusMonte|talk]]) 19:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
;Optional question from [[User:Blooded Edge|Blooded Edge]]
:First, please provide a source that Poland participated in the [[Potsdam Conference]]. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 19:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
:'''4:''': As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I want to know what exactly your personal stance is on the ''cool down'' block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?
:::Source provided as requested.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
::'''A:''' In almost all situations, I would not apply a cool down block. If a user is in the frame of mind to blatantly vandalise Wikipedia and is in need of a cool down, they are in most cases going to be rash, hasty and injudicious. In this state, blocking the user is just going to inflame the situation and cause the user to be even more disgruntled. I am certain that if in the above conflict the user had been blocked, he would get even more enraged that there was a conspiracy against the Government. I would much prefer to template the user with successive warnings about the edits he is making and eventually she/he will take a nap and regret the edits he/she had made. As happened with the above documented conflict, the user came back in apology asking how his edits can be better. This is a much better course of action. [[User:Mvjs|Mvjs]] ([[User talk:Mvjs|talk]]) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
::?? The decision to expell Germans from East of [[Oder-Neisse line]] was made at Potsdam by the Allied powers, no? So it's an interesting point wether this decision was influenced by the 1933 elections, if not, I can't see any coherence.[[User:HerkusMonte|HerkusMonte]] ([[User talk:HerkusMonte|talk]]) 19:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Indeed it did. I added an article that touches about this point.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Did the idea of German compatibility within a Polish state play a role at Potsdam?[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] ([[User talk:Faustian|talk]]) 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses to Lysy and Faustian:

*''Lysy: Political correctness is nice (...)'' I am not that much concerned about PC ;)

*''Lysy: (...) but the section discusses the various reasons given by various groups to justify the expulsions.'' There we are.
**First: What group gave that as a reason for the expulsions?
**Second: The paragraph was (is) about Nazi activities in Pomerania and Silesia - obviously of those parts of these regions that had a substantial Polish minority, which were the parts annexed by the Nazis in 1939 (Pomerelia and Upper Silesia), because the source given for the statements is: (quote) ''^ "Polacy - wysiedleni, wypędzeni i wyrugowani przez III Rzeszę", Maria Wardzyńska, Warsaw 2004". Created on order of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, the organization called Selbstschutz carried out executions during "Intelligenzaktion" alongside operational groups of German military and police, in addition to such activities as identifying Poles for execution and illegally detaining them''. (/quote) Selbstschutz were [[Volksdeutsche]] (Germans living ''outside'' the 3rd Reich) paramilitary units, notable numbers of Poles only lived in Pomerelia and Upper Silesia. The map on the other hand shows the votes of the [[Reichsdeutsche]] (Germans living ''inside'' the 3rd Reich). The map / the Reichsdeutsche votes from 1933 therefore does not fit the content of the (original) section.

*''Lysy: As for the argument that the vote was "14 years earlier", let me ask you: in which areas was nazism most supported in 1939'' and ''Faustian: The fact that Germans from those regions, as reflected in the elections, were more often supporters of the Nazi party than were Germans from other regions seems to be important and worthy of inclusion.'' There is no doubt the Nazis had strong support all over Germany. Some termed that "collective guilt". Yet, I do not know the answer to Lysy's question just as noone here does. Because 14 years earlier, ''before'' the Nazis established their regime, the eastern provinces voted 5-10% above average doesn't mean anything regarding the 1939 (or 44) situation. Sure the support was high, but higher than average? Based on the old election results (that do not show differences ''that'' big) this is a synthesis and ''as such'' should not be included in the article.

If one brainstorms, one might find a lot of reasons why Germans had to be mistreated after the war. The question here is, which were the ''actual'' reasons that led to the expulsions (rather than re-education, slavery etc). At that point, a source should be presented that states the reason.

I personally think the Germans would have been expelled from these regions even if they had voted 20% below average in 1933. I think that rather than seeking for rationales we should remember that once the Red Army conquered these territories, [[Stalinism]] ruled there. Stalin just loved ethnic cleansing, regardless of how the people he resettled or starved behaved before. The reason that they had a different nationality was sufficient. The idea of Stalinism was a homogenous people where everyone was equal(ly f**d up). Also, Poland needed to get rid of the Germans in order to hold up her territorial claim. We should keep in mind that at that time the status of her new-won territories was not at all a final one. They did not know how much time they even had to make these territories as Polish as possible, that's why they from the beginning exercised the most drastic measures. That of course, is my synthesis, I do not have a source right now, so I do not integrate that into the article. But I doubt that the expulsions had anything to do with the 1933 vote. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


:The issue will bo no problem. A source will be provided which makes the exact point that the reason for population transfer of Germans from Germanised former Baltic and Polish territories was made due to their support for Nazism.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 20:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"If one brainstorms, one might find a lot of reasons why Germans had to be mistreated after the war."
I would say that "Mistreated" is a very extreme POV-majority of Germans polled after the war after all supported the Nazi Reich's goal to exterminate Jews and Poles which was the one primary goals of the war in the East(that of course doesn't mean all-some Germans were against this). After six years of genocidal slaughter of milions in gas chambers, mass graves, kidnapping and murdering hundreds of thousands of children, granting dogs more rights then Poles or Jews it was decided that Germans will be moved to new borders. If anything it could be worth to study the humanity and restraint of people slated for extermination in regards to German state and nation--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC).

::I haven't had time to check out the source you provided. But the image from the elections seems to me to be a decent illustration of the idea of greater support in those regions. Is there any reason to doubt that Nazi support waned in those regions of Germany relative to other regions? One criticism that is makes sense is if the section I put the image into was devoted to those areas of Germany that were annexed in 1939. Perhaps that section can be expanded to include other regions of German expulsion.[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] ([[User talk:Faustian|talk]]) 21:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
:::You are partially correct Faustian-the author concentrates on territories removed from Nazi Germany territory of 1937 and why population was moved to modified German border. He quotes statements and documents that show pro-Nazi attitude of most of the population was one of the reasons given as need to move those people.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

:where can I find the English version of the Amazing Document stating that "the majority of Germans polled after the war all supported the Nazi Reich's goal to exterminate Jews and Poles"????? This would be an earth-shaking document and go a long way towards enshrining "Collective Guilt". Does the United Nations have a Handbook on Collective Guilt? I would like to acquire a copy of that also.~~ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.217.231|76.14.217.231]] ([[User talk:76.14.217.231|talk]]) 11:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

We can also use this more visible map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nazi_Germany_1933.PNG

''Molobo: He quotes statements and documents that show pro-Nazi attitude of most of the population was one of the reasons given as need to move those people.'' I would appreciate you to precisely state the area of interest, whether it was a ''reason'' or a ''justification'' and to include the respective sentence of the book in your ref. Thank you [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 08:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(And please avoid messing up the ref format again, see below. Just add behind your text: <ref*>Reference title and text</ref*> without the "*" and everythink should work out fine.) [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 08:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean we get Silesia back? Its pro NSDAP votes are shown average or lower compared to the rest of Germany. The Poles and Russians can keep all those nazi infested regions. :-P :)) [[User:Anorak2|Anorak2]] ([[User talk:Anorak2|talk]]) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:Please, we are trying seriously to figure out whether there are reliable sources stating the election results were in any kind a ''reason'' for the respective authorities to expell these Germans, or used as a '''justification'' thereafter, or if it is just a synthesis. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 08:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::The whole section on the reasons/justification brings headache. Are you interested in the stated or real reasons ? --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 09:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

