Talk:Georg Forster/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Fact move to talk, because of repeated rev. vandal. Johann Georg Adam Forster (November 26, 1754 - January 10, 1794) was a German botanical collector and artist. He was born near the Hanse city of Danzig (Mokry Dwór near Gdansk) in Prussia at the time of the government of Prince Elector Kurfürst Friedrich August II. Wettin. Georg Forster was the son of Johann Reinhold Forster of Dirschau in Prussia.

Hi, are you who I think you are? Welcome back, again. Space Cadet 20:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, reference to incorrect and unreliable wikipedia entries.

Who had the idea, that Forster had to do something with the Bounty mutiny. The year of the mutiny was 1789 - at this time Forster was professor (I think at Göttingen or librarian in Mainz.--Shug 22:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See german talk of William Bligh: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:William_Bligh
         Dietmar 9:22, 4 May 2004


Below is the translated fragment of Treaty of Torun II from 1466. The translation is my, but I tried to do it as literally as possible. You can check with the German or English version if you like: „The Land of Chelmno (Culmen) with its towns (...), the Land of Michalow with (...), as well as the all Land of Pomerania within its ancient borders with all castles, towns (...) will be property of King Casimir and KINGDOM OF POLAND”. And: „For the mentioned His Majesty the King and kings and Kingdom of Poland will belong (from now) for all times the castles and towns mentioned on the basis of this agreement, will belong to law, property and title of KINGDOM OF POLAND and should remain the property (of the KINGDOM) for ever.”

In 1466 it was annexed to Poland (Royal Prussia was not separate entity, it was part of kingdom of Poland - this are words of the treaty. Whoever was corwned king of Poland, automathically became duke of Masovia, Red Ruthenia, Prussia or whatever etc - it was just feudal titles. OTOH, there was separate ceremony to became grand duke of Lithuania (and then he automatically received more titles reserved to dukes of Lithuania). OK? Anyone who became king of Poland AUTOMATICALLY got title of Prussian duke since Royal Prussia was part of Polish kingdom.

Until 1525 or so Royal PRussia had very substantial authonomy: separate treasury for example, also many times envoys from Royal Prussia were not sitting in Polish parliament, despite having right to it. But in 1525 the differences in law and administration of Royal Prussia was finally (and other polish separatism) was removed. So, for the best you could claim that it was Prussian 1309-1525 (Ignoring the fact, that legally Royal Prussia was part of Polish kingdom - with substantial authonomy - in 1466).

Take for example grand duchy of Poznan. IIRC Prussian kings had the title of grand duke of Poznan, right? But that does not mean that Poznan was not part of Prussia kingdom.

So, it was Polish for some time before 1309 (no time to count: it would be to tedious, since there are times when it was Polish, then indirectly Polish, independent, again Polish etc etc etc) so it was not 300 years but say half of that amount at least then Prussian for 1466-1309 = 157 years, then authonomy part of Polish kingdom 1466-1525 = 59 years, then Polish 1525 - 17.. umm 1700 something, say 225 years for equal count, then Prussian to 1919 - say 170 years, then again Polish 19 years. So we have circa ~327 years of Prussian + 59 of authonomy, and circa ~400 years of Polish rule + 59 years when Royal Prussia was authonomous part of Polish kingdom. No matter how you turn the cat around you can still see his tail

P.S. Comment by User:Szopen. I did not want to duplicate the same arguments again.Yeti 11:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeti, please read the article Personal union and try to understand it. The king of Poland was king in Poland, but Grand Duke in Prussia (only in West Prussia of course). As to the concept of Personal union, Royal Prussia was never part of Poland. Some kings wanted it to become a part of Poland, but the West Prussian always rejected.
What would you think if I would fool around and declare everyone who was born in Congress Poland between 1815 and 1917 to be born in XXX, (Russia) ? --Irredenta 13:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly, personal union does not apply to Royal Prussia. I have given you strong FACTS that in 17th and 18th centuries Royal prussia was integral part of Poland (Greater Poland province). You continue your blah, blah. If you think that you are right, please give ARGUMENTS. Citation from original documents would be appreciated. Bye.Yeti 13:53, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Irredenta, you are not quite with agreement with facts. The 1525 unification of laws and administration between provinces of Royal Prussia and other Polish provinces were strongly opposed by kings and Prussian elites, but on the other hands they were storngly backed by Polish parliament and lower Prussian gentry (the deputes to Polish parliament were blackmailed, threatened etc by Prussian elites). The leaders of those Prussian elites were for example direct descendatns of emigrees from Greater Poland in second or third generation.
Royal Prussia was not in Personal union with Poland. You could find some arguments for that BEFORE 1525 (separate treasury, local parliament, spearate laws) but definetely not after 1525, when unification of laws etc was introduced. And even before 1525 it was still not tied with personal union, because it was province of Polish kingdom, property of Polish kings. The only way to became duke of Royal Prussia was to be elected king of Poland. Could you please provide any arguments for "it was in personal union with Poland", except of course of "it was, because i think it was". The arguments backing it would be:
  1. there had to be separate ceremony to became duke of Royal Prussia (but there wasn't !)
  2. there was separate treasury, army, parliament (two of those were existing BEFORE 1525)
  3. There was a treaty in which it is stated that Royal Prussia and POland will be tied by person of monarch only (but there wasn't any treaty between Royal Prussia and Poland!)
  4. There was not a treaty stating that Royal Prussia is simply annexed into Poland (but there was!)
  5. There were no common institutions between Poland and Royal Prussia (But there were!)
  6. Documents issued in Royal Prussia would be issued as "Duke of Prussia" and not as "King of Poland" - don't know over that, i guess if you search, you could find some before 1525 (damn, or was it 1569? I had to go to my library and find the exact date.. i tend to think it was the same year when UoL was signed and also unification of Duchy of Auschwitz took place), since Polish kings tried to preserve separate status of Royal Prussia against the will of executionist' movement


For you information, for example Poland and Lithuania were in personal union BEFORE UoL, after that it became something more; (the high point of achievements of Polish executionist's movement - when finally king agreed to most of proposed reforms - ironically, today it is HE who is credited for them, not people who were fighting for them for so long...)

I am not saying you are lying out of purpose or you were not reading enough history books, i rather prefer to think that maybe you know something we don't. If so, please write it, i am always very glad to learn something new. But i have some feeling that any try to prove that Royal Prussia was not part of Poland, especially AFTER 1525, are doomed to fail.

Anyway, i wonder what is your opinion of Grand Duchy of Poznan - which WAS tied in personal union with PRussia, since there are TREATIES which confirm it: do you think, that basing on that you could ignore later changes to legal system of Poznan and still claim that say in 1918 anyone born in Posen was in fact born in Polish Grand Duchy of Poznan? If no, could you please explain the differences between situation of Royal Prussia and Grand Duchy of Poznan which would explain your opinion? Szopen 07:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Szopen, let's abuse User_talk:John_Kenney#Conflict for this discussion, there is no sence in copying it over to half a dozen seperate pages. --Irredenta 15:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Anti-Polonism

  • "Despite being born in Poland, Forster expressed extreme antipolish views, and often insulted Poles in his writings, thus being one of the creators of antipolonism in Prussia".

Looks like someone doesn't want readers to know what he wrote about Poland. What did he write? Please cite reliable sources(WP:CITE).NightBeAsT

  • "Despite being born in Poland, Forster expressed extreme antipolish views, and often insulted Poles in his writings, thus being one of the creators of antipolonism in Prussia".

How many times did he insult? How many times did he not insult? Source required by someone who knows about all he has ever written in his life.NightBeAsT

  • "Despite being born in Poland, Forster expressed extreme antipolish views, and often insulted Poles in his writings, thus being one of the creators of antipolonism in Prussia".

