User:Samsara/Translation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This translation is being provided for the benefit of KarlV's block discussion and related issues. Do not edit it in any way. If you don't like it, don't look, or provide your own.

Translator's comments are in angled [] brackets.

Contents

Attention POV-Magnet

Due to the British concentration camp, this lemma seems to nigh on magically attract POV and justification attempts for the torture, one has to remain vigilant. Rufezeichen 15:38, 31. Jul 2006 (CEST)

Gunther has concerns and even brought into play the vandalism block page. Why should it not be a concentration camp. Nobody wrote annihilation camp. Please first check the article and check, what the criteria (definitions) are.

As a little service, here the definition: A concentration camp is a facility to detain and isolate political opponents or undesirables from ethnic, religious or social groups. This is usually done for unspecified time by bureaucratic, administrative acts, without court order, without the possibility of an appeal, defence or even dispute and revision.

Rufezeichen 15:50, 31. Jul 2006 (CEST)

I have just read the source. It constantly speaks of an "internment camp".--KarlV 16:10, 31. Jul 2006 (CEST)

That's not true at all. In our English sister article, there's mention of "concentration camp". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Nenndorf Rufezeichen 16:16, 31. Jul 2006 (CEST)
Then that's not accurate either!--KarlV 16:19, 31. Jul 2006 (CEST)
Of course it was accurate, because all criteria (see def) are met. You can try to edit the article of the anglosaxons, if you want to be punched in the nose for SPOV.Rufezeichen 16:21, 31. Jul 2006 (CEST)
  • Firstly, it has already been changed, and secondly the source cited there (die Zeit) speaks of camp or torture camp, and not concentration camp. If there are sources, please use the terms used there and don't invent your own in addition, okay? Thanks.--KarlV 16:24, 31. Jul 2006 (CEST)
In the interest of peace, we can write torture camp. Internment camp, as you edited it in the English article 15 minutes ago, is too little, as no systematic torture is being conducted in internment camps. But this was a torture camp. Rufezeichen 16:33, 31. Jul 2006 (CEST)

Well, well, so you are I like Burke's Peerage.--KarlV 16:40, 31. Jul 2006 (CEST)

Looks good, your contributions over here, dear Karl. The anglosaxon colleagues really know how to appreciate your contributions. [1] ;-))) Der Archivar
  • Hello - you again - under a different name ;-))))--KarlV 13:15, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)

The camp was a British military prison. This term is neither judging, nor does it imply any associations, as would the term concentration camp. For this reason, I take the term of military prison as the correct one. Furthermore I plead for a separation between prison for war criminals and internment of communists.

Should you have read the article in the Guardian, you will find a corresponding passage therein:

"By late 1946, CSDIC appears to have lost interest in Nazis, and was targeting communists. It appears the prisoners were questioned about Soviet methods and intentions, rather than about the Communist party itself.

Some of Bad Nenndorf's inmates were indeed spying for the Soviets: one prisoner, who was half-Norwegian and half-Russian, told Hayward he was an officer in the NKVD, the predecessor of the KGB, and had been operating continuously in Germany since 1938. Another, a German journalist who had been freed by the Soviets from a Gestapo prison, was caught flying into Croydon aerodrome with false British papers. Both men were starved and badly tortured." (Small note: from this, it is clear that not all victims ["Betroffene" is hard to translate, literally it means "affected"] had German citizenship)

In the article, the background of the prisoners has to be distinguished, so that the revisionists from the Schaumburg nazi scene and associates can be rejected, who would like to misuse this topic to relativise [balance/justify] German history (just for some side info, there was a nazi demonstration in B.N. last Saturday. Theme: The Wincklerbad and the "torture of innocent Germans").

That even industrial figures were imprisoned is due to the exploitation of Shoa and WWII by the German economy and population (this has been made more than clear by the research of Götz Aly).

Furthermore: Why could a murderer/war criminal not have been an industrial figure at the same time (e.g. by cooperation with the SS and outsourcing production to KZs [concentration camps]) or a forest owner simultaneously a murderer/war criminal (as farmer, who lets prisoners of war starve) or simply as SS-men, who were farmers etc. in ordinary life.