:: Actually that is not my impression. I think that certain users with a nationalist Polish POV are trying to push any statement that appears to justify the annexations and/or expulsions, and to suppress any statement that says otherwhise. They're not really interested in discussions of sources, they want to push their POV anyway. And I think they deserve a little mockery. :) [[User:Anorak2|Anorak2]] ([[User talk:Anorak2|talk]]) 11:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you know, that the most successful area for the Nazis was [[Masuria]]? According to A. Kossert "Masuren" the exact results in March 1933 were:
* [[Nidzica]] / Neidenburg 81 %
* [[Elk]] / Lyck 80,38 %
* [[Pisz]] / Johannisburg 76,6 %
* [[Szczytno]] / Ortelsburg 74,22 %
* [[Gizycko]] / Lötzen 72,52 %
* [[Mragowo]] / Sensburg 69,02 %
* [[Ostroda]] / Osterode 62,73 %
But after 1945 Masuria was next to Upper Silesia the only area with a significant remaining "Autochthone" population (estimated 160,000), allowed to stay as they were classified as ethnic Poles. The results of 1933 were obviously not important for that classification. At the same time it means that in other areas of [[East Prussia]] the Nazis had less success, while 100 % of the populace was expelled. So it would be interesting which reasons were real and which were stated by Stalin. [[User:HerkusMonte|HerkusMonte]] ([[User talk:HerkusMonte|talk]]) 10:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, it's known that Masuria had a very high support ratio for the Nazis. However the question of so called autochthones was resolved later, not in Potsdam, so do not draw conclusions too easily. As for the real reasons, we'll never know. Probably Stalin wanted more territory for himself and simple did not care about the Germans any more than for anyone else. However I doubt if we find his citation confirming this. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 11:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

::You are right, the whole section needs to be worked on, and yes, I think that the "stated reasons" (or justifications) and the "real" reasons should be included, but sourced, marked as such and not with an undue weight. Right now most of the section reads like synthesis, a justification for the expulsions thought of by some author. Most of this impression is due to missing sources - it is in many cases not clear, who justified the expulsions with the respective "rationales" and in what context, also it is not really clear what led Soviet and Polish authorities to expell and only to smaller degrees kill and enslave. Yet I do not know either if there are serious works about these issues, that reliably make a difference between the "real" (strategic) reasons and the accompagning propaganda.

::If the 1933 vote was used to justify the expulsions, it may be included, but it needs to be clear to the reader ''who'' justified the expulsions with that vote. But we have to be careful here that we do not get a section citing everything postwar propaganda once stated as a ''reason'' for the expulsions. (We all should know that of course the 33 vote was ''not'' a real reason for the expulsions.) [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 12:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Skäpperöd, I dare to say you are relatively new to the article, so allow me a word of explanation. The article is a mess but it used to be much worse before. The "justifications" sections that we frown at were created on purpose in order to isolate all the discussions about the reasons from the rest of the article. This allowed to keep some minimal order and to develop the other sections relatively peacefully. The next step would be to attribute these reasons or justifications to particular researchers, politicians etc. Right now it is just a collection of different ideas without any information on their sources. Also, this section requires special care, as it's not our aim to argue about the justifications there but only to present them as they were given. And this requires the proper attribution of course. So I'm all with you. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 12:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

::::This explains a lot. Regards [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 14:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

''I think that the "stated reasons" (or justifications) and the "real" reasons should be included''
Who is to say what was real and was stated ? There is no doubt that after six years of attempted genocide and classification of Poles, Russians, Jews as creatures below animal status by German state, many believed removing Germans from former Slavic, Polish and Baltic areas that were Germanised would end their expansion in the East that brought such dire consequences. The belief that those areas are 'expansion point' against others and serve as source of conflict due to highly nationalist population was very real. The ideas of Lebensraum, Germanisation, the dreaded Ostsiedlung that brought extinction of Wends, Old Prussians, slavery for Lithuanians and so on. It all originated mostly in those territories. Thus ending such things by ending what was perceived as colonisation was a very real reason for people behind those decisions.
''Soviet and Polish authorities to expell ''
There was a population transfer of Germans from Yugoslavia, France, Denmark, Czechoslovakia. Why are saying it was just Soviet and Polish decision ?
''and only to smaller degrees kill and enslave''
There never was any plan to enslave or to kill German population. That is completely untrue claim.
'' Yet I do not know either if there are serious works about these issues, that reliably make a difference between the "real" reasons and the accompagning propaganda.(...)
But we have to be careful here that we do not get a section citing everything postwar propaganda once stated as a ''reason'' for the expulsions. ''
And I can safely assure you that ending the threat to existance of people like Poles or Russians was seen as very real reason behind the population transfer for the people behind this decision. Why you may question if they were right, they certainly believed in it and it certainly seemed to them propaganda but a justified reason.
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

::Reading this article [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/1376828/Polish-man-accused-of-%27war-crimes%27-against-the-Germans.html Polish man accused of 'war crimes' against the Germans] one gets a slightly more nuanced picture to balance against Molobos statement that: "''There never was any plan to enslave or to kill German population. That is completely untrue claim.''". Enslavement certainly did occur....--[[User:Stor stark7|'''Stor stark7''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Stor stark7|'''Speak''']]</sup> 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

:::And nowhere in the article is there any evidence of any plan to kill or enslave Germans, I do not dispute that after six years of being hunted down as something lower then dogs(dogs had more rights in Third Reich then Poles-for example animals were more protected from medical experiments then Poles or Jews) some people broke and sought revenge just like the man did. Also I suggest giving something more reliable then sensationalistic newspapers. --[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

::::Putting people in concentration camps does not seem very unplanned...
::::{{Quotation|Crimes against German civilians were not limited to hard core "communist" criminals, but were widespread. In many cases German farms were taken over by Poles and previous owners were either killed or kept on as slave labour.}}
::::{{Quotation|Lambinowice was just one of hundreds of Nazi concentration camps throughout Central Europe which exchanged its Jewish and Allied PoWs for German soldiers and civilians once the war had ended.}}
::::{{Quotation|Dr [[Maruska Svasek]], a Central European specialist at [[Queen's University]], [[Belfast]], said: "Hundreds of thousands of German civilians across Central Europe were raped, tortured, killed, or died due to terrible conditions after the war, but [[communist historiography]] was simply anti-Nazi and [[pro-communist]], and disregarded the [[truth]] about postwar [[anti-German]] crimes."}}
::::Besides, the [[The Daily Telegraph]] doesnt seem all that sensationalistic... seems like a rather reasonable enough newspaper that cites for example [[Frantiszek Lewandowski]], one of the prosecutors in the case, besides the professor quoted above.--[[User:Stor stark7|'''Stor stark7''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Stor stark7|'''Speak''']]</sup> 19:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

:Again you confuse individual acts of retribution with some kind of plan. There was no plan to enslave or kill German nation and none of your quotes says that or supports that. Show any proof that there was plan to exterminate Germans like the German plan to exterminate Jews in gas chambers or the plan to exterminate Poles and Germanise whole Poland(''n March 1941 Hitler made a decision to "turn this region into a purely German area within 15-20 years". He also explained that "Where 12 million Poles now live, is to be populated by 4 to 5 million Germans. The Generalgouvernement must become as German as Rhineland''"Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identities and Cultural Differences" by Keith Bullivant, Geoffrey J. Giles, Walter Pape, Rodopi 1999 page 32). As there was no plan of such kind nor any orders of such kind, you are unlikely to find any. As to deaths due to famine, cold, harsh conditions and individual acts of retribution after six years of systematic genocide against Poles and Jews-nobody disputes this happened.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 19:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