Cite reliable sources. NightBeAsT 00:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Although I think you're exaggerating, requesting references for almost every single word. --Lysy (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Still looks like someone wants to gloss over something. What exactly does these "reliable sources" (you could have posted anything) say on his writings? Do it like this "[quotation]"(source, page, line).NightBeAsT 13:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
What is this about? You've offered references very quickly, Lysy. Not only did you provide "reliable sources" but you also named pages as if you really, really had a point and looked the references up. But: why have you not provided quotes so we can see that these sources came to the same conclusions as you did? This throws serious suspicion on you, dear contributor. If you or that Molobo delete {dubious} again without having the statements verified - and I doubt they can be verified because the "often" is opiniated because it's unlikely that someone has read all his sources - it is likely that you're not telling the truth here. I won't give in until you give quotes.NightBeAsT 16:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Quotes have been already given.Besides you always ignore and delete quotes if they don't suit you.The most absurd thing was your deletation of Bismarck speech explaining why he started Kulturkampf in the Kulturkampf article.--Molobo 16:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Quotes were given? Do you see any quotes or are you just lying again? And about deleting your quotes: tell the whole truth. Yes, if you mingle quotes with unreadable rant and put them on my talk page I'll delete them from my talk page just like Witkacy deletes all my comments from his. I said the quotes should be reworked. After you reworked them, I kept them on my talk page so what is your point beside libelling me by telling not the whole truth? And now on the subject of quotes: if you can find "reliable source" and pages alledgedly proving what you've said, why do you back out like a liar who has just been caught? This is a very obvious dispute and if you don't cooperate with other wikipedians there, I might like to forward this dispute because you won't stand a chance in this case, and I already know where a lot more neutral persons care about it. So choose: give in here or there.NightBeAsT 17:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Could you refrain from personal attacks ? Calling people "liars" is not going to help your case. As for the quote that Molobo gave, it was enough to follow the link he provided to see that it originated from a serious source. You might benefit by trying to read more instead of blindly reverting other editors. --Lysy (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Stop trying to distract from your failure to cover your quotes up. No one made personal attacks: no one said "liar". I asked whether Molobo was making false statements that he know are false (=to lie) eg calling my reverts vandalism. I know your aim is to try to change the topic because you weren't quite honest about these sources and what they stated and I know that your next comments will try to change the topic and so will Molobo.NightBeAsT 18:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Nightbeast, while I might be interested in your personal opinions, they do not qualify as encyclopedic sources. If you're questioning Forster's contribution to German anti-polonism, provide a single scholarly source that disputes this fact. Until you do this, I cannot treat your concerns seriously. --Lysy (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Am I going to your talk page, state there for example that "You're a bastard" and post three German sources as excuse and a page reference which have nothing to do with it all, and say on the talk page "I've posted sources now, so disprove them". It's just like at court: unguilty until proven guilty, so prove he's guilty or do without. No matter how you see it, you're not telling the truth and now prattling nonsense to cover it up.NightBeAsT 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Except of coruse the sources given and quotes are on topic.--Molobo 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A quote was given from "Black Legend of Poland" in which Forster compares Poles to cattle.--Molobo 17:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't justify more than the quote itself: it doesn't prove he "He expressed extreme antipolish views", nor that he was "one of the precursors of antipolonism in Prussia", nor that "He was also the author of German nationalistic "Polnische Wirtschaft" stereotype, the term that he coined in 1784" - all it proves that he has ONCE insulted Poles, which does not even justify the claim that he "often insulted Poles in his writings". And you, Molobo, and me, we know that this is so and that you're trying to cover up the truth when you play down the need for quotes there.NightBeAsT 18:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
NightBeast, although I personally sympathy with your view, my own experience with Lysy shows me that he is a serious editor, and not one who would go lying about his sources. I only wish more Polish editors would benefit from his example, instead of falling into a polono-centric POV so easily. National pride is commendable and worthy of respect, but it's a luxury that we cannot allow ourselves here. Frankly, I would also like to see the full context of the "quote" provided by Molubo, taken directly from Forster's book, instead of showing that other unknown person at some web page says he once said four selected words (an unreliable way of backing up an argument, IMHO). Yet, at least that website exists, so the proper way to contend these arguments should be with sources that contradict them. I'm sure there must exist books or essays that discuss the (alleged) anti-polonism of Forster, so it would be great to investigate the subject and bring them to attention here. Otherwise, this discussion is deemed to failure. Just my two cents.
BTW, I hope you all like my redesign of the article better. I tried to keep all the contents as integral as they were. - Shauri 18:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Link is already given to review of scientific book that includes summary of Forster views. --Molobo 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I know, Molombo, that's why I say that the website exists, and that's also the reason why I kept it at the article when I redesigned its layout. It is also the reason why I recommended NightBeast to provide sources of his own to contend it, instead of deleting the reference to it. What I said is that I'd personally prefer the quote to be taken from the original source rather than from a second hand one: the more intermediates, the more an idea can be distorted. That's especially true when the "quote" is not the center of the idea discussed by the source, but more like an incidental comment, and this is exactly the case. Personally, I consider it insufficient, and I wouldn't provide such an incomplete source to support my arguments; but hey, you're not me, and you're free to do what you want. - Shauri 12:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
You may well be right but the feeling that they're dishonest there and try to cover up something is very strong and the possibility of them only pretending to cover it someting up and then come up with evidence only to show that I've been wrong is little in my opinion. I've to go for today and hope that some others join this discussion and express their opinions on it.NightBeAsT 19:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Nightbeast, I apologize. I might have been overreacting, but I found your constant denial of facts quite irritating. I will not provide the quotes that you request because ... I do not have the sources at home. You've asked for the sources, I made bibliographical notes and provided them. I did not make notes for quoting the sources, as you did not request this. Now I'm not going to waste my time to look again for quotes only to satisfy your next request. It's your turn now - you have the sources that you asked for. If you consider them inadequate, please provide your specific concerns. I agree that Stasiewski's article may be questioned, as being influenced by Nazi ideology. But Krause's book and especially Bömelburg's article seem quite credible to me. If you have any specific objections, voice them but do not discredit sources only because they contradict your personal opinions. --Lysy (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh come on. "I found your constant denial of facts quite irritating", "I did not make notes for quoting the sources, as you did not request this", "I'm not going to waste my time to look again for quotes", "It's your turn now - you have the sources that you asked for" "do not discredit sources only because they contradict your personal opinions." Come on! I know the behaviour when someone is bluffing: look how long I've investigated the article about Anti-Polonism (Talk: Anti-Polonism). Let's just play with our cards on the table. All these "references" come from the Internet and pretend to prove your assertions in the wiki article but in reality are just references for and by other sources on the Internet: Reference No1, Reference No2, Reference No3", Reference No4. I don't know where your claims are from but they needed and still need reliable sources to be based on. I judged them {dubious} because they claim to be able to say how many times Forster has insulted Poles, which is absurd in my opinion - "often" is certainly too far-fetched. I'm not calling you a liar (sorry if I have given you this impression, Lysy) but a good bluffer. It's just that lately I've been very sick of these bluffers (eg on Kulturkampf, Anti-Polonism and everything else connected to the propagandistic contributions by Molobo and Witkacy). I'd be happy if you could rework that paragraph, Lysy, or anyone else (except for Molobo and Witkacy of course) who knows something about the case.NightBeAsT 12:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not able to say "how many times" since as I said I do not have access to the contents of the sources that I provided bibliographical references for. I also don't think that any source would respond to your question "now many times". I'm afraid I'm not able to contribute to the article more now. I've only added some more facts, most to them well known, and copyedited a bit. Hopefully you like it better now then before. I hope that Alx-pl will be able to improve it further, when he does his research for more online sources, so that we end up with more complete and balanced article. Thanks for not calling me a liar. --Lysy (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"it doesn't prove he "He expressed extreme antipolish views"" Of course.Calling Poles "cattle in human form" isn't antipolish at all.Nice. --Molobo 19:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually no, not necessarily. Anti-Polonism is defined as an "irrational fear or malicious hostility toward Poles", not "when someone has once insulted Poles as a whole". You can only speculate why Forster acted so - but don't speculate, Molobo, because your constant jumping to self-righteous conclusions on Talk: Anti-Polonism is already getting boring.NightBeAsT 12:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Constant deletion of the Gdansk voting notice