Therefore, I ask for a revision of this article incorporating these considerations, that's nothing to do with POV, but with accurate portrayal of history. --Wikiantifa 00:28, 1. Aug 2006 (CEST)

Military prisons are prisons for members of the military. In Bad Nenndorf, civilians were imprisoned and "interrogated" (in quotation marks, since these interrogations cannot have been motivated by the hope to obtain useful information). Citing Militärgefängnis: in which, usually, sentencees of the military justice complete their sentence. (Emphasis mine. [this seems to have been edited out]) The definition is not met on several counts:
  • the interned were not sentenced
  • especially not by a military court - they were civilians
  • they did not "complete" a sentence, since they had not been sentenced
Samsara 11:11, 1. Aug 2006 (CEST)
Ignoring the fact that WP-definitions are not sufficiently reliable, this fragment would be irrelevant on the mere basis of the restricting "usually". This is definitely not the typical case.--Gunther 11:17, 1. Aug 2006 (CEST)


@Rufezeichen. "That's not even true. Our English sister article speaks of concentration camp. See en:Bad Nenndorf": Neither the own nor other Wikipedias are citeable sources, per definition. Citeable is, what is supported by external reliable sources.--tickle me 10:52, 3. Aug 2006 (CEST)

Poupou l'quourouce blocks

[she actually protected]

Apparently because of edit warring. Why she does this, and why this particular version, remains her secret. Rufezeichen 16:18, 31. Jul 2006 (CEST)

This article is protected without reason. Please unprotect. יונתן הקטן 10:27, 6. Aug 2006 (CEST)

Stellungnahme von KarlV / Statement of KarlV

German statement

[he provided his own translation, which was copyedited by Braveheart; scroll down]

Am Anfang stand ein Gerücht, welches mir zu Ohren kam und welchem ich erst einmal keinen Glauben schenkte. Angeblich sollen rechtsextreme User sich in der englischen Wikipedia erfolgreich eingenistet haben, teilweise sogar als Administratoren. Das Ziel ihrer Arbeit sei angeblich Bezeichnungen zu ändern und Dingen ihre eigene POV aufzustempeln. Das geschehe im Zusammenwirken mit Sockenpuppen. In der deutschen Wikipedia würden diese dann unter Hinweis und Beleg der von ihnen in ihrem Sinn veränderten englischen Artikel versucht, die gleichen Veränderungen durchzudrücken. Dies sei ein wiederkehrendes Muster.

Dieses Gerücht im Hinterkopf habe ich im Lauf der letzten Monate tatsächlich in einigen wenigen Artikeln Veränderungen gefunden, die auf dieses Muster passen könnten. Aber ich habe dem keine große Bedeutung beigemessen. Zuletzt fiel mir der Eintrag von Benutzer:Der Claqueur auf, der als Troll und Vandale infinite gesperrt wurde und Werbung für seine Änderungen in Artikel Bad Nenndorf machte [2]. Neugierig geworden, schaute ich mir also den Vorgang um den Artikel etwas genauer an.

Tatsächlich fand ich heraus, dass es keine reputable Quelle oder einen Beleg gibt, welche das Internierungslager als Konzentrationslager bezeichnen würde. Auch die Quelle The Guardian spricht von Internierungslager. Die einzigen, welche das Label Konzentrationslager in Verbindung mit Bad Nenndorf öffentlich transportieren, sind deutsche Rechtsextremisten um Neonazi Thomas Wulff, die – Zufall oder nicht – am 29. Juli 2006 in Bad Nenndorf eine Demonstration durchgeführt haben [3]

Dann habe ich gesehen, dass fast alle Änderungen bezüglich der Bezeichnung Konzentrationslager sowohl in der deutschen, als auch in der englischen Wikipedia so um den 19. und 21. Juli ([4],[5]) herum erfolgt sind. Also im Vorfeld dieser Demonstration stattgefunden haben. Das war mein Wissensstand vom 30. Juli 2006.

Schließlich kam es am 31. Juli 2006 zu Veränderungen durch den Benutzer:Rufezeichen, der ebenfalls als Vandale und Troll gesperrt wurde und zu folgender Einladung: „Du kannst ja versuchen, den Artikel der Angelsachsen zu bearbeiten, wenn du von den Angelsachsen wegen SPOV eins auf die Nase willst.“ [6]. Das klang sehr selbstbewusst und nicht nur prophezeiend.