::Molobo, you stated "''There never was any plan to enslave or to kill German population. That is completely untrue claim.''". I have shown that that Germans were put in [[concentration camps]], many of these were work camps were they were used as slave labor, [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=198721097755610 this litle girl of 5] was kept in one of these camps until 1949. You are free to call this ''"individual acts of retribution"'' but i don't think you are convincing anyone. As to the rest of your text where you essentially go on about the [[Holocaust]], that is '''[[Straw man]]''' argumentation. Please stop doing that!--[[User:Stor stark7|'''Stor stark7''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Stor stark7|'''Speak''']]</sup> 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
:::So you admit there was no plan to kill German nation and there is no evidence of such. As to the rest, please no manipulation, former concentration camps were used as transit facitilies during population transfer, they were not the same concentration camps as under Nazi Germany. Sure the conditions were harsh, and some commanders were abusing their power. This is understandable in context of six years of genocide they experienced(for Salomon Morel another known officer who abused power was a Jewish survivor of Holocaust). There is no evidence of plan to enslave or exterminate German nation and you haven't shown anything supporting this. As to deaths during famine, cold, and individual acts of violance-nobody denies it happened. As nobody denies that to rebuild Europe from Nazi Germany's made devestation which plunged it into food and economic crisis for years some forced labour was used.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 19:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

::::[[Straw man]] arguments again, and again , and again..... As to '''"transit facitilies"''' why not simply read the names of some of the camps: [[Central Labour Camp Jaworzno]] (sub-camp of Auschwitz), [[Central Labour Camp Potulice]] (formerly Potulice concentration camp), [[Łambinowice]], [[Zgoda labour camp]] (sub-camp of Auschwitz). And it must have been a loooooooong transit, to be captured in 1945, and released in 1949.--[[User:Stor stark7|'''Stor stark7''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Stor stark7|'''Speak''']]</sup> 19:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed this was a long transit. And indeed many former facilities of Germans were used to house them before moving them into Germany. As previously you failed to show any evidence or proof that there was any planned attempt to kill German nation or to enslave it. I take it we won't see any. If so please end this, as it has no purpose to demonstrate your personal views if there isn't any publication supporting this its completely unencyclopedic.
--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 19:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

:This is indeed pointless, so I'll let you have whatever final word you wish, but please no more [[straw man]] arguments, not that I'd expect anyone to fall for them by now. Just some final comments.
:I stated: ''"...a slightly more nuanced picture to balance against Molobos statement that: "There never was any plan to enslave or to kill German population. That is completely untrue claim."'' and I concluded ''"Enslavement certainly did occur"'' From this, what do you read out? I merely pointed out that there was need to nuance your argument regarding enslavement. You have kept talking about "''proof that there was any planned attempt to kill German nation"'', which is a '''[[Straw man]] argument'''. You are arguing against a statement that I never made, in order to try to make me look bad. '''That is bad bad bad'''. As to the rest, I'm confident I've demonstrated for whoever bothers reading this that I've indeed managed to nuance your claim that it is completely untrue that there was a plan to enslave "German population". German civilians were kept for 4 years in "Central Labor Camps", so completely untrue it cannot be. Try as you may, you cant argue that away with [[straw man]] argumentation. Cheers--[[User:Stor stark7|'''Stor stark7''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Stor stark7|'''Speak''']]</sup> 20:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
:Indeed you failed to provide any evidence that plans existed to kill or enslave German nation. Transit camps in modern times often keep people for years, It's a wonder that in German-devestated Europe that was almost complete ruin, people were so quickly and smoothly moved in just a couple of years. As with other post, the above one contained no proof of plans to enslave or kill German nation besides your personal views."You are arguing against a statement that I never made" So yo admit there was no plan to enslave or kill German nation ?--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 20:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to recognise your 'Molobo' username from years past. It seems no matter what anyone says in the defence of Germans, civilian or military, you'll contradict it and somehow justify any wrongdoing against them. Yes but you'll probably say ''the Nazis did this and the Nazis did that''. Most of the people caught up in this ethnic cleansing weren't Nazis. The Allied policy of expelling millions of Germans civilians from land that was legally and rightfully theirs, was a crime and a human disaster and totally flew in the face of everything democracy stood for and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and that's that. Accept it. But you'll probably add another load of waffle to slag my comments off. Don't bother, I won't be replying. 13:18 1st October 2008 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.157.96.97|81.157.96.97]] ([[User talk:81.157.96.97|talk]]) 12:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

There existed Communist policy toward Germans, eg. keeping German soldiers in Gulag camps (but to release them before some Polish women were released). There was no problem of Polish nationalistic policy toward Germans, because Polish nationalists were imprisoned together with Nazis and didn't have any chance to emigrate to Germany, like Germans were allowed. Your discussion has no value for the article, stop it.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 11:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalin didn't care whether Germans in East Prussia, Silesia or Main Pommerania voted 10% or 90% for Nazis. All Stalin wanted to do was move the Eastern Borders of both Poland and Germany further to the west. Roosevelt and Churchill somewhat became his accomplices in that endeavor via the Yalta meeting. That was followed by the July 1945 Potsdam Agreement, which authorized Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to expell 100% of whomever they chose to declare as "ethnic German" from their areas. The determination of what constituted "ethnic German" was left up to the expelling "authorities" in all three countries. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.240.177|76.14.240.177]] ([[User talk:76.14.240.177|talk]]) 00:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== I added source on pro-Nazi attitude being reason for population transfer ==

I added source by German historian from [German Historical Institute] that part of the reason of population transfer was the support for Nazism in affected territories--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

: As Molobo surely knows, [[Bogdan Musial]] is a Polish - born Historian, who caused a highly controversial discussion in Poland in May 2008 as he accused another Polish historian to be too friendly to the Germans.[http://www.rp.pl/artykul/132254.html] ; [http://wyborcza.pl/1,76842,5178435.html] ; [[http://wyborcza.pl/1,76842,5198292,Historycy__to_atak_na_dialog_polsko-niemiecki.html]]; [http://wyborcza.pl/1,75515,5204264,Historia_wedlug_Bogdana_Musiala.html]. Just to make it complete. [[User:HerkusMonte|HerkusMonte]] ([[User talk:HerkusMonte|talk]]) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed he accused other historian of having pro-German view sacrificing thus objectivity of research. Feel free to add this in his article.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 22:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The other part is that perhaps some Germans are too friendly to that historian, eg. publishing his censored book. Do you republish in Germany censored books printed in the GDR without any comment about the censorship? The other problem is that Germans misinform about this historian's father.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

== I will remove ==

A incorrect ethnic map (original research, no reliable sources). It says that the population of Germans in 1944 was the same as in 1910. This is completely false and ignores German settlement by Nazi's from Baltic region into Poland.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

:I'm sure you remember the [[Polish Corridor]] discussion about the number of Germans living in that area before and after 1919. And I'm sure you remember that a lot of Germans left the area after the creation of the Corridor. You're absolutely right, that [[Baltic Germans]] (and some others as [[Horst Köhler]]'s family) were forced to settle there after 1939 and that's why the map shows quiet exactly the situation of 1944. According to your logic the 1933 election map does not show anything about the political believes of 1944, so you will surely remove that map too, no? [[User:HerkusMonte|HerkusMonte]] ([[User talk:HerkusMonte|talk]]) 21:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
:Indeed I remember the discussion on Polish Corridor where it turned out that number of Germans was artificially increased by stationing German soldiers and counting them as local residents, in addition to settlement of officials sent by Berlin. Your point ?
:"and that's why the map shows quiet exactly the situation of 1944. "
:Where is the source of that statement ? Which scholar states this ?
:--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