The Gdansk vote has created a rule which you are to follow, Witkacy and Space Cadet. I was not involved in the voting at all and you can cry about the outcome as long as you want to but the outcome is definite. Deleting the notice from the talk page is therefore Avoidance Vandalism. I don't know what reasons you have to delete it but if you've reasons you're not afraid to state, do it. Every pointless unexplained revert only undermines your credibility because it indicates vandalism. If you're really under the illusion that you're right, address Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion and the administrator who added the notice, and try to convince them there. Until then the administrator's decision is definite.NightBeAsT 16:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, that's one big mess... Admins don't determine policy, and article talk pages are an extremely dubious place to establish policy, too. What really amazes me is that there's more heated reverting of the notice, than of the article edit it's supposedly concerning. I'm not much bothered about the former, but the latter seems pretty obvious. Would anyone care to argue on it's supposed merits why the Polish-names only could possibly be superior? Or is anti-vote disruption the real goal here? At any rate, I'm replacing the previous wording, as I've seen no argument whatsoever for the new one. Alai 04:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
And while we're at this - shouldn't that notice apply to Royal Prussia too? The constant use of the name Gdansk at that article should be replaced by Danzig, since most of its related History falls in the 1308-1945 period described at the Vote Resolution. - Shauri 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed several articles like that, in fact. Unfortunately, I don't think the "notice" is helping; judging by results, it's a bit more like a red-bordered flag to a bull. It provokes an immediate edit war on the notice, too, and isn't generally regarded as enforceable. Better IMO to just make the appropriate edits, in the short term, and in the longer, to resolve the underlying dispute someplace where it can actually be seen to be in line with policy (and thus be able to modify it) -- i.e., at a naming conventions page. Alai 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Results on VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793

48 votes for using Gdańsk 47 votes for using Danzig [1] --Witkacy 13:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, actually, Witkacy, you *forgot* to tell us about the real outcome.
Results on VOTE: Period from 1466 to 1793
Votes for Danzig: 46 votes (excluding 1 vote due to low edit count of the voter)
Votes for Gdansk: 36 votes (excluding 12 votes due to low edit count of the voters or anonymous voting) (Talk:Gdansk/Vote).NightBeAsT 14:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Nassenhuben/Mokry Dwór reverts

Guys, does it really matter which name comes first ? Don't you have better things to do ? Anyway, what was the official name of the village in 1754. I believe it belonged to Poland at that time, right ? --Lysy (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the policy voted there: Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE: Biographies states that the German name should go first and both names should be mentioned at the first occurrence. Besides, I agree that this is a bit irrational as well as the vote for the period 1466 to 1793 is (where the bit is considerably larger). Alx-pl D 13:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Sincerely, I'm a bit confused. The voting concerned naming of Danzig/Gdańsk city. How do they apply to other cities and villages across wikipedia ? I don't intend to discuss here the sensibility of the voting outcome or whether voting or consensus is the proper way to establish a policy. I just don't see what this has to do with Nassenhuben/Mokry Dwór village here. If I read the results of the vote correctly, it says: "For Gdańsk, use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945", and does not mention anything about other towns or villages in Poland or elsewhere. Or am I missing something ... ? --Lysy (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Note that the message from the template above states:
For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) or Gdańsk (Danzig).
This means that the form which stays in accordance with this policy is Nassenhuben (now [[Mokry Dwór]], Poland) (as Forster identified himself rather with the German nation). Alx-pl D 16:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. This message however does not mention anything about the precedence of the names, it does not determine whether it should be mentioned as "Nassenhuben (Mokry Dwór)" or "Mokry Dwór (Nassenhuben)". Not that I think that the order matters here, but since the proponents of using the German name quote the template, they should read it carefully before applying it. Other than that I don't see how a vote on an article's talk page can influence other articles, unless it's an official wikipedia policy, which this one obviously is not (compare Wikipedia:How to create policy). --Lysy (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it does mention. The beginning of the paragraph from which the quote above comes from is:
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively.
Forster can be quite clearly regarded as a German person. Alx-pl D 20:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
But I was trying to avoid referring to Danzig/Gdańsk part, inapplicable here, where the order indeed is well defined but to "other locations", which is our case here. The message does not define the order for "other locations", therefore there's nothing to be applied to Nassenhuben/Mokry Dwór as far as the template is concerned. --Lysy (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I guess I understand the problem. The vote was for the following description from Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE: Biographies:
In biographies of clearly German persons, the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. In biographies of clearly Polish persons, the name should be used in the form Gdansk (Danzig) and later Gdansk exclusively. Persons controversial follow the guidelines according to the applicable period as decided above. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany.
This clearly connects the way Gdańsk should be written with the way other locations should. At the same time the description in the template above avoids the immediate connection between the two cases. In my opinion the description above decides, not the template text. Alx-pl D 21:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, for the sake of the compromise, let's take the template literally. We've assumed it overrides the official wikipedia policy on 3RR after all, so it must be a Very Important Template. OK ? Otherwise I'll start to argue that Forster was not Polish but Scottish, even if he spoke Polish. ;-) --Lysy (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense! A lot of votes were justified by the fact that Danzig existed as the name of the city in English language for centuries! Now, don't tell me that the same is true for Nassenhuben! If you want to extrapolate the results of the vote onto other cities - try Wilno, Mińsk and Lwów! Space Cadet 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, tell that to those people who voted. The summary at the top of the section Talk:Gdansk/Vote#VOTE: Biographies states clearly: Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany. It is not my opinion, by the way. And of course, Wilno, Mińsk, Lwów and even Lidzbark Warmiński do not share the period of history between Poland and Germany in the same way as Gdańsk does. Alx-pl D 17:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be consistent and what's good for shared German - Polish history should also be good for shared Polish - Ukrainian, - Belarusian and - Lithuanian histories. The vote itself was staged, results falsified and there was never a shadow of any consensus. Space Cadet 18:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

With all the respect, that's not the right place to discuss it. If you're not happy with the conduct of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, file an RfC about this. All I'm questioning here is how the result of the vote there is applicable to Georg Forster article, and to Nassenhuben/Mokry Dwór village in particular. This does not mean that I do not agree with you that WP should be consistent and follow its official policies, not individual vote results. Let's try to stay focused here on this article, however. --Lysy (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
This said, I should also mention, that for me the order "N/M-D" or "M-D/N" for the village name does not make any difference. I would only like to help ending this discussion in a civilised manner and allow us putting more effort in more productive work then edit wars. --Lysy (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, frankly, this is getting too picky. I have just re-added Nassenhuben, because it had been removed; but as long as both names are there, the order in which they appear is too minor an issue to be relevant. And I strongly agree with you, Lysy: if any users believe the Vote to be questionable, WP has provided us all with tools to discuss and solve situations like these. Use them, because that's the right thing to do, instead of going on a massive reverting spree and leaving us all in the same cul de sac. - Shauri 21:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Compromise?

This may seem silly, but I would like to suggest a compromise to end this topic. How about having:

Mokry Dwór (Nassenhuben in German), near Danzig (Gdańsk in Polish).

This way we would satisfy both the requirements of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, which defined the order in case of Gdańsk and at the same time the will to give precedence to then current (and now official) Polish name in case of Mokry Dwór, where Talk:Gdansk/Vote does not say anything about the order anyway. I already feel stupid writing so much only in order to solve such a stupid problem. Help me out, and accept it, everyone ! :-) --Lysy (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I do! I DO! Hurry, Lysy, post it like that NOW, and everbody leave it alone! :) - Shauri 21:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Brave idea. I endorse it. Alx-pl D 21:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll go with it, for now. Space Cadet 22:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks. Nightbeast ? Witkacy ? I know this solution leaves everyone a bit unhappy, but that's how a compromise works ...

