Image talk:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an image talk page on Wikipedia for an image located on Wikimedia Commons. The original image is located at commons:Image:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG

This map is misleading. The main problem is that there is no distinction between German speaking areas (green) and non-German speaking areas in borders of Germany (also green but different) Cautious 11:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Colours means:
  • Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet bis 1945:
    Das deutsche Sprachgebiet
    Der niederländische Sprachraum (der bis 1945 von der Wissenschaft überwiegend noch als Teil des deutschen Sprachraumes angesehen wurde) 172.176.185.148 18:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone please translate the description, this is the English language Wikipedia after all.

Well. using rusty school German, it is something like this.
  • Historical German language area until 1945:
    The German language area
    The Dutch language area (which until 1945 was by most scholars seen as part of the German linguistic area)

Stor stark7 16:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A tip: http://babelfish.altavista.com can be used to make a rough translation between a number of languages.

Contents

[edit] This map is disputable

  • May I ask why in the view of the author of the map the ethnic population of Germans remains unchanged from 1937 till 1945 ? Seems the author has ignored massive settlement of Germans into Poland after 1939 (estimated by some at over 1 million with certain number of hundreds of thousands). Can author explain why the same map is used for several different era's-1937, 1945 and WWII ignoring the fact of major population changes in WW2 ? Why doesn't the map show exact date as German population changed in very significant way during XX century in Central Europe ? Does the map present those Germans born in Poland or those who spoke German as mother language ? Second option would indicate he counts occupation in his map. The use of colours is very strange since it hardly shows significant populations of Poles in Silesia left after 1921.
  • And finally the map conflicts credible scholary data on German population.

For example-map of Poles before WW2 [1] clearly shows that German settlement isn't as widespread in Poland as the author has shown on the map. Another example, a list of Polish areas with German minority listed: http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg In 1921 Pomerania 1921-18 % of population is German Poznan 1921-16 % of population is German This numbers obviously don't support the map presented here where the impression is that in those areas Germans made up almost total majority. And in 1931: Pomerania 1931-9% % of population is German Poznan 1931-9 % of population is German Upper Silesia 1931- 6 % of population is German

  • Another data:

According to p.27 of the Reich Statistical Yearbook for 1941 the population of the territories annexed from Poland was as follows in June 1940: Province Ostpreussen: 994,092. Reichsgau Danzig-West-Preussen (not including Danzig): 1,487,452. Reichsgau Wartheland: 4,538,922. Prov. Schlesien: 2,603,550. General Gouvernment: 12,107,000 According to p.6 of "Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from East-Central Europe" Volume 1, (Bonn, 1954) the following was the German population of these areas when they were annexed from Poland in 1939: Polish Territories attached to the Provinz of Ostpreussen: 31,000. Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen: 210,000. Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Wartheland: 230,000. Eastern Upper Silesia: 238,000. Generalgouvernment: 80,000.

None of this sources or data support the vision of the author of the map. --Molobo 22:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This map is linked from Wikimedia!!!. I doubt that the author of it will even be aware of what is written here, as he is German. I suggest you ask your questions directly on his talk page, at de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Postmann_Michael --Stor stark7 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But was you who started to put it articles ? I am sorry but this is a problem on English Wiki, not German, and I am not fluent in Germany. This problem must be solved on English Wiki. Right now I am wondering why 530,000 Poles in German Silesia are barely noticable but 100,000 Germans in Pomorze are showed as dominating the region. --Molobo 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I used a publicly available map-image from wikimedia, that showed the historic german language area until 1945. Now you dispute the accuracy of this image, and start removing it from the english wikipedia articles that use it.

Fine. But I think you should at least make the effort to find out if it is in fact wrong or if the image is correct bu diskussing it with the author of the image. It is just as easy to write a question on the authors diskussion page as it is to write it on mine. Stor stark7 23:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC) It is just as easy to write a question on the authors diskussion page as it is to write it on mine. But I think you should at least make the effort to find out if it is in fact wrong I already know its wrong, since I have presented credible map of Poles and data on German population that contradicts this map. I do not speak German very well and it is not me that put that map on English Wiki. If you believe the map is correct feel free to adress issues and research I presented. As I said before the burden of proving that you are right falls on you not on people that find your edits disputable. --Molobo 23:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

    • The problem with the statistics given is that they are from elections -- the Polish Government during the inter-war years was notorious for supressing the Germans in Polish territory. Ameise -- chat 04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing map until source provided

The author of this map provided no source information at all for the data he is showing when he uploaded the image to Commons. Until that is provided, I am removing the image from the articles it is used in.

The relevant guideline from Wikipedia:Verifiability is: Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. Balcer 16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policy states: No original research

Now that sources have been provided, it is clear that this map was created by the author from diverse sources, and as such represents a perfect example of original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. That policy (Wikipedia:No original research) very explicitly states:

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

The map is obviously a synthesis of various published data, and hence fulfills these criteria, so it cannot be used. Balcer 14:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOR#Original_images

For the discussions that the map generated, se:

It is a synthesis of sorts, but this is clearly allowed, quote from one of the discussions above:

Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures and upload them [...] to illustrate articles. There are several reasons this is welcomed:
  • Pictures are generally used for illustration and do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR, or no original research, policy.
  • Due to copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role.
This states quite clearly that drawing your own maps is encouraged. Moreover, copyright law requires these drawings to be a synthesis of multiple sources, because otherwise it would still be copyright infringement.

-endquote. I make no statement as to the accuracy of the map, but I dissagree with Balcers statement that since it is a synthesis it can not be used. --Stor stark7 15:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a clear difference between snapping a few pictures or making some illustrative diagrams and then uploading them to Wikipedia, which is all well and good, versus carrying out an extensive work of synthesis from multiple sources to produce a map illustrating a highly controversial issue. The fact that a public domain map illustrating the issue in question might not be available does not, in my opinion, trump the WP:NOR policy in this case.
It is a simple fact that maps showing distribution of ethnicites or nationalities are often among the most controversial, and so it is precisely here that WP:NOR policy should be rigorously applied. Balcer 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions with author on Wiki Commons

There is also a discussion with the maps author on The maps talk-page at wikimedia commons --Stor stark7 15:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Image_talk%7EHistorisches_deutsches_Sprachgebiet.PNG_2279.html"