::Moreover, there is a big difference between 14 years and 34 years. Is there any reason to suspect that German attitudes changed much between 1933 and the time of the war?[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] ([[User talk:Faustian|talk]]) 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, and remove it. The map contains false information. It does not take into account the massive (over a million) German exodus from Poland under article 91 of the Versailles Treaty. It's only purpose in the article is to purport the view that Germans were a majority in these areas all the time, following WW1 and WW2. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Removing.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 22:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop to remove that map without a serious discussion and just about 1 hour after you announced it. [[User:HerkusMonte|HerkusMonte]] ([[User talk:HerkusMonte|talk]]) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

HerkusMonte, it was explained in the discussion above why the map does not belong to the article (at least, I thought it was removed long ago from en.wiki as the original research of its creator, banned from German wiki for his nationalistic pov pushing). Please do not edit-war if you don't have reasonable arguments. The map is known to be hoax anyway. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 22:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

:If a map 34 years too early should stay, why shouldn't one that is only 14 years early stay? (In my opinion, the 34 year old map should go given the other concerns about it, but the other one should stay).[[User:Faustian|Faustian]] ([[User talk:Faustian|talk]]) 22:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

::It's not only that it's outdated, it's also misleading (what percentage of the German speaking population does it take to mark an area blue ? ) It also does not take into account the million Germans that left the areas of Poland following WW1. I'm sorry to see HerkusMonte revertwarring rather than reading this first. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 22:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a kind of "revertwarring" to restore a version that lasted for quiet a long time, if a user first announces to remove a map (and removing it within an hour), without giving other users the chance to find proper sources. The announcement is needless in that case.

Some users might say the "1931 dominating nationalities in Poland" map does not belong to the article as the situation changed significant between 1931 and 1945. The "Nazi elections of 1933" does not say anything about the situation of 1944, and btw. it's showing the results of March 1933 usually not seen as a free election any more (after the [[Enabling Act of 1933]]). But calm down, I don't see any sense in this discussion any more. [[User:HerkusMonte|HerkusMonte]] ([[User talk:HerkusMonte|talk]]) 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

:I don't see what sources do you need to understand, that one cannot claim that the demographics did not change, if a million Germans left Poland following WW1 (and were actually encouraged to leave by the German government). I don't accuse you of bad faith, but it is simple to understand. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 22:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

== Technical problem following Molobo's edit ==

I restored the last version (Faustian, 29.7.08) with a '''working references section'''. Some edits thereby got '''lost'''. Please feel free to redo and reference your edits, but please make sure your references do not interfere with the other refs again. Thank you [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for looking into this. A single slash was missing in his edit, no need for a wholesale revert. I've fixed it now. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 09:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you.--[[User:Molobo|Molobo]] ([[User talk:Molobo|talk]]) 18:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, I did not find the mistake... [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 12:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

== The template ==

The template should be edited similarly to comparable templates or removed. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 11:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:What do you mean by "similarly to comparable templates" ? Which ones ? --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 11:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

:I have pointed out The Holocaust and the Warsaw Uprizing, both small, without pictures, less colorful. Anyone can define, which events were ''comparable''. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 13:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

::I don't think [[WP:MOS]] defines the colour of a template. As for the photo, it might add to the articles but I'm not sure what is depicted there. Its author and license remain unknown, too. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::: See [[Wikipedia:Navigational templates]] about the colors.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 12:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Indeed. It reads ''"There should be justification for a template to deviate from standard colors and styles"''. #e7e8ff seems to be the standard colour. Adjusted it. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I think Xx236's issue is not really about the color of the template but about the emotional and POV nature of the photo in the template. While he is right that [[:Template:Holocaust]] and [[:Template:Warsaw Uprising]] do not have photos, I don't think there is any reason to exclude photos from templates. See [[:Template:Aztec]] for example. The real question, IMO, is whether the photo is appropriate, NPOV, etc. Let's discuss the photo from that perspective. --[[User:Richardshusr|Richard]] ([[User talk:Richardshusr|talk]]) 05:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

::I think the photo is a very good one. The men in hats are in the background are barely visible which illustrates well that the expellees were mostly innocent children and women. The people in the picture have no luggage. That illustrates the fact that the expellees had to leave all their belongings behind. I don't know if the photo is staged or not but it does not matter. It would be good to know who, where and when took it, though. Also, it may be a good illustration for some of the articles but maybe not all in the series. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 08:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are heaps of pictures out there, I don't understand why it seems to be so difficult to find a good free one.
*[http://www.jamd.com/image/g/2658548 March of Death]
*[http://www.jamd.com/image/g/2636854 Crowd of children]
*[http://www.jamd.com/image/g/3137478 Leaving the "Western territories"] 1951
*[http://www.jamd.com/image/g/3248253 Expulsion, 1951]
*[http://www.jamd.com/image/g/2658550 German refugees]
*[http://www.ena.lu?lang=2&doc=9762 Refugees] (requires Flash)
*[http://www.jamd.com/image/g/3066872 Refugees, Hamburg]
--[[User:Stor stark7|'''Stor stark7''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Stor stark7|'''Speak''']]</sup> 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:We don't know about the license of these pictures. But why don't you like the current one ? And why do we need a picture in the template at all ? --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

:What is the "Expulsion of Germans"? Why to discuss the details when the subject is fuzzy? The title has been manipulated by the accidental editor. It's a case of vandalism for me rather than the basis for any discussion. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 12:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

::Xx236, I'm not sure what do you mean. Please calm down :) and try to explain slowly ... --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of this (and several others) articles. The name ''Expulsion'' is biased. There was a series of migrations and forced migrations, which started in 1940. One cannot write about the ''Expulsion of Germans after World War II'' and use numbers of war victims or data about Soviet crimes in future GDR.

I have asked for help in [[:Template:The Holocaust]] and [[:Template:Warsaw Uprising]]. This Wikipedia has certain logic and certain rules a small group of biased authors won't rewrite it, I hope so.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 13:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


====General comments====
<!-- begin editcount box-->
*See [[User:Mvjs|Mvjs]]'s edit summary usage with [http://toolserver.org/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/rfa/edit_summary.cgi?user=Mvjs&lang=en mathbot's tool]. For the edit count, see the [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mvjs|talk page]].
<!-- end edit count box -->
{{#ifeq:Mvjs|Mvjs||<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">RfAs for this user:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mvjs}}</ul></div>}}
* Links for Mvjs: {{usercheck-short|Mvjs}}
*
----
----
<!-- IMPORTANT: Only registered Wikipedians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "general comments" and "discussion" sections. -->
''Please keep discussion constructive and [[Wikipedia:Civility|civil]]. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review [[Special:Contributions/Mvjs]] before commenting.''


====Discussion====
If I remember correctly, the [[German exodus from Eastern Europe]] is the general article in the series, and [[Expulsion of Germans after World War II]] is only one of the subarticles. Maybe the title of the template should be changed to reflect the structure. At the same time it would look less inflammatory then. What do you think ? --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Crimes agaianst German civilians and expulsions took place in Western Europe, too. Sudeten is situated in Central Europe. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 14:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, but at the same time, the exodus spanned over much longer period than WW2 only. --[[User:Lysy|Lysy]]<sup>[[User talk:Lysy|talk]]</sup> 14:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I would like to link the [[Portal_talk:Poland/Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#POV_template|other template-discussion]] at the [[Portal:Poland-related_Wikipedia_notice_board]].