Witkacy odsiaduje bana (I don't know how to say it in English). As far as the compromise - well, I'm a little bit unhappy because it's a compromise between common sense and mental laziness. Space Cadet 22:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I know it's not perfect and I'm not happy either, but let's assume that we all know it's a compromise version, so we don't need to criticize it. Thanks for supporting it. I was not aware about Witkacy being blocked. --Lysy (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I can assure you, Space Cadet, that actually I do not care about the naming at all, nor the city, nor Georg Forster. I came to the article by clicking on the link in the article on Anti-Polonism to check if this article, too, contained bias and nonsense. On the subject of the proposed naming: it sounds fair and as you all agree, take it as an
I agree.NightBeAsT 23:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Why the sudden personal outburst, NightBeAsT? I don't care about all those things, either. My only concern is logic and consistency, the so called "vote results" not satisfying neither. As far as bias and nonsense, you're the one bringing them here. Space Cadet 23:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The real persons that should approve here are you, Witkacy and Molobo because I don't mind the name - no matter what it is. You do. You've asked whether I agree when the ruling is taken into account and when everyone else agrees, as you've asked Witkacy, in other words as if I cared about the name, not Witkacy's behaviour. You're accusing me of bringing bias and nonsense here? Well, show me because that's just what I've been trying to eliminate. I've never cared about Witkacy until the reverted this. I've asked him to tell me why but he couldn't except for accusing me of German POV-pushing. Can you? You know, you guys do little to dispel the view of your edits as chauvinistically motivated propaganda. Anyway, have a good night.NightBeAsT 00:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like you have some personal issues with me. If so, I cordially invite you to my Talk page or you can even e-mail me. But lets not do the dirty laundry here OK? Space Cadet 01:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Mnh-mnh, I've no personal problem with you, only with Molobo's constant attempts of trying to tip any neutrality towards his views and rather unconvincing floods on talk pages, Witkacy's senseless revert-support for existing bias, and last but not least your senseless revert-support for Witkacy.NightBeAsT 11:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Example of bias and nonsense? Sure! How about your claim that in 1741 Gdansk was not part of Poland? Space Cadet 02:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Uh-huh, I knew you'd seize just that edit of mine. I didn't know who or when the city became whose - I told you I didn't care about the city as such. After a user explained it to me, I've insisted zero seconds on the claim since then. All in all it was one little edit based on a careless mistake, which in turn was based on indifference. How can you compare that with that resolute revert campaign against a ruling or any other Witkacy senseless reverting to some radical views that he's involved in?NightBeAsT 11:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Nightbeast, Space Cadet, do you really think that this discussion is useful here ? I know you can both go on forever, but Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Can you stop ? --Lysy (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, let me pass. Space Cadet 14:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks :-) --Lysy (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. It's perhaps a little asymmetrical, but not really illogical, to my mind. As Lysy says, there's nothing to say the German name shoukd come first in all cases, so giving precedence to the modern/Polish name seems pretty sensible. V/v for Gdansigk. And if it "gives everyone a little of what they want", all to the good. Alai 08:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Space Cadet, what happened ? Are we not able to keep the agreed compromise even on a single page ? --Lysy (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I sneaked in some common sense. Kosmonauta Pieszy

NPOV-section

This source suggests that Forster was also controversial for Germans, French and Englishmen so the current version of the section Biography is out of balance and thus POV. Alx-pl D 16:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well done. An online source hopefully will appeal to Nightbeast better than biographical references.
A Scotsman from origin, a Pole by birth, a cosmopolite by character – he never stayed long anywhere. The Poles could not forget the malicious saying – “polnische Wirtschaft”, the Germans couldn’t overlook the fact that he supported joining the Rhine region to France, the English people – the fact that he was a republican, and the French always considered him a foreigner.
The article currently mentions that Forster was expelled from Germany for his French sympathies and that he was famous of his anti-Polish statements. As for being considered a foreigner by French or a republican by English, I don't consider these serious enough to make it into the article. But feel free to add this if you think it would improve the balance. --Lysy (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to find more material with regard to this issue within a few days to resovle the NPOV mark. Alx-pl D 17:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Here is a short description of the Mainz Republic history in which Forster played a notable role 17:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Here is a description of the conflict between Cook and Forster (and Forster's father). 18:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Here is a thorough description of the Mainz affair 20:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This source states that the term Polnische Wirtschaft was mentioned in a private letter from 1784. 11:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Here is a fragment of another private letter of Froster from 1786 in which he expresses his negative attitude to Poles. 11:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm still working on NPOV of this article, please revert back the tag. Alx-pl D 00:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The heritage section is NPOV, as it does not contain the information which is conveyed in the German article. This information sheds an appropriate light on the character. I'll try to translate and adapt the information from the German article. Other contributors are welcome too. Alx-pl D 19:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Source for a sentence added by Molobo

despite the fact that both states persecuted Poles using stereotypes expressed by Forster.

I want this statement sourced and been given Molobo's personal interpretation. Does any article that writes on the subject of Georg Forster found it necessary to include it? NightBeAsT 20:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Poles as animals by Bismarck:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/cgjs/publications/hbpolgerpol.html

German anti-Slavism, which was often directed at the Poles, had prominent spokesman in the nineteenth century. In a letter in March 1861 to his sister Malwine, Bismarck, for example, expressed the Prussian-German attitude towards the Poles which turned out to be a blueprint for the future: "So clobbeth the Poles so that they despair; they have my deepest sympathy for their situation, but, if we want to exist, we have no choice but to wipe them out ('ausrotten'); the wolf cannot help it that he was created by God the way he is, but one shoots him yet, if one can."(11)--Molobo 21:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? I asked, "does any article that writes on the subject of Georg Forster found it necessary to include it?" NightBeAsT 21:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There are many articles on the fact that German attitude during both regimes towards Poles was that of treating them as inferior culture.And as you can see, in case of Bismarck as animals.There are aslo works on Forster that talk about his hatred towards Poles. I see no reason not to add the sentence to clarify that his antipolish attitudes weren't reason for the states reaction towards him.Why do you want to erase the information ? It seems you are interested more in erasing the information about persecution of Poles by German state...--Molobo 21:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to repeat that I don't want a personal interpretation. Just show me any article that writes on the subject of Georg Forster and found it necessary to include it. NightBeAsT 21:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to repeat that I don't want a personal interpretation. You believe its my personal interpretation that Prussia of Bismarck or Nazi Germany expressed ideas that Poles were inferior people ? Sorry for saying so but if this is what education on this topics looks like in Germany I am shocked. --Molobo 21:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It definetely is your personal interpretation to link Forster with said facts. As I say below, this article deals with Forster, not with Prussia nor the German Reich. Shauri smile! 2:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Molobo's latest edit summary

Gentleman, to your edit summary saying "oh Shauri.Claiming now that Prussia or German Reich didn't persecute Poles or held beliefs they were inferior people ? Restored information" while re-adding the phrase "despite the fact that both states persecuted Poles using stereotypes expressed by Forster"; it had nothing to do with your claim. Both regimes were clearly anti-Polish imho, and in the case of the III Reich, also in a criminal way. But that particular phrase in the context of this article has little objective, other than to add to the negative image that you so intensely try to present of Forster with an argument that is not central to the text itself and thus entirely POV. In case you haven't noticed, this article is about Forster, not about Prussia or the German Reich. So please, don't take the attempts to offer an encyclopedic view of the facts as an "anti-Polish bias", like you do 100% of the times when "anyone" shows you you're beating around the bush. Regards, Shauri smile! 01:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

But that particular phrase in the context of this article has little objective, Except that the current sentence may mislead that he was ostracised due to his views on Poles. --Molobo 12:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC) negative image that you so intensely try to present of Forster Wiki isn't for presenting POV Shauri.Words "Poles are cattle" speak for themselfs however, so I am surprised you believ there is need to present Forster in any way.

Ehem... did I actually remove the quote without knowing?... nope! I left it there all the time. Your POV deals with the linking of Forster with the actions of German governments, not with the quote of Forster itself. Don't selectively quote me, like you do with your sources. And if the sense that may be inferred from the current wording worries you, there are many NPOV ways to rephrase it. I suggest you come up with one, post it here and I'll be more than happy to collaborate with you on it. Shauri

In case you haven't noticed, this article is about Forster, not about Prussia or the German Reich. The article speaks about German Reich and Prussia without my edits.He also created stereotypes used by both countries.--Molobo 12:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your POV deals with the linking of Forster with the actions of German governments, not with the quote of Forster itself. Since the actions of German governments used the same slogans... Poles are cattle-Georg Foster "So clobbeth the Poles so that they despair; they have my deepest sympathy for their situation, but, if we want to exist, we have no choice but to wipe them out ('ausrotten'); the wolf cannot help it that he was created by God the way he is, but one shoots him yet, if one can." Otto von Bismarck "([Poles are) more animals than human beings. Joseph Goebbels --Molobo 15:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

New NPOV mark

The current content o biography section is very limited and very short compared to the other sections. It can be extended with the help of the German version or any other source that describes the life of Forster. Alx-pl D 19:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Footnotes

I realize that the footnotes in the section that show Forster's anti-Polish statements are there for a reason: the discussion on this page. However, there's too many of them and it is not clear to me that they are still attached to the right words (I hope my last edit didn't mess this up more than it already was). I would be pleased if somebody could go through them, remove some, and make sure they stand for what they're meant to stand for. This would make the article easier to edit and easier to read. -- Kusma (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Cosmopolitanism

It is important to mention that Forster was cosmopolitan in the eyes of his successors not in his own eyes. I don't know any source which says that he conciously considered himself to be cosmopolitan. Alx-pl D 14:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Influence of Forster's anti-Polish views on Bismarck and Hitler