Das war schließlich der Anlass für mich einen Test zu starten, um mir selbst ein Bild zu machen, ob an den Gerüchten etwas dran ist oder nicht. Das Thema ist unbedeutend (bedeutend nur für eine kleine überschaubare Gruppe), die Quellenlage ist eindeutig. Also habe ich mich nach dieser Einladung in die englische Wikipedia begeben um zu sehen, was passiert (ob sich wirklich Sockenpuppen und Administratoren einschlägig verhalten). So – und jetzt ist der 2. August 2006 und ich lade alle herzlich zur Analyse der Ergebnisse ein.--KarlV 13:14, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)


Englische Stellungnahme

Some time ago I heard a rumour which I didn't believe right away. The rumour was that supposedly right-wing extremists boarded the English Wikipedia successfully, partly even as administrators. The goal of their work supposedly would be to change labels/designations marked up things for their own POV. That would happen in cooperation with en:Internet sock puppets. In the German Wikipedia these Users would then push the same changes under reference of the English articles changed by them before. This would be a recurring pattern.

On investigating this rumour, I really found some changes in some articles that would fit to this pattern. But I did not give great importance to that. The last edit I saw was from User Benutzer:Der Claqueur, who was blocked infinite as vandal and troll and made advertisement for his edits in Bad Nenndorf. Of course I was then curious and focused my investigation on this issue.

Certainly I found out that there is no reliable source in which the internment camp Bad nenndorf is called a "concentration" camp (even The Guardian does not). The only ones, which have an interest to use the label “concentration camp” in this issue are German right-wing extremists, who - coincidence or not – organized a demonstration on 29 July 2006 in Bad Nenndorf (German source).

In this context, I saw that all edits concerning „concentration camp“ both in English and German Wikipedia were made between 19th and 21st of July, just before these activities. This was the status on 30th July.

On 31st of July User Benutzer:Rufezeichen, who was also blocked infinite as troll and vandal was the last user doing edits concerning „concentration camp“ on the German Wikipedia. In one edit he wrote to me: „You can just try to work on the article on the English Wikipedia, if you really want to be beaten up by the Anglo-Saxons because of SPOV.“ I understand that as an (unfriendly) invitation.

And this was finally the cause to start a test (experiment) – just to see how much was true concerning the above mentioned rumours. The issue is of minor importance (only important for a small group of users), the facts and reliable sources are clear. So, after this invitation I joined the English Wikipedia and started with my experiment (and to see what would happen afterwards). Today is August 2nd and I invite you all to analyze the results.--KarlV 13:14, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)

Sorry Karl, I've just taken out the most severe mistakes in the English statement, hope you don't mind ;-) --Braveheart Welcome to Project Mayhem 13:29, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)
  • Thanks a lot! I look forward to the analysis!--KarlV 13:30, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)
What makes me think is the temporal overlap with a demo in Bad Nenndorf. I would place the statement in a more exposed place, to create an awareness [Bewusstsein, difficult to translate, can mean consciousness] of such cases. --Braveheart Welcome to Project Mayhem 13:33, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)