As for whether [[German exodus from Eastern Europe]] or [[Expulsion of Germans after World War II]] should be considered to be the lead of the series, I chose the latter mainly for the reason that not all of the expulsions took place in ''Eastern'' Europe, and also for the reason that most of the "exodus" were expulsions.

The concerns about a bias in the term "Expulsion" (comment by Xx236) are hard to understand. Xx236 wrote: ''The name ''Expulsion'' is biased. There was a series of migrations and forced migrations, which started in 1940.'' In the 1940s, lots of Germans migrated to post-war Germany, some by force? Come on. "Forced migration" sounds a lot like "collateral damage" or "repatriation". [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 18:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:Yes, the word ''expulsion'' (Vertreibung) is politically motivated. Either all forced migrations are here expulsions or none. Millions of Germans were evacuted by German government, including prisoners and KZ-inmates. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 07:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't make a clear cut between the "evacuations" and the expulsions. I do not know the motivation behind your statements, but if one looks at your [[user:Xx236|userpage]] ... (Btw, "Polacken aufzumucken" does not make any sense in German).

Is it really that hard for you to accept that in the last 100 (or 1000) years not every German was an evil aggressor and not every Pole was a gentleman? If you ''really'' want to challenge the use of the term "expulsions", a new section would be more appropriate. Your crusade against the template (Poland board and here) starts to become a case of WP:Don't beat the dead horse. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 09:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

*This template breaks many rules of this Wikipedia, so it should me edited.
*This article uses fuzzy notions so it should be rewritten.
*This article contains a number of errors, so it should be rewritten.
*Don't threaten me and answer what I'm writing. I haven't written here anything about evil Germans or gentleman Poles, it's a lie.
*Please, no ''Ad personam'' comments here.
[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 13:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

== Not true ==

The sentence ''During the period of 1944/1945 - 1950, possibly as many as 14 million Germans were forced to flee or were expelled as a result of actions of the Red Army, civilian militias, and/or organized efforts of governments of the reconstituted states of Eastern Europe'' is false. Millions were evacuated by German government and partially not allowed to return - the rest didn't want to return. The number includes also German occupants, who returned to their homes, like Erika Steinbach's family.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 13:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

== there was persecution of "war children", technically that was not the same phenomenon as "expulsion" so I am removing this section ==

It's exactly what I haven been writing about since ages - some Germans impose their POV and it's commonly accepted because of language manipulations. The ''Vetreibung'' isn't a simple Expulsion, but a series of crimes against humanity, even genocides. But ''technically'' persecutions in Norway were different, so let's concentrate on bad Poles. When a child of German soldiers [[Erika Steinbach]] migrates to Germany, it's an Expulsion, when a child of German soldier [[Anni-Frid Lyngstad]] migrates to Sweden, it's not an expulsion. WOW![[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 13:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
We should change the title to ''Expulsion of Germans and crimes against Germans during and after WWII''. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 13:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:"''The expulsion of Germans after World War II refers to the forced migration and ethnic cleansing of German nationals (Reichsdeutsche) and ethnic Germans (Volksdeutsche) from Germany and parts of territory formerly claimed by Germany in the first three years after World War II."''

:* Was Norway part of Germany or claimed part of Germany?
:* Did a German minority (Volksdeutsche/Reichsdeutsche) exist in Norway?
:* Were German Civilians forced to leave Norway?
:* Was the expulsion of Germans from Norway mentioned in the[[ Potsdam Agreement]]?

Do you answer one of these questions with "Yes"? Maybe it's you trying to push your POV. [[Special:Contributions/84.139.207.194|84.139.207.194]] ([[User talk:84.139.207.194|talk]]) 14:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

*The children in Norway were persecuted because they were perceived as German. Is persecuting people without German citizenship different than persecuting people with such citizenship?
*I don't care if Germany claimed Poland to be German and there are many of us, except NPD members.
*The expulsion (?) of Germans from Czechoslovakia wan't mentioned in the Potsdam Agreement.
So maybe you push your POV?[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 15:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:"*The expulsion (?) of Germans from Czechoslovakia wasn't mentioned in the Potsdam Agreement." Xx236, do you just make these things up as you go along? Go back to school! The following is from the Potsdam Agreement (The Americans and British bought into their own legal fantasy concerning the word, "Orderly"):


XIII. ORDERLY TRANSFERS OF GERMAN POPULATIONS
The conference reached the following agreement on the removal of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary:

The three Governments having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agree that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.217.231|76.14.217.231]] ([[User talk:76.14.217.231|talk]]) 02:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Did the Agreement define ''Germans''? What were the [[Beneš decrees]] for?[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 09:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:Legalistically, "Germans"=All Germans <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.217.231|76.14.217.231]] ([[User talk:76.14.217.231|talk]]) 11:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

''Germans'' were either ''German citizens as of 1937'' or ''German citizens as of 1937 plus Sudetengerman''. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 11:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
:Not True!! The Allies used the Nazis' own definition of what constituted an ethnic German within Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Thus, ethnic Germans who had lived in those areas, and who had ancestors in those areas dating back hundreds of years were equally subject to expulsion, as were any ethnic Germans who had moved into those areas within a more recent (e.g. within the previous 5 to 10 years) time span. The ethnic Germans in the "Temporarily Administered" German territories (i.e., those territories outside the eventual 4 Allied Occupation zones of Germany. but within the internationally recognized 1937 boundaries of Germany) were likewise subject to so-called "orderly and humane" ethnic expulsion (a process which, according to the Potsdam Agreement, could achieve essentially a 100% ethnic German population removal). Accordingly, the Potsdam Agreement permitted a situation of not one ethnic German to remain east of the Oder-Neisse line (i.e., to as far east as the Border of the Soviet Union), nor south of the DDR & BRD border line with Czechoslovakia (nor east of the BRD border with Czechoslovakia). Note: Legalistically, the Potsdam Agreement permitted virtual 100% expulsion of anyone determined by "authorities" in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to be ethnically German. Of course, it is also legalistically understood that not necessarily all of those considered to be ethnically German by the authorities required expulsion i.e., it was up to the "authorities" to make the determination as to the extent of the expulsions. However, if in fact those authorities decided that 100% of the German ethnic population within their jurisdiction required expulsion, the Potsdam Agreement supported their decision. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.217.231|76.14.217.231]] ([[User talk:76.14.217.231|talk]]) 04:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> The "population transfers" (substance and procedures) authorized by the Potsdam Agreement in July 1945 were essentially and indirectly being declared as War Crimes (by extrapolation) several months later at the Nuremberg Trials, although the wider significance of that was only slowly realized over time. Note: the above doesn't go into details about such matters as Volksdeutsche as a general category; and, the various efforts at defining Volksliste, which had various applications, not all of which were compatible with the Volksdeutsche concept. Thus, the Allies, as stated above, left it up to the "authorities" of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to determine the extent of expulsions of ethnic Germans. Accordingly, any figure was acceptable, and any assigned percentage was acceptable, based upon the Potsdam Agreement. Apparently, a few German Jews were assigned German ethnicity by Polish authorities and were expelled. This happened in the years after World War 2, when a few German Jews attempted to return to such places as Breslau/Wroclaw. Obviously, there were very few German Jews who survived World War 2, and fewer still who sought to return to the "Polish Administered Territories", namely lands in Eastern Germany such as Silesia and Main Pommerania, which were within the 1937 German Boundary.