Molobo and I are having a discussion about whether Bismarck and Hitler and the connection of their views to the writings of Forster should be included on this page. The following is copied from my talk page. Kusma (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits because I believe Bismarck and Hitler have no place in an article about Georg Forster

Both Bismarck and Hitler believed Poles to be animals. And as far as I know Forster was the first one to seed this belief into German society.If you know an earlier German author that believes that Poles are animals let me know.But you are right-the wording wasn't good enough.I think we should state"Georg Forster was one of the the first known German figures to classify Poles as animals.Such views were later presented by both Bismarck(compering them to wolves) and Hitler(who classified Poles as subhuman). What do you think ? --Molobo 00:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe Bismarck and Hitler have no place in an article about Georg Forster

This is not the opinion of the book The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945 by Michael Berleigh, Michael Burleigh, where Forster's beliefs about Poles are linked to Nazi ideology.[2]

Thanks for the book link! I will have to read a little more, but the snippet you link to is very interesting. Kusma (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Expanding on your suggestion: I would like to keep this to the section where we quote from the letters, and I could agree to adding a sentence "Forster was one of the first German scholars to use the disparaging comparison of Poles to animals. This kind of stereotyping was later used as a means of legitimization of Prussian rule over Poland. With the upcoming nationalism of the 19th century, these stereotypes found wider use among German scholars, and this "justification" of German "superiority" by other scholars culminated in Bismarck's comparison of Poles with wolves that one shoots and Hitler's depiction of Poles as subhuman." (This still needs copyediting; I just would like to make clear that there is not a direct link between Forster's views and Hitler's. While both hated Poles, I don't think they had much else in common). Anyway, if you have more on the history of these anti-Polish stereotypes and Forster's influence on them, I'll be interested. Kusma (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I think there are several issues here
  • Forster was brought up in Prussian-German culture which developed in strong political, cultural and economical tensions with Poland.
  • These tensions rised in strength at the end of 18th and in 19th century.
  • Forster intentionally or not intentionally took part in this cultural flow.
  • He definitely is an example of a highly educated person who used disparaging expressions to characterise Poles.
  • As he was a famous scientist and traveller all of his writings, including those with disparaging words, were eventually published. This is enough, IMHO, to mention him as one of the first people to write about Poles so bad and to mention him in the anti-Polonism context.
  • As he was condemned in Germany after his death, it is difficult to assess that his writings had strong direct influence on much of the German population, especially on those people who promoted strong national course in German politics. In this light, it is difficult to asses direct connection between Bismarck and Hitler on one hand and Forster on the other.
  • His writings might have indirect influence on people like Bismarck though.
  • One possible indirect influence is for instance the fact that some of the Forster's friends were important personae in German society of the 19th century.
In my opinion linking Forster with Bismarck and Hitler makes sense, but provided that
  • either a reasonable source is provided which says something that Bismarck or Hitler used a quotation from Forster (not similar or even the same phrase as such a phrase might be used as a popular saying in that nationally affected times),
  • or a reasonable source is provided that documents an indirect personal link similar to the one suggested above (or any other sensible strong indirect link; this means that pointing out a book that might have been read by both Bismarck and some friend of Forster is not a strong link).
If we cannot link Bismarck (and Hitler) with Forster in this kind of fashion then mentioning Bismarck (and Hitler) in the article about Forster makes more or less as much sense as mentioning Bismarck in the article about Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor (btw. both had the same given name and contributed strongly to making up of a new empire), or in the article about Edward the Confessor (btw. both were the first to take the post of the chancellor) Alx-pl D 20:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"He definitely is an example of a highly educated person who used disparaging expressions to characterise Poles." Disparaging expressions ? Let's keep things simple.Forster described Poles as animals.Bismarck and Hitler did the same.Thus there is nothing wrong in mentioning that he is one of the first German figures that claimed Poles were animals, followed later by Bismarck and Hitler. --Molobo 21:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The idea of Polish inferiority and the comparison of Poles to lowly animals has a long history between Forster and Bismarck, as the three pages accessible from the snippet at Google Books you linked to above clearly show. Omitting this history completely would be oversimplifying the matter. The short wording of this matter that you prefer sounds as if it suggests a direct link between Forster and Hitler, which I do not believe in. The analysis in the book you quoted above shows that while Forster may have been the first German intellectual to make (nowadays horrible-sounding) disparaging comments about Poles, but Reitemeier, Heffter, Menzel may have been more influential. Unfortunately the book doesn't really say how the influence of Forster's words was in this context, but just chronologically notes incidents of racist anti-Polonism in German historians and other academics without claiming any link between these incidents. Any mentioning of Hitler or Bismarck in this article should either be based on a verifiable link or at least make it clear that the link is very weak, and it is really a side remark in an article about Forster and not the central point (my suggestion above could serve as a basis for the writing of such a side remark). Kusma (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Who before Forster classified Poles as animals ? Until such person is found I believe we can easly add that he was one of the first German figures to classify Polish people as animals. As both Bismarck and Hitler believed this also and this view influenced their policies then I see no problem with following the sentence about Forster belief that Poles are animals that this view was later also repeated by Bismarck and Hitler. "nowadays horrible-sounding " Naming Poles animals and cattle wasn't horrible three centuries ago ?

The views on racism were different back then (I don't think the term racism even existed). Insulting people is always bad, but I don't think Forster's insults towards Poles were seen as horrible racism by the recipients of the letters. Also I don't see anywhere that Forster approved of the killing of people that he considered as less developed. Kusma (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"but just chronologically notes incidents of racist anti-Polonism in German historians and other academics" Yes, this also important. We should clearly mention Forsters racism before editing information about his claims that he wasn't one. --Molobo 01:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

He was not a racist in his public writings, contrary to some of the other people cited in that book. You are oversimplifying matters again. That some of his writings later became widely used racial and national stereotypes doesn't make the man a racist in itself. I don't think that the fact that he is nowadays mostly known as a cosmopolitan scientist than as a raging anti-Polonist is accidental: the science and cosmopolitanism were the by far bigger parts of his life, and it is unfortunate that some of his private remarks (if we assume good faith, we could guess they were made while he was angry at the Polish-Lithuanian authorities) had so wide circulation after his death. He did make these remarks, but the way you make him look like an open racist misses the point. (And your last remark misunderstands me completely, so I don't understand what you mean by "Yes"). Kusma (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"That some of his writings later became widely used racial and national stereotypes doesn't make the man a racist in itself." Claiming that a nation is not human in nature but that its people are animals, "cattle" isn't racists ? "You are oversimplifying matters again." I was only reacting to your observation that Forster's views were racists-from which you now have decided to retreat. Why ? "I don't think that the fact that he is nowadays mostly known as a cosmopolitan scientist than as a raging anti-Polonist is accidental" We can add information that his racists views aren't debated in Germany where he seems according to other edits a well liked figure(actually such distortions of image and ignoring idolised person's views that would destroy such image are common-I can give two more examples :Max Weber being another example of racists expressing anti-Polish views that are rather ignored for example,Claus von Stauffenberg stating that Poles are natural slaves in his private letters, yet regarded as hero in modern Germany). --Molobo 11:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Putting the label "racist" with its modern connotations on an 18th century person is not quite fair. As to my "retreat", I was more talking about the 19th and 20th century people quoted in that GoogleBooks link than about Forster. It was not Forster who made a thought system (an -ism) out of his private views and his unhappiness with the Poles he encountered, that happened later and some of the steps by which that happened are chronicled in that book. I am trying to find out when exactly Forster's diaries and letters were published and in which context they were then read, and how they influenced public opinion. You know, others' antipolonism might also have developed independently, or be influenced more strongly by other authors than Forster. (The book you quote doesn't make an explicit link between Forster and others). About people ignoring bad sides of historic people: of course people are often idolised and demonised, but modern historians still have to try to find the truth. About Stauffenberg: I am perfectly aware that he and many other members of the July 20 plot were against democracy, coming from aristocratic and monarchistic backgrounds and supporting Hitler for a long time until they saw that Hitler would lose the war. Portraying them as saints is wrong. Still, they were in a position to do something against Hitler, and they tried, and that is what they are honored for. They should not be demonised or be viewed as bad as Hans Frank. Please don't view a person solely on what they said about Poles: this is not an encyclopaedia of anti-Polish thought. Kusma (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"not an encyclopaedia of anti-Polish thought." Wikipedia is about every topic, and if somebody believed that a whole nation is made of ready slaves I think it deserves to be mentioned in article about him. "Putting the label "racist" with its modern connotations on an 18th century person is not quite fair" So in your opinion classifing a whole nation as "cattle" and denying that they are human isn't racist at all ? --Molobo 12:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