Analysis

KarlV, you should read the sources more carefully. The Guardian talks of "interment camp" as well as "toture centre". Accordingly, the term "concentration camp" has now been replaced in the article. As far as the comment of Rufezeichen is concerned, this is a "personal attack" in the English Wikipedia's sense and we would take a most severe view of this. I was originally made aware of the article by Rufezeichen aka "I like Burke's Peerage" of his own accord (I cannot remember having had any previous interaction with that user). At that time, the English article had already been edited by one other user to remove grammatical mistakes and POV elements. I then went through the sources to make sure that all statements were supported by sources. This is evident from the revision history if one makes the effort. Furthermore, to complete the picture, you, KarlV, have been validly blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR policy. Edit wars are not as lightly accepted there as apparently here. This is underlined by the fact that two admins got ahead of each other in blocking you - there can therefore be no doubt about the correctness of the measure. I would like to furthermore encourage everyone to examine the sources diligently and participate in the article's discussion. We're not making progress by accusing each other of extreme political positions. - Samsara 13:41, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)
  • Comment from the English Wikipedia: „The more I look at this, and I was trying to find a compromise way of even using this quote calling it "reminiscent" of German concentrations camps, it's just unusable. The only person even making a comparison is some vague unnamed "minister of the day". And yes, it is OR to rename something from it's common usage to something no one else explicitly calls it. I'm changing it back to "internment" unless someone can find something better to back up the "concentration" camp label. And since you're an admin who stepped in to block another editor on this very issue, you probably shouldn't be involving yourself in the debate and making reverts yourself like you did to me. I don't mind working with you for a solution, but you're mixing roles here. HGB 22:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)“ Even on the English Wikipedia there is at least one user who has seen, that one (two?) admins mix their roles (also see your edits: [7] and [8]). By the way, I am not complaining. An eventual block was part of the experiment. After all, neither have you accused me of an extreme political position, nor I you. Furthermore that article now doesn't say "concentration" camp, but "torture camp". --KarlV 13:51, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)
  • The accusations that you are repeating here have already been discussed over there. It would be to the advantage of everyone wishing to follow this discussion to continue it there. I am willing to translate your comments, if desired. - Samsara 13:59, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)
  • [his English] I made no accusation, I simply made a test. Now we have all to analyze the results. I hope you understand, that I do not trust you. If I am asked, he/she will receive of course an answer in English. [switches to German] So, I've made no accusations so far, but described a test. Just now, I posted a quote from the English discussion page, where it's being said that an administrator is apparently mixing his roles as admin and user (on one count as a party for "concentration camp" - for another as admin). Why don't you turn to HGB.--KarlV 14:05, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)
Yes, yes, I know. You think I eat little children and run over grannies with my bike. But in reality you didn't look properly, otherwise you would have noticed that the text passage was not written by me at all, as the diffs you cite would suggest. If you had read the edit summaries properly, you would have noticed. So from now on, open your eyes in road traffic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bad_Nenndorf_%28concentration_camp%29&action=history
And then you can re-read my original answer carefully and convince yourself that everything fits, just as I wrote it. For instance, you'll find I was originally made aware of the article by Rufezeichen aka "I like Burke's Peerage" of his own accord (I cannot remember any previous interaction with the user). At the time, the English article had already been edited by one other user to remove grammatical crudeness and POV elements. I then went through the sources to make sure that all statements were supported by sources. All of this can be seen in the revision history if you make the effort.
Now look - I even went to the effort, in spite of your ignoring my email message - for instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASamsara&diff=65003543&oldid=65002617
Moreover, you might have noticed, that I don't otherwise edit any such articles - funny for an apparent Nazi, isn't it? You can be relieved: there is no mixing of roles. I'm an admin who sometimes helps when he's being asked, nothing else.
And now we can all be friends and drink a virtual coffee together, fair?
Samsara 17:14, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)
And a further proof as encore, and please, no more sociological experiments on Wikipedia, we're not the father in heaven, thanks! - Samsara 17:16, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)
  • How do you arrive at the conclusion that this was a "sociological experiment"? It was primarily about the POV-label "concentration camp". And of course I should know, whether the warnings of Benutzer:Rufezeichen to not involve myself with the English Wikipedia "to get a bloody nose" were just talk or more. The analysis is being worked on.--KarlV 12:27, 4. Aug 2006 (CEST)

New article on English Wikipedia

You may like to have a look at the new article that I've just contributed to the English Wikipedia, en:Bad Nenndorf interrogation centre, which provides a lot more information about the affair. -- ChrisO, 21:56, 2. Aug 2006 (CEST)

en:User:KarlV has been blocked indefinitely

see [9] en: admins tend to take a dim view of breaching experiments. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 4. Aug 2006 (CEST)

PS I am the blocking admin. ++Lar: t/c 11:32, 4. Aug 2006 (CEST)

Tell me someone that only dewiki has waffle&flames. It is futhermore interesting to see that an admin involved in an edit war on enwiki (blocks in this case Karlv) his opponent [parentheses roughly as in original] and declares the conflict as finished. Both sides feel confirmed, nothing progresses. Just like every time.--Braveheart Welcome to Project Mayhem 11:45, 4. Aug 2006 (CEST)
Clarification, in case that the discussion on en:WP:ANI is too boring to read: the Users en:User:Samsara und en:User:pschemp, who were also involved in the real [eigentlichen] article, were responsible for the first two blocks and both have repeatedly been told in the discussion referenced above that their mode of action was improper. The current block, however, has been undertaken by en:User:Lar, and this user has not participated in the original confrontation. 84.191.89.53 (en:User:Xyzzy n) 12:48, 4. Aug 2006 (CEST)
Hello, I am on the road today and have just briefly looked at the reactions. Incredible, what an effect 4 edits on en:WP have, which were intended to improve the article there (this was primarily about the unprovable POV-label "concentration camp", which a user who is blocked in Germany contributed and was defended by an editor active in England).--KarlV 12:22, 4. Aug 2006 (CEST)
KarlV, koennen wir bitte diese kryptischen Andeutungen lassen? Um welchen Admin geht es nun in dieser Passage?
KarlV, could you please stop making cryptic statements? Which admin are you referring to? - Samsara 00:30, 5. Aug 2006 (CEST)
Patience is another virtue. ;-) --Braveheart Welcome to Project Mayhem 09:40, 5. Aug 2006 (CEST)
P.S.: Strange mode of action: instead of prosecuting you admins, a third admin unblocks and reblocks the user and believes that this gets you out of the tight spot. Is this usual on enwiki? --Braveheart Welcome to Project Mayhem 09:59, 5. Aug 2006 (CEST)
@Braveheart: Yes, fortunately it is usual for users, who do not want to contribute, but instead disrupt with social experiments, to be blocked on the english Wikipedia. The block is fine. יונתן הקטן 10:44, 6. Aug 2006 (CEST)
Hallo "Little Jonathan" aka gesperrter Benutzer:Rufezeichen. Warum antwortest du für Samsara. Seid ihr etwa identisch? Hi "Little Jonathan" aka blocked user Benutzer:Rufezeichen. Why are you answering for en:User:Samsara? Or are you one and the same person? הכל בסדר 10:18, 8 Aug 2006 (CEST)