== Flight and expulsion after the defeat of Germany ==

The section doesn't inform even about basic facts - where, who, how many. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== Please, discuss before editing ==

This is the place to discuss changes. Radical editing during holidays may be regarded as POV pushing.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 12:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)~
:Holidays? Hmmm [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

''undertaken by the Polish Communist military authorities'' - misinformation. The decision was Soviet. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 12:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:added ref [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

''number of deaths attributable to the expulsions '' - flight and expulsion, not ''expulsion''. See German Wikipedia ''Im deutschen Sprachraum bezeichnet der Begriff in einem verengten Verständnis meist Ausweisung und Flucht deutschsprachiger Bevölkerung''. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 12:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

== poloniacentrist? ==

it's very much about Poland but very lacking on other area (CSR, Hungary,...) <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.164.233.39|84.164.233.39]] ([[User talk:84.164.233.39|talk]]) 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Reality Check==

Who says Churchill and Roosevelt cared about the Nazi voting record east of the Oder-Neisse line before World War 2??? All they were doing was ethnic cleansing in conjunction with Stalin, who wanted to move both the German and Polish borders west. At one time a U.S. Government map showed the Russian Zone of Occupied Germany as extending to the eastern frontiers of Silesia and Pommerania (& the connection between). Why is there such ignorance on these matters???? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.217.231|76.14.217.231]] ([[User talk:76.14.217.231|talk]]) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

WOuld you please use a more neutral language?[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 09:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:The Potsdam Agreement permitted a situation of not one ethnic German to remain east of the Oder-Neisse line (i.e., to as far east as the Border of the Soviet Union), nor south of the DDR & BRD border line with Czechoslovakia (nor east of the BRD border with Czechoslovakia). Note: Legalistically, the Potsdam Agreement permitted virtual 100% expulsion of anyone determined by "authorities" in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to be ethnically German. Of course, it is also legalistically understood that not necessarily all of those considered to be ethnically German by the authorities required expulsion i.e., it was up to the "authorities" to make the determination as to the extent of the expulsions. However, if in fact those authorities decided that 100% of the German ethnic population within their jurisdiction required expulsion, the Potsdam Agreement supported their decision. The "population transfers" (substance and procedures) authorized by the Potsdam Agreement in July 1945 were essentially and indirectly being declared as War Crimes (by extrapolation) several months later at the Nuremberg Trials, although the wider significance of that was only slowly realized over time. The Allies, as stated above, left it up to the "authorities" of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to determine the extent of expulsions of ethnic Germans. Accordingly, any figure was acceptable, and any assigned percentage (including 100%) was acceptable, based upon the Potsdam Agreement. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.240.177|76.14.240.177]] ([[User talk:76.14.240.177|talk]]) 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I have read recently a Polish article about Sudetengermans. According to it Czech historians admit that many anti-Nazi Germans were expelled after the war, even if Czechoslovak authorities had declared to allow them to stay. So the Czechoslovak government had a choice and was responsible for its actions. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 07:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Poland compensated for territories lost to the Soviet Union ==

"Poland lost 43 percent of its pre-war territory"
What percentage of the inhabitants of that 43 percent of pre-war territory were of Polish ethnicity? 24%?? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.217.231|76.14.217.231]] ([[User talk:76.14.217.231|talk]]) 11:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

As I have written several times - any speculations should be removed from this article. The agreements of US, SU and UK defined post-war Europe. Any ''compensation'' was pure propaganda.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 12:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

== Please discuss edits here ==

Any editing should make the text more readable. BTW - please register.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 09:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

== Please register and sign your texts ==

There are basic rules. Please learn them and obey them.[[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 07:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Roosevelt, German Collective Guilt, and the Expulsions (Yalta, Potsdam, etc.) ==

Franklin D. Roosevelt is quoted as saying that "We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can't just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.14.240.177|76.14.240.177]] ([[User talk:76.14.240.177|talk]]) 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Both Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that Germans should be sterilized in order to prevent future war.

Pleaswe register and sign your contributions. [[User:Xx236|Xx236]] ([[User talk:Xx236|talk]]) 09:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== View of a German minority as potentially troublesome ==

The following passage does not make sense: "There was an expressed fear of disloyalty of Germans in Silesia and Pomerania based on the Nazi activities of numbers of ethnic Germans during the war, and even after the end of the war." Comment: the Germans living within the provinces of Silesia and Main Pomerania (within the 1937 boundaries of Germany) were, by redundant definition, Germans, whose ancestors had lived in those areas since the early Middle Ages. The excerpted citation above implies that those Germans wouldn't be so-called loyal to Poland because a high percentage were supporters of Nazism. That is a disingenuous argument! The Polish administration of Silesia and Main Pommerania was, per the Potsdam Agreement, a "Temporary Administration". The Potsdam Agreement called for the expulsion of ethnic Germans from within the 1937 boundaries of Poland (repeat, Poland) up to the new border (Curzon Line) with the USSR.[[User:ANNRC|ANNRC]] ([[User talk:ANNRC|talk]]) 02:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC) It is instructive also to note that the Polish Temporarily Administered areas of Southern East Prussia and the Versailles Treaty defined Free City of Danzig were not addressed in the section entitled "View of a German minority as potentially troublesome".[[User:ANNRC|ANNRC]] ([[User talk:ANNRC|talk]]) 03:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Pomerania and Silesia here is related to Pomorze Gdanskie (Danzig Pommerania) and Górny Śląsk (Upper Silesia) within Polish borders. Maybe this should be clarified. [[User:Szopen|Szopen]] ([[User talk:Szopen|talk]]) 07:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Szopen, there is a problem in the use of "Pomerania" and "Silesia" in many wiki articles, as the corresponding Polish terms "Pomorze" and "Slask" primarily refer to the easternmost parts of these regions, whereas the western and central parts are adressed with "zachodnie" or "dolny" and "opole", respectively. I fixed that here by proper attributing and wikilinking the regions in question.

While doing so, I saw the argument "no party would agree with Germans remaining there due to their Selbstschutz etc activities" connected to these regions. Yet, Upper Silesia is afaik the only region where significant numbers of Germans were allowed to stay, although most had to "verify" as Poles und undergo Polonization. As it is put now, the factual outcome contradicts the point of the argumentation, any suggestions to solve that? [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 15:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== allies and collective guilt ==

I removed as a [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] that the allies agreed on collective guilt of Germans by allowing Germans to be expelled in the Potsdam Agreement. We should have a source that said so. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:How about the above referenced passages?: "Franklin D. Roosevelt is quoted as saying that 'We have got to be tough with Germany and I mean the German people not just the Nazis. We either have to castrate the German people or you have got to treat them in such a manner so they can't just go on reproducing people who want to continue the way they have in the past.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Both Churchill and Roosevelt agreed that Germans should be sterilized in order to prevent future war." If Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to the Germans' Collective Guilt, then your argument must be premised on Stalin not believing in the Collective Guilt of the Germans. Where, O Where, can I find such a humanitarian statement from Stalin?[[User:ANNRC|ANNRC]] ([[User talk:ANNRC|talk]]) 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Please provide the date(s) of such statement(s) from Stalin, since he likely could have been extremely humanitarian toward the Germans after the high 90s percentile of them from East Prussia, Main Pomerania, Eastern Brandenburg, & Silesia (namely those areas within 1937 Germany boundaries) had been ethnically cleansed and dumped into the 4 Occupation zones of rump Germany.[[User:ANNRC|ANNRC]] ([[User talk:ANNRC|talk]]) 20:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Isolated statements of however important persons do not satisfy [[WP:RS]]. Bring on a reliable source that says the western allies were committed to collective guilt of all Germans, then feel free to integrate that at the proper site and reference your statement. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== temporarily administered territory ==