People (even famous ones) think and say many stupid or forbidden things. Whether every stupid things somebody said should be in an article about that person (and in which tone it should be written if it is in) depends on how this influences their actions and those of other people. To your other question: there is a difference between a 20th/21st century public person claiming that a nation is made up of animals and an 18th person saying so in an angry private letter. Labelling the latter with the loaded terms we use that make us think of the first is not fair. Our discussion is straying from how to improve the article, though, and maybe we should stop. Kusma (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

'there is a difference between a 20th/21st century public person claiming that a nation is made up of animals and an 18th person saying so in an angry private letter.' What is the difference ? After all Poles were discriminated on racial grounds by Prussia also in 18th century(I can give examples if you want). I fail to see why racism in 18th century is unimportant. Please explain why do you believe classifing Poles as animals isn't important to mention. People (even famous ones) think and say many stupid or forbidden things I don't intend to entry any stupid things-just enter information that gives a complete picture-somebody could find that information outside wiki and believe that such views constitute an integral part of image presented here and as such these views led to perceptions that you entered into article. Giving a complete picture is important-and as Forster even got two studies on his negative influence of Polish people in German society I don't understand your opposition to entering information that he viewed Poles as animals well before Bismarck or Hitler. Furthermore such information is valuable, because it shows that racism in Germany existed well before Bismarck or Hitler(or even better statement would be before XIX century ideologies) -an interesting information to anybody interested in history of German relations with its neighbours, and views of German personalities. --Molobo 14:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The article already has the information "he compared Poles to animals" and the links to references. As long as there is no proof of a connection to Hitler, Hitler should stay out of this article. I am still researching about the history of the anti-Polish stereotypes and Forster's influence on them. Kusma (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry but the article isn't about Hitler. As long as we don't find an earlier author its worth noting that Forster believed Poles to be animals long before Bismarck or Hitler. --Molobo 19:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I just checked and that is already noted in Anti-Polonism, where this discussion belongs. And you are right, this article isn't about Hitler and not connected to him, which is why he isn't mentioned here. Kusma (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

However Georg Forster expressed the view that Poles aren't human and are animals long before Hitler or Bismarck.Such information worthy of noting, if only to know the reader that such views weren't only the views of German nationalist but also thinkers now well regarded in German nor were they born in XIX century.--Molobo 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Molobo and his intent to "give a complete picture" are what matter here! Now seriously, verify he's a racist, Molobo, or yield the floor. In my eyes, a comparison to Hitler serves no purpose beyond being propaganda against Forster. In addition, "Racist" is marked in my OUP dictionary with "(disapproving)", to show its biassed usage. The fact that you're so eager to draw the Hitler-comparison and use a derogatory words to describe someone who had expressed himself against the nation that you belong to, can very easily be interpreted as vindictive pooh-poohing in the form of POV-pushing. Not that I accuse you but just so you know. In my opinion you're making a fuss of it. NightBeAsT 19:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So you believe there is nothing racist or wrong in naming Poles as animals, and people naming Poles cattle certainly aren't racists ? Thank you for showing your opinion NB, nothing new though to me since you believe Germanisation attempts against Poles should be viewed as neutral, and didn't you deleted information on Nazi atrocities as well? --Molobo 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

" verify he's a racist, Molobo" Poles are cattle-Georg Forster. --Molobo 20:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


I only repeat scholary sources that show Forster's influence on racisim in Germany:


The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945 by Michael Berleigh, Michael Burleigh - History - 1991 [3] "stereotypes(...)imbued with racists aspects" "An example of this is "Polnische Wirtschaft"(...)First used by German Jacobin Georg Forster". "crticism of the Polish people as a whole". --Molobo 20:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, once having used an insulting term against Poles is a strange definition of racism, innit? And since when can't people change their opinions? Since when do people always mean what they say? Since when can you look into mine and Forster's mind? I didn't say there was nothing wrong or racist in what Forster had said, only that you can say whatever you like, but when you want it in Wikipedia, there's WP:NPOV and WP:V to consider. His alleged racism is your personal invention and even in the jungle called Internet I cannot find a comparison between Forster and Hitler. Cry about Wikipedia not being supposed as means of revenge and executor of personal vendettas if you like and try to defame me just like you seemingly like to defame Forster. Innocent until proven guilty is a good rule. But it's the two aforementioned rules that practically 'close your thread', Molobo. Now have the last word so you can sleep at night ;) Good night. NightBeAsT 20:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, once having used an insulting term against Poles is a strange definition of racism, innit? It seems that Forster used insulting terms so many times that several books on German racisim use him as example of such thinking. 'Since when do people always mean what they say?' If you have different interpretation by scholary works on his words be my guest and present it.

Racism is your personal invention "The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945" Nope-its in books about Forster-including The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945 which does write about Forster in the context of Third Reich racial ideologies...Btw the term he invented(about Polish economy) was used by Nazis... And I am afraid I didn't write that book. --Molobo 20:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

I'll make an opinion poll concerning the issues:

  • should the article mention Bismarck,
  • should the article mention Hitler,
  • should the article mention explicitely the phrases cattle in human form,
  • should the article mention explicitely information that Forster compared Poles to animals.

I understand that it is beyond the dispute that the article should mention that Forster, as probably first so highly educated person in German society, used in his writings strongly disparaging expressions towards Poles. The opinion poll should start with the beginning of the New Year. For the time being I propose to cease the fire and to collect arguments to convince third parties to various options here. I'll come back with exact format of the poll next week. Alx-pl D 21:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we mention that Forster did compare Poles to animals ? Unless that is untrue it should ne mentioned.We got at least one scholary source that studies these views.We got several sources which connect Forster with racism in Germany.Showing only some of his views, while detailing others seems to indicate POV pushing. In order to be neutral the article has to include all views of the character-including research that exposes Forster's racist views of Poles. --Molobo 12:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is how particular we should be in the descriptions. As we cannot get to terms with ourselves which is the proper description we have to reach for a wider audience to assess the matters and where the neutral description of the person lays. A well designed poll should give the answer where is the line. That's why I propose to make one. You will have a chance to verify your points and formulations against a wider audience. Others too. We have to only focus ourselves to give other people fair chances to understand the point and properly assess the merits of the problem. Alx-pl D 13:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote page created

I created a page Georg Forster/Vote with a proposal of the vote. I would like to ask all contributors here the bring their opinions on the poll construction and arguments in favour of particular options. I strongly suggest to provide concise descriptions of arguments. I plan to start the poll in the first week of 2006. Alx-pl D 20:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Please do not go through with this. The matter should be considered by re-wording, making sub-pages and providing sufficient references. If there are important and/or many references which mention Hitler when discussing Forster then the answer is yes. Outsiders to this debate will not be helpful since we cannot judge until we read a large proportion of the references. That will include most of the people who vote. "Wikipedia is not a democracy"Mozzerati 20:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I know it's not democracy. I admit polls only in cases that amount to what's a good taste not content. In this case various reformulations have been tried and NPOV tag hangs here already since September, 2nd. As the content of the article reached the level of its featured counterparts on other wikipedias, it seems that the NPOV dispute should also be somehow concluded. If you or other contributors can find a formulation that is acceptable by all around then I'll be more than happy to retreat from the poll proposal. Alx-pl D 21:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the prehistory of this dispute (I'm only following this since November), but I have just checked the edits since July. Apart from a couple of revert wars about the names to be used for Nassenhuben and Gdansk and the nationality of Forster, here's my short form of what happened: The information about Forster hating Poles was inserted by Molobo here: [4]. After some controversy about this, references were later added by Lysy, with an anon and Nightbeast claiming they were dubious. Later, Alx-pl gave (on talk) this [5] source of a 1783 letter of Forster to Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, which actually contains the contested term "Lastvieh in Menschengestalt" (beasts of burden in human form; but not "cattle in human form"). I will comment on my understanding of this letter later (in short: it criticises the Polish state and leaders etc., and actually pities the Polish peasants), and I will translate it as good as I can (tomorrow). The actual content of the letter was widely ignored here (well, maybe because it is in German), and some more editing was done where the view on this issue was more like "Forster was a racist" or like "He was not". All the while, Alx-pl translated most of the article from the German, while Molobo and I squabbled about Bismarck and Hitler, with none of us having looked at primary sources. I would recommend we all look at primary sources first before we decide whether we have anything to vote about, and check the references that Lysy has provided so we see how Forster's words were understood later. Kusma (討論) 06:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I will comment on my understanding of this letter later (in short: it criticises the Polish state and leaders etc., and actually pities the Polish peasants And what is new ? I already gave you a link to scholary book exposing views of Forster in context of German racism, where the author clearly writes that Forsters views expanded upon whole Polish nation, the book mentions this in the context of Nazism and Hitler btw.It is simply not the case of one later also-Forster's antipolish stance has become subject of several studies. --Molobo 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

As to the poll-nope I don't think it is a good idea-a poll can't determine historic facts.The only thing that should interest us is if Forster indeed said such things-and nothing seems to indicate he hasn't.The fact that his racist views on Poles have become subject of several studies is also worth adding to the article. --Molobo 07:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I also don't see what is the actual problem. Forster statements-a fact, nobody disputes. Mentioning Forster in context of German racisim towards Poles in scholary resources-I can give at least three scholary works that do that. Mentioning the fact that he compered Poles to animals before Bismarck or Hitler-I don't see anybody disputing the fact that he did.