Please block KarlV here, too

Karl intentionally caused an interwiki-editwar with his "sociological experiment", and has most severely damaged the trusting collaboration of anglosaxon and German-speaking Wikipedians. Karl's mantra "stupid is who stupid does" has unfortunately revealed itself as a self-fulfilling prophecy. To freely quote an English colleague, "Please block him on German Wikipedia until his ears bleed." @all admins: please do it now. Thanks יונתן הקטן 10:29, 6. Aug 2006 (CEST)

@Braveheart: and you're not much better, after all you should have stopped KarlV, when he did stupid things. Instead, you even copyedited his English to remove mistakes, when he severely offended the anglosaxons with his experiment and his "analysis".

Apply for a user block. Complaining when "well-acting people" such as Cogito2 and Hans Bug are being blocked, but when one seeks a block oneself, seeking the dishonourable way.--Braveheart Welcome to Project Mayhem 12:13, 6. Aug 2006 (CEST)
Yes - just try it. Adding to this, KarlV has nowhere spoken of a "sociological experiment". This combination of language was an invention of Benutzer:Samsara ([10]). הכל בסדר 10:32, 8 Aug 2006 (CEST)
Da wollen wir mal keine Unwahrheiten verbreiten. Zitat KarlV: Das war schließlich der Anlass für mich einen Test zu starten.
Let's not spread any untruths. Citing KarlV: And this was finally the cause to start a test (experiment).
Quelle/Diff: [11]
Noch Fragen?
Any other questions I can help you with? - Samsara 23:12, 10. Aug 2006 (CEST)

Ich habe eine Frage: Warum hast du Burke's Peerage beim Fälschen geholfen?

Samsara 13:41, 2.8.06: "Ich wurde urspruenglich von Rufezeichen aka "I like Burke's Peerage" von sich aus aufmerksam gemacht auf den Artikel (ich kann mich keiner vorherigen Interaktion mit dem User erinnern). Zu jenem Zeitpunkt war der englische Artikel bereits von einem weiteren User editiert worden, um grammatikalische Unfeinheiten und POV-lastige Elemente zu entfernen. Ich bin dann die Quellen durchgegangen, um sicherzustellen, dass auch alle Statements durch Quellen untermauert sind. Dies kann man alles aus der Versionsgeschichte ersehen, wenn man sich die Muehe macht."

Ich bin die Versionsgeschichte durchgegangen:

Hier hat I like Burke's Peerage/de:Rufzeichen das erste mal gefälscht: Der Zeit Autor Heiner Wember schreibt:

"Und das war kein Einzelfall: Noch heute behaupten Neonazis, die Briten hätten in den regulären Internierungslagern für Nazis nach dem Krieg Methoden angewandt wie die Nazis selber. Schließlich gab es solche Civil Internment Camps mit insgesamt 90.000 Internierten auch in den vormaligen KZ Esterwegen und Neuengamme. Doch das ist reiner Quatsch."

Burkes macht daraus das Gegenteil:

"It is prooven, that Bad Nenndorf was'nt the only secret concentration camp run by Tommies. <ref> The German Newspaper 'Die Zeit' reports, that ther where a lot of concentration camps such as Bad Nenndorf (In German)"

Hier ergänzt du "title=ZEIT online - Mensch & Geschichte: Tommies als Täter". Das heißt, du hast den Artikel gelesen.

Hier änderst du "Die Zeit claimed that" zu "Die Zeit implies that". Das heißt, du hast den betreffenden, o.g. Absatz gelesen, *verstanden* und mit einem salvatorischen caveat versehen - sowie die verfälschte Aussage belassen.

Hier ist eine Übersicht. --tickle me 02:33, 11. Aug 2006 (CEST)

Languages