I object using the word "temporarily", as it was used in the article, in context with former German territory placed under Polish and Soviet administration by the Potsdam Agreement. Although the P.A. did postpone the final settlement of these territories' status to a peace conference that never took place, we should use the term temporarily only in referring to this matter and not as a designation for these territories in broader contexts. I have removed the term from the article twice. (''Note: This was only one reason for the removals, the other ones are stated in the respective edit summaries'') [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 16:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
: I don't understand your terms "broader context". Are you saying that over the years the "temporary" status of the Polish (& Soviet) "Administration" of the eastern German provinces of East Prussia, Pomerania, Eastern Brandenburg, & Silesia (namely as they existed within the 1937 boundaries of Germany) magically went away because the Germans were mostly ethnically cleansed from those provinces & that by Britain, the U.S., etc. extending recognition to the People's Republic of Poland that that somehow removed the "Temporary" nature of the administration?? Please explain your position in terms of International Law.[[User:ANNRC|ANNRC]] ([[User talk:ANNRC|talk]]) 20:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The "temporary" status of the "territories placed under Polish/Soviet administration" is a construction made by politicians and lawyers to point out that a final settlement did not exist back then. As we all know, this state was not temporary, but it took both Poland and the USSR only a few years to establish a fait accompli (de facto ending the "temporary"), that was accepted by Germany in the respective border treaties (de jure ending the "temporary"). There was nothing magic about that. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:I would be interested in your assessment of the date frame for the "fait accompli". West German border treaties were years away from July/August 1945, unless you mean somehow that the 1949 created DDR was taking on the mantle of historical representative of the German Nation. In the early years following the P.A. there was an impression that the final settlement would allow some of the expelled Germans back into (some of/parts of) the territories from which they were expelled. This was a valid expectation under International Law. Are you saying that ethnic cleansing is its own "fait accompli"?[[User:ANNRC|ANNRC]] ([[User talk:ANNRC|talk]]) 21:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't give an exact "date frame" for that. The first fait accompli was made even before Potsdam when the areas on the Oder and Neisse eastern banks were cleansed of Germans to influence the P.A. decision (prevention of settling on a line further east). The next "fait accompli" was presented between about 1948 and 1950, when the expulsions of the Germans and the contemporary resettlement of Poles and others was de facto finished. The longer the "new" settlers lived in the "temporarily" administered territory, and with the next generations born there, the less "temporary" was the character of the Polish administration. Afaik West Germany finally dropped the term sometimes during Brandt's [[Ostpolitik]] in the seventies. Given that it is veeeeeery unlikely these territories will become a part of Germany again, it does not make sense at all to ''now'' adress them as temporarily Polish - the term was only used because the outcome was not clear immediately after the war, and there was a hope of return based on international law in the first post-war decades in W.Germany. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 08:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

== 4 Comments ==

1. Since the Temporary Polish Administered areas of the eastern German provinces of southern East Prussia, Main Pomerania, eastern Brandenburg, & Silesia (based upon the 1937 boundaries of Germany) were contingent upon the “final settlement” of the World War 2 Peace Treaty, those temporarily administrered territories were de facto not considered part of Poland at the time of the Potsdam Agreement (P.A.). Of course, it was assumed (re International Law) that the final Peace Treaty would make such determinations re which, if any, parts of those territories would be returned to Germany.

2. Accordingly, “Poland” in the following from the P.A. (“XIII. ORDERLY TRANSFERS OF GERMAN POPULATIONS The conference reached the following agreement on the removal of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary:”) could be considered as the land area of 1937 Poland up to the newly decided Polish eastern border, namely the Curzon Line. For consistency, assume the P.A. was also talking about the 1937 boundaries of Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

3. Where does it state in the following words that the transfers of German populations from the Temporarily Polish Administered areas of eastern Germany was authorized by the Potsdam Agreement? (“There should be a Provisional Government of National Unity recognised by all three powers, and that those Poles who were serving in British Army formations should be free to return to Poland. The provisional western border should be the Oder-Neisse line, parts of East Prussia and former free City of Danzig should be under Polish administration, but that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement.”)

4. Note: “Appeals” (in whatever form they are proffered) are not legal interpretations.[[User:ANNRC|ANNRC]] ([[User talk:ANNRC|talk]]) 00:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also Note: Per the Potsdam Agreement, Poland could have expelled all ethnic Germans from within the modified 1937 boundary of POLAND, as mentioned above, INTO the Polish Temporarily Adminstered eastern German provinces.[[User:ANNRC|ANNRC]] ([[User talk:ANNRC|talk]]) 00:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


*
reply to (1): see section above. It is legitimate to use the term Poland for both pre-war Poland and post-war Poland including her newly administered territories, because the latter became an integral part of Poland in the years following the Potsdam Agreement. The expulsion policies, authorities and measures were about the same, the former German territories did not have a special government (however a special ministry). That the new Western and Northern territories of PL had been only recently become Polish is stated in the article, a distinction is even made in the "Exp from Poland" section to address the circumstances that actually were different. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


=====Support=====
reply to (2): Look up scholary sources if this your interpretion of the P.A. is stated by a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], too. If not, it is a [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] and shall not be used here. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''Weak Support''' per [[WP:WTHN]]. This candidate is clearly eager and trying their best to improve the project and a quick look through the contribs reveal no major flaws. I do suggest using [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] ''all'' the time (Best to check the box in your preferences to force you to) though and to be a little bit more careful with {{tl|uw-vand4im}}, for example in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=244516460&oldid=244516422 this case] it was simple test-vandalism, nothing so grave it required to assume the bad faith needed for 4im warnings. But with some guidance, maybe by a senior admin (there was a proposal for something called [[WP:ADMENT]] some time ago, maybe we should put it to use?), I think this candidate can grow to be a good admin. '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #AC0000">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #1F3F53">Why</span>]]''' 07:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
#:Thanks very much for your comment and support. I attempt to use edit summaries all the time and have now, under your suggestion, enabled the blank edit summary prompt. Thanks for your guidance in regards to {{tl|uw-vand4im}} template. I used it today on two users editing [[Talk:Australia]] in which content that was not a simple editing test was added. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=244515622&oldid=244515185] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia&diff=244514295&oldid=244514193] It seems that exactly which of the three vandalisers ([[WP:SOCK]]?) was adding that content became unclear. I shall be more careful in exactly who I {{tl|uw-vand4im}} in the future. [[User:Mvjs|Mvjs]] ([[User talk:Mvjs|talk]]) 07:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''', excellent encyclopedia contributor. [[User:Giggy|Giggy]] ([[User talk:Giggy|talk]]) 09:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
#Australian Cabal support. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 10:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. He seems mature enough to warrant the tools, so why not? [[User:Blooded Edge|Blooded Edge]] ([[User talk:Blooded Edge|talk]]) 11:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''Weak support''' - Good contributor, not seeing that leaps out at me as being something to make me oppose. That said, if someone opposes with some new evidence, I will most likely change my stance. <font face="Trebuchet MS"><b>&mdash; [[User:Neurolysis|neuro]]</b><sup><i>[[User talk:Neurolysis|(talk)]]</i></sup></font> 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[WP:WTHN|Why the hell not?]] Good candidate, looks like a net positive. <font style="font:12px Harlow Solid Italic">[[User:Universal Cereal Bus|<font color=#00ffff>Special</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Universal Cereal Bus|<big><font color=#ff0000>K</font></big>]]([[User talk:Universal Cereal Bus|KoЯn flakes]])</small> 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