So we don't have any disputed facts. It seem rather an attempt to downplay his racism, in order to preserve an different view of the man, that ignores his other views.As this also ignores scholary work which not only notes Forster's views on Poles, but also studies it, such attitude isn't justifable.There is work on Forster's racism, his views are studied in this context, and trying to hide them seems akward(especially in the context that they are regulary mentioned by scholary works on the subject of German racism towards Poles). --Molobo 08:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the point of Kusma that the sources should be examined before the vote will take place. That's why the date of the start of the poll is so long in the future. In case there will be needed more time, I think the date should be shifted.
As for the points of Molobo, nobody disputes the facts. We dispute the formulation. You insist on being explicit about mentioning the actual quotations, and linking Forster with Bismarck and Hitler. I insist on being less explicit about that. Your argument is that it is the fact, my argument is that there are zilions of facts about Forster that are completely omited from the article or described in general terms instead of the exact quotations from him. I can enumerate just 10:
  1. His attitude to the religion.
  2. His attitude to cartography.
  3. His attitude to peasants.
  4. His attitude to mariners.
  5. What were the particular reasons for conflicts between Forsters and Cook's officers?
  6. What parts of A Voyage round the World the admiralty tried to cenzor?
  7. What was the literary style of Forster's English language prose?
  8. What improvements to Wilno University did Forster bring?
  9. How did he manage to describe the Bounty expedition without being its member?
  10. What were the reasons that his marriage was unhappy?
Besides there is an account of his anti-Polish attitudes in the article and I have nothing against mentionig that he used in his private writings disparaging terms towards Poles and that he was probably the first one so highly educated person for which such words were printed (this probably happened without his consent, but we can omit this information). I have also nothing against making clear links to publications that present his attitudes of this kind. A sentence that he is used as one of examples of anti-Polonism is also OK. All this is welcome, but linking him directly to Bismarck and Hitler (without explicit evidence of direct impact of Forster on them) is just making ideological hints which should be absent from wikipedia. Again, indirect influence is beyond dispute, but similarly Bismarck and Hitler were under indirect influence of Maximilien Robespierre, and they are not mentioned in the article about him. Alx-pl D 09:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

my argument is that there are zilions of facts about Forster that are completely omited from the article or described in general terms instead of the exact quotations from him Nobody stops you from entering any information about other aspects of Forster's life. You insist on being explicit about mentioning the actual quotations, and linking Forster with Bismarck and Hitler Where do I link him with Hitler or Bismarck ? I only give correct information that Forster believed Poles to be animals long before Bismarck or Hitler expressed those views. is just making ideological hints And what kind of ideology is there in such correct formulation that Forster believed Poles to be animals before Bismarck or Hitler ? What was the ideology of authors which put Forster in context of German racisim ? I insist on being less explicit about that. What is wrong with presenting quotes of Forster ? Did he not write such quotes ? No, he did write them. Are they unimportant ? Again no, as several authors and books on German racism mention Forster in this context.So I do think that it is correct to give their exact quotes, and in the same context of antipolish stereotypes and racism in Germany-if reputable scholars can do that why should Wiki be without this information ? but similarly Bismarck and Hitler were under indirect influence of Maximilien Robespierre Did Robespierre compared Poles to animals ? Also Forster is known for his antipolish stance and many sources use him to present an example of antipolish steretypes.So you gave a wrong example. And at last-the poll-this is an akward idea.Many historical facts are opposed by people holding views that would be disturbed by mentioning them.What settles a historic dispute aren't personal views, desires, but scholary sources and facts.For example majority of editors in article German 4th Panzer Division opposed emotionaly mentioning atrocities committed by the division-what settled the dispute ware historical facts and scholary works, not a poll, which could have ended with the article devoid of important information.So a poll is just a confirmation of the opinion, the view of the public, it does not confirm or deny historical facts. --Molobo 10:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

--Molobo 10:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Where do I link him with Hitler or Bismarck - the statement you introduced to the article Forster believed Poles to be animals long before Bismarck or Hitler is a link between Forster and Hitler with Bismarck.
  • And what kind of ideology is there in such correct formulation - nationalist ideology can be suspected, because this concerns the relations between Polish and German people.
  • What was the ideology of authors which put Forster - I don't know, I don't assume any.
  • Did he not write such quotes - He also wrote several books that contained hundreds of pages. What's wrong in quoting them all in full here in the article?
  • why should Wiki be without this information - Because wikipedia srives for finding balance in presentation while the scholary authors strive for presentation of their claims. And IMHO it is enough to just state that his opinions on Poles were strongly negative+provide sources instead of just making explicit quotations on that, because these were marginal for the person IMHO (only private communication was involved which got into public probably without Forster's concious consent).
  • Did Robespierre compared Poles to animals - no he did not, but he for instance introduced reign of terror which ended up in killing of many people which is much stronger link with Hitler than the one you try to impose on Forster. You really try to slip in characters of strong historical and ideological stamp to article where they are less relevant than in case of for instance Maximilien Robespierre and thousends of other people. This looks like a standard device used by ideological writers of different kinds.
  • Also Forster is known for his antipolish stance - this is not questioned and it has its way to the article.
  • So a poll is just a confirmation of the opinion, the view of the public, it does not confirm or deny historical facts. - exactly, I'm not going to use it to confirm/deny facts, but to asses whether the current level of detail in this article allows to mention some facts whereas other ones are omitted due to the lack of good enough sources or because the article should not be too long, and to get the idea where the common feeling about the neutrality lays. Maybe I am wrong with my position. The poll shoul clarify that.
Alx-pl D 13:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Where do I link him with Hitler or Bismarck - the statement you introduced to the article Forster believed Poles to be animals long before Bismarck or Hitler is a link between Forster and Hitler with Bismarck. Did Forster described Poles as animals ? Yes. Did Bismarck and Hitler did the same ? Yes. Is there research, books that show Forster comments when dealing with topic of racism in Germany ? Yes. So what seems the be the problem Alx ? ideology can be suspected, because this concerns the relations between Polish and German people. Indeed attempts to hide and exposed other attributes of Forster, to downplay his remarks could be considered an nationalistic attempt to whitewash a German researcher, however I didn't formulated such accusations against other using, assuming good faith in their edits. - Because wikipedia srives for finding balance In what way are these researches not neutral  ? Because they research Forster's views in terms of his attitude to Poles ? Conducting research on topic doesn't make the research automatically biased. And IMHO it is enough to just state that his opinions on Poles were strongly negative+provide sources instead of just making explicit quotations on that, because these were marginal for the person And in my opinion and experience its better to serve with direct evidence of his quotes-as most mentions of racist views from German personalities, atrocities comitted by German forces etc, are being regularly disputed by many Wiki users, giving direct quotes instead of hinting something will help to avoid such problem.Quotes are regular feature on Wiki, and won't take too much space or distort the structure of the article.Of course many probably will become disturbed that Forster had such views, but our work is to provide reliable resource, even if it contradicts certain stereotypes. You really try to slip in characters of strong historical and ideological stamp Please point to any ideology present in my edit of Forster article. It seems you hold certain personal views of my person-this site is for discussion on the article, not what you think about me.

