![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Have restored alternative name for the events, and also mentioned both disputed versions of the shoot on site order. Hopefully we can find some citations that will clarify things further. Greenman 20:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
First paragraph: "....it was easily one and a half times the size of the German Empire at the time", how can a part of the empire be bigger than the empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.52.122 ( talk) 19:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The German empire used the style for its governors during certain periods in the history of its rule over the following Schutzgebiete:
I tried to add to the infobox the official language of German South-West Africa as being german, but I wasn't able to do so. 81.193.24.210 ( talk) 23:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Itsmejudith's modifications to Shark Island, German South West Africa, though well-intended, have obscured two extremely important areas in the historical record:
1. Shark Island, German South West Africa was renamed Shark Island Concentration Camp. However, great efforts were made to provide citations that substantiate that Shark Island was the world's first extermination camp, not merely a concentration camp.
2. A great deal of research to find the proper citations to find officials of German African colonies who worked during the Second Reich and also worked during the Third Reich; thus, bridging the Second and Third Reichs. This bridge was not insignificant, as is noted by one of my citations by Hannah Arendt. Furthermore, one of the officials worked during the Third Reich to establish an 'internal colony' by Germany in Eastern Europe. This official, who links the Second and Third Reich, became a central person in another Wikipedia article. The removal of Bridging the Second and Third Reichs thus destroys quite a few Wikipedia pages.
Some of the related issues:
I agree with you that editing information in Wikipedia to make information easily available and easily assimilated, is a laudable objective; but not at the cost of changing the historical record and removing vital information. Please take care that other edits of this nature do not take place without careful investigation. In fact, since I am fully aware of the intricacies, when you see things you want to change, rather than making extensive changes, why not consult me first? I realize this is extra work, but in the end it might actually result in less work. There are some related articles that are even more complicated; this is especially true for them, even though I made strenuous effort to write plainly.
Itsmejudith, please comment. Virago250 ( talk) 06:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the article needs to be chronological, as it is a history article. Also, I do find the "bridging Second and Third Reichs" formulation to be potentially confusing. Unless people have read some German history, they might not know what the Second and Third Reichs are. They might not know what it means to "bridge" the two. I do think we need to reflect the major body of recent historical work that finds the roots of Nazism in German colonialism, but we need to do it in a way that makes sense to readers of very different backgrounds. I had to look up and remind myself of what "Second Reich" means, and I have studied 20th century European history. What would it mean to a young reader from southern Africa, for example? Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
First-time reader here for the article, confused about what the "Notes" on the Shark Island camp mean: "(In Lüderitzbucht, 121.2% for Nama, 30% for Herero)". To what do these percentages refer? As far as I can tell the article does not explain them. I assume it has something to do with mass killings since Shark Island is labeled an extermination camp, but I don't know what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.85.146 ( talk) 00:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The unsubstantiated genocide claims are simply malicious. Or are you now going to define any colonial war against insurgents or even violent police action as "genocide"? -- 197.229.145.65 ( talk) 18:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 21 December 2016. The result of the move review was Close endorsed.. |
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) Fuortu ( talk) 16:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
German South West Africa → German South-West Africa – Reversal of a page move made by User:IvanR82 that carried the invalid rationale to "to match the change from 'South-West Africa' to 'South West Africa'." --- The references all use the title with a hyphen, the spelling is long-standing, and has never been discussed. Further, there is no reason to match an older name to a newer name. (I am also requesting to undo the move from South-West Africa to South West Africa.) As an aside, I would very much like to know how a new account performs a G6 CSD to technically execute this move. Pgallert ( talk) 15:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Fuortu
The recent move from
South West Africa to a hyphenated form took no regard of the actual local English spelling of the name of the territory during all the years of its existence between the end of the German colonial era as
Deutsch-Südwestafrika and independence as
Namibia. For examples, refer to official documents of the territory and its postage stamps. On stamps, the name was never hyphenated in English during all the years while the full names of the territory was used from 5 March 1931 until the abbreviated and multilingual SWA began to be used on 1 September 1973.
Previous entries on this talk page show that this same issue also came up in 2006 and 2010. The argument that "In a purely grammatical sense, "South West Africa" would be in the south of West Africa" is moot since in the south of West Africa is exactly where it is actually located.
All the above also applies to the simultaneous moving of
German South West Africa to a hyphenated format. Both moves should therefore be reverted. --
André Kritzinger (
talk)
11:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on German South-West Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru ( talk) 13:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
German South-West Africa →
German South West Africa – Please refer to the
requested move of South-West Africa to South West Africa, which is also applicable to this requested move.
André Kritzinger (
talk)
15:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm from Germany. Please excuse my bad English!
The flag in the article isn't correct. This flag was planned by Wilhelm Solf, but it never was the official flag of German South West Africa. Please look at the german article and take this flag.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix00186 ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)