=====Oppose=====
reply to (3): At least the allies interpreted "their" P.A. to cover the expulsions from the former eastern Germany, and that is what matters. They agreed on quotas (how many expellies to which occupation zone) and provided the according infrastructure (though at a very minimal level). [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' (and I hate to be the first). Not enough experience. You want to participate in [[WP:AIV]], but you have '''no edits to that page whatsoever'''. 81 edits to the project space in total (12 of which are to this page) just isn't really enough. Regards, <font face="Century Schoolbook">'''[[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] ([[User talk:WilliamH|talk]])'''</font> 11:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
#:Thanks for your thoughts. I have attempted several times to list a user there - so I'm perfectly aware of the process but I find that the user has already been listed in the time it's taken me to submit the nomination. I would most certainly want to deepen my familiarisation with AIV before I jump head first into it. I have made several participations in [[WP:PER]] and [[WP:RM]] and dozens of participations in [[WP:CSD]]. I understand your concern but I wish to reassure you of my desire to learn and familiarise myself in any procedures that I am not currently fully acquainted with and I feel that my current experience is adequate to begin my adminship journey. I would be very enthusiastic in participating in the new admin mentoring programme or equivalent. [[User:Mvjs|Mvjs]] ([[User talk:Mvjs|talk]]) 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


=====Neutral=====
reply to the rest: This article is about what happened, and not about what could have happened. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
#

Revision as of 12:19, 11 October 2008

Mvjs

Voice your opinion (talk page) (5/1/0); Scheduled to end 06:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mvjs (talk · contribs) - I love Wikipedia. I think I could go as far as calling myself a Wikipedia adherent. My aim is to make Wikipedia the best it can possibly be and I believe that adminship is the next step in my Wikipedia journey. I hereby present a self nomination of Mvjs. I've been an editor since August 2006 but my active involvement in Wikipedia really didn't start till March this year. My primary contributions are (and probably always will be) in the mainspace with the vast majority of my edits being there. I believe thoroughly in consensus and consensus is what makes Wikipedia what it is and I utterly respect that. I've noticed a lack of administrators in the Australia-field and I think I can back up the hundreds of WP:AUSTRALIA members. I no doubt, as any user would, have had some learning at the beginning but I strongly believe that my Wikipedia skills, knowledge and ability have matured to the point of adminship.

I've been an active Twinklier and revert any vandalism I come across. I occasionally patrol new pages and recent changes. The admin tools would allow me to more effectively patrol these facilities. I intend to help out any new or established editors with anything, and utilise the administrator tools in anyway I can. I've been approached by numerous new editors and have attempted to help them wholeheartedly.

I would like to thank all the people who have guided me through the Wikipedia process and have taught me the ropes, particularly Bidgee and Michellecrisp whom I look up to immensely. I would be glad to take any advice on board and any suggestions are much appreciated. Cheers and thanks for considering me. Mvjs (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I plan to initially focus on five main areas. I intend to partake in the blocking of users that are obvious vandals at WP:AIV. It would be my aim to keep WP:PER under control, as there's quite a backlog developing there. In fact, it was my recent frustration with the edit protected action timeframe that has provoked me to look at adminship. After some initial teething, I've become quite acquainted with the WP:CSD process and would like to help out there, particularly with blatent image copyvios. I take Wikipedia's copyright policy extremely seriously. I would like to participate in WP:RPP to ensure this fantastic project is not tarnished. Lastly, I intend to help out at WP:RM as it seems to be usually underserved by admins. I've started and participated in a few requested moves, notably this one.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My proudest contribution so far has been the promotion of Melbourne Airport to good article status (additionally, it recently narrowly missed featured article promotion and is currently having an A-class review). I've also created around a dozen start and stub articles, lists and templates on more niche topics. These are listed on my user page. I undertook a significant cleanup of Xavier College which I am proud of. I intend to continue my mainspace contributions after adminship more than ever. The articles of Wikipedia are after all what makes this encyclopaedia what it is.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I have had several encounters with users and have dealt with them extremely successfully. I received a heated comment from someone and I responded calmly and the other editor calmed down and apologised. I've had some other minor encounters with editors in which I kept my cool and the situation has been resolved every time. I see no reason why this can't continue after adminship.
Optional question from Blooded Edge
4:: As an administrator, you will most probably come across rash users/IPs, who will not take kindly to reversions by yourself, for whatever the reason. Indeed, you may already have been in such situations before. I want to know what exactly your personal stance is on the cool down block. Wikipedia generally discourages admins from taking this course of action, due to the belief it only inflames the situation. However, there is still the small chance that the subject will indeed take the oppurtunity to review his/her actions, and may change his/her way of acting to something more appropriate. Assuming that Wikipedia had no clear policy on this, would you use such a block? Or wait until the IP/User simply becomes too irksome to ignore?
A: In almost all situations, I would not apply a cool down block. If a user is in the frame of mind to blatantly vandalise Wikipedia and is in need of a cool down, they are in most cases going to be rash, hasty and injudicious. In this state, blocking the user is just going to inflame the situation and cause the user to be even more disgruntled. I am certain that if in the above conflict the user had been blocked, he would get even more enraged that there was a conspiracy against the Government. I would much prefer to template the user with successive warnings about the edits he is making and eventually she/he will take a nap and regret the edits he/she had made. As happened with the above documented conflict, the user came back in apology asking how his edits can be better. This is a much better course of action. Mvjs (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Mvjs before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Weak Support per WP:WTHN. This candidate is clearly eager and trying their best to improve the project and a quick look through the contribs reveal no major flaws. I do suggest using edit summaries all the time (Best to check the box in your preferences to force you to) though and to be a little bit more careful with {{uw-vand4im}}, for example in this case it was simple test-vandalism, nothing so grave it required to assume the bad faith needed for 4im warnings. But with some guidance, maybe by a senior admin (there was a proposal for something called WP:ADMENT some time ago, maybe we should put it to use?), I think this candidate can grow to be a good admin. SoWhy 07:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for your comment and support. I attempt to use edit summaries all the time and have now, under your suggestion, enabled the blank edit summary prompt. Thanks for your guidance in regards to {{uw-vand4im}} template. I used it today on two users editing Talk:Australia in which content that was not a simple editing test was added. [1] [2] It seems that exactly which of the three vandalisers (WP:SOCK?) was adding that content became unclear. I shall be more careful in exactly who I {{uw-vand4im}} in the future. Mvjs (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support, excellent encyclopedia contributor. Giggy (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Australian Cabal support. Daniel (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. He seems mature enough to warrant the tools, so why not? Blooded Edge (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak support - Good contributor, not seeing that leaps out at me as being something to make me oppose. That said, if someone opposes with some new evidence, I will most likely change my stance. — neuro(talk) 11:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Why the hell not? Good candidate, looks like a net positive. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose (and I hate to be the first). Not enough experience. You want to participate in WP:AIV, but you have no edits to that page whatsoever. 81 edits to the project space in total (12 of which are to this page) just isn't really enough. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your thoughts. I have attempted several times to list a user there - so I'm perfectly aware of the process but I find that the user has already been listed in the time it's taken me to submit the nomination. I would most certainly want to deepen my familiarisation with AIV before I jump head first into it. I have made several participations in WP:PER and WP:RM and dozens of participations in WP:CSD. I understand your concern but I wish to reassure you of my desire to learn and familiarise myself in any procedures that I am not currently fully acquainted with and I feel that my current experience is adequate to begin my adminship journey. I would be very enthusiastic in participating in the new admin mentoring programme or equivalent. Mvjs (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944–1950)&oldid=244557000"