but to asses whether the current level of detail in this article allows to mention some facts If you feel article is incomplete add information, instead of trying to erase contribution of others. As to the rest -it seems that poll is unneccessary-you can ask concern parties on their talk pages.Similary as I argued before-making polls about what information should be erased because of personal views of users, instead of following scholary research in that subject seems like very destructive idea. --Molobo 14:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Where do I link him with Hitler or Bismarck - the right question is: is there a research book that provides an immediate link like this - Forster wrote A, Bismarck read the book of Forster that said A, so Forster had a direct impact on Bismarck views. If there is one out there which has this kind of reasoning then there is no problem in mentioning Forster together with Bismarck. If there are positions which say "Forster wrote A", and a few pages further "Bismarck said A", it is not enough to mention the two people together as there are milion people around which said many things in the same way as Forster did. This is the problem which I try to present. You did not address this and keep on insisting that mentioning Bismarck and Hitler is crucial.
  • I didn't formulated such accusations - I didn't either.
  • In what way are these researches not neutral - I don't claim the researchers are not neutral. I only claim that they were occupied with particular topics and mentioning too much of a certain bunch of facts can be considered non neutral.
  • giving direct quotes instead of hinting something will help to avoid such problem - or will extend the debate like in this case. In my opinion it is important to give the interested readers information of the issue and a chance to look at the sources and decide themselves. In this light it is OK to state that he used harsh words to describe Poles and provide a link to a source. Everybody intrigued with this issue will be able to use the opportunity and research the issue him/herself more thoroughly at will. This approach is suggested here: WP:NPOV#Another example.
  • If you feel article is incomplete add information - I don't think the article is incomplete. I only think that being too emotional on this issues makes the article out of NPOV.
  • Please point to any ideology present in my edit of Forster article. - you can present the information about Forster without referring to emotional rhethoric devices. Instead you use expressions which are commonly perceived as sparking strong emotions. In particular you are trying to introduce a link between Froster and Bismarck with Hitler (and these persons always wake up strong emotions), and instead of information that Forster used humiliating words towards Poles you prefer to introduce more emotionally charged explicit quotations like cattle in human form (and it turns out after a while that in fact this is a misquotation). These are the discourse devices commonly used in ideological speech - waking up strong emotions, changing a little bit formulations to conform to certain objectives, devoiding something from the original context so that it sounds more appealing. That's all. I only argue to get rid of that emotional rhethoric and provide a description that conveys the same content.
  • scholary research in that subject seems like very destructive idea. - I think all the scholary sources that you have found should be mentioned in the bibliography section and the paragraph which describes Forster attitude towards Poles should appropriately point to them. What's destructive about that?
Alx-pl D 16:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Info

This may be interestin for editors here. Alx-pl D 20:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bömelburg article: translation of some quotations

Bömelburg's article (see the references) puts Forster's writings on Poles into context, especially the unhappy times he had in Wilno. However, it is critical of Forster in showing some rather bad quotations from his letters. The article starts with the following one, which can be read as "Poles are just animals". I would prefer to read it as "Poles are as dirty/unhygienic as animals", and I believe that is the intention. The context is a private letter to his future wife (translated by me):

Whole sheets of paper would not suffice to give you an impression of what is called polnische Wirtschaft in the neighboring German regions. [...] The Poles are innately swine, the lords as well as the servants: everybody goes poorly dressed, especially the female sex; if they do dress up, it fits like a golden necklace fits a sow. Of course there are exceptions; I am talking of the general rule. [...] The Polish nobility itself is something completely despicable. The countesses are combing sauf le respect their lice out of the windows. Knights of the order of Stanislaus sneeze into their bare hands at the assembly of the prince-bishop, and noble moustaches with sabres at their side are wearing straw instead of socks in their boots, or at least that is what Madame Przesiecka told me.
(Forster to Therese Heyne, 22-24 January 1785).

Bömelburg contrasts this with the following quote (also translated by me):

It deserves special attention that this comprehensive description of the Polish conditions comes from the pen of a man who knew the most different people of the world like hardly anybody else in the late 18th century. Georg Forster, who had sailed around the world with James Cook and had noted the characteristics of every people with scientific accuracy, has with his excellent characterisation given us a vivid description of the polnische Wirtschaft at the end of the 18th century. [...] In any case this use makes it clear that the German neighbors were making a difference between their own living and culture and the polnische Wirtschaft, and that they had clearly realised the superiority of German culture over the Polish culture.
(Bernhard Stasiewski: "Polnische Wirtschaft" und Georg Forster, eine wortgeschichtliche Studie. In: Deutsche Wissenschaftliche Zeitung im Wartheland 2 (1941), 207-216)).

Bömelburg says that the "Polnische Wirtschaft" stereotype was not invented by Forster, but associated with him during the Nazi era by people such as Stasiewski. Forster's letters and diaries were published 30 years after his death, and not put into the context of his personal conditions while he was in Wilno (he had bad prejudices before he went, and did not find friends there). The anti-Polish quotations (taken out of context; Forster also said good things about Poles) were then used, especially after 1870, to strengthen feelings of German superiority. Since Forster was otherwise known (from his published books) as an excellent and impartial observer of people, his emotional outbursts in his letters were taken at face value and as accurate description of Poland by readers who already wanted to believe in the inferiority of everything Polish. Even in the Nazi era, people tried to use his stainless reputation as an ethnologist together with his insulting emotional letters to "prove" German superiority.

I do not yet know how to make a good and short paragraph out of the above observations (which somehow became a mix of paraphrasing Bömelburg and my own interpretation, for which I apologize). It seems clear that Forster's words on Poles did have some influence, as they were used as "proof" by anti-Polonists, so it is also clear that something should be written in the article. However, the simplifying manner in which these things were put by Molobo does not do Forster justice (especially the "comparison with animals" thing is far more subtle). Anyway, here is a suggestion:

In contrast to the attitude expressed in these writings and to his Enlightenment background, he used insulting terms against Poles in his private letters during his stay in Wilno, but he never published any manifestation of such contempt. Said insults only became known after his death, when his private correspondence was released to the public. Since Forster's published descriptions of other nations were seen as impartial scientific observations, Forster's disparaging description of Poland in his letters and diaries was often taken at face value in Imperial and Nazi Germany, where it was used as a means of "proof of German superiority". The spreading of the depreciating term "Polnische Wirtschaft" is likely due to the influence of his letters.

I will soon be able to lay my hands on a book on anti-Polish thought in 19th century Germany that should help me understand the influence of Forster's letters in more detail. If anybody is interested, I can also comment on the context that Bömelburg gives for Forster's experiences in Wilno, but I will stop here because I have written and translated quite enough for now. Kusma (討論) 00:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a description which clarifies all the doubts I had with the previous accounts. It is also well supported by sources. After it gets into the article we can also add links to the other sources. Alx-pl D 01:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Thx for excellent and sourced answer. Szopen 12:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Salmonowicz article

I've read the article Jerzy Forster a narodziny stereotypu Polaka w Niemczech XVIII/XIX wieku by Stanisław Salmonowicz. The general conclusions of the article are the following:

  • There is no clear evidence on the strong Forster's influence on the building of the negative stereotypes of Poles in Germany in 18th and 19th centuries (although there is some evidence).
  • Forster is not the author of the term polnische Wirtschaft (he lerned it in his childhood).
  • He was the one to made the term and other negative opinions, which were previously popular among inferior ranks of the German society, acceptable to the well educated people of his times.
  • His opinions, although initially not published, had negative influence on Polish-German relations later on.

Basically, this reaffirms the summary of Kusma. The summary of Kusma conveys all the points. I would only add the mention of Forster's diaries from the journey through Poland:

In contrast to the attitude expressed in these writings and to his Enlightenment background, he used insulting terms against Poles in his private letters during his stay in Wilno and in a diary from the journey through Poland, but he never published any manifestation of such contempt. Said insults only became known after his death, when his private correspondence and diaries were released to the public. Since Forster's published descriptions of other nations were seen as impartial scientific observations, Forster's disparaging description of Poland in his letters and diaries was often taken at face value in Imperial and Nazi Germany, where it was used as a means of "proof of German superiority". The spreading of the depreciating term "Polnische Wirtschaft" is likely due to the influence of his letters.

Alx-pl D


As no one opposes the formulation above, I'm going to insert it to the article in the next one-two days. alx-pl D 08:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the references. If you think they should be placed differently, please change it and drop a line describing why. alx-pl D 05:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)