Jump to content

Talk:Erika Steinbach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening paragraph

[edit]

The opening paragraph shall only contain name and date of birth (not place of birth), per MoS (biographies). UweBayern (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steinbach, came to our country with Hitler and had to flee with Hitler[1] - Polish Minister Radoslaw Sikorski--Jacurek (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism in Poland

[edit]

I think that the article should be modified as to the criticism of E. Steinbach in Poland. The reasons for the Polish critique are, among others, as follows:

  • (in the context of her possible presidency of the Centre Against Expulsions) - she was strongly against Polish membership in the EU and NATO, she was one of the most active opponents of the Polish-German border treaty (and voted against it as one of very few members of the German parliament), what, from the Polish point of view, makes her unable to participate in management of historical and scientific museum, which is to deal also with Poland, due to the lack of objectivity;
  • in 1990s she continued to put in question the Polish-German border;
  • she is strongly associated with the Centre Against Expulsions, which is seen as anti-Polish; the Poles are often furious of the Centre's website and the data presented there, e.g. the number of Poles expelled from Poland during the World War II (400 thousand according to the Centre's website /presented as "deported from Poland"/, compared with official numbers amounting to 2 millions) or the information about the city of Gdańsk (as per the website, it was founded in 1224/25 as a German city, while it was founded in 997 by Mieszko I of Poland);
  • there is a fear that she may be likely to marginalise German war crimes and try to present "expelled"/"deported" Germans as victims of the war in the same context as Jews, Poles and other nations.

In general, her political life was full of anti-Polish actions and she is regarded as heavily biased against Poland. These are the reasons for her critique in Poland. The article mentions almost only her bad reputation and exhibitions she organised, while her political campaign against Polish borders and membership in international organisations are the reasons for this critique. Montessquieu (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critisism is alright but what had happened in Poland in the last couple of weeks is far beyond a fair debate ("blonde beast", tasteless nazi photomontages etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.241.230 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which exactly facts do you mean? The ones generated by German media? BTW Erika Steinbach has been using very tasteless methods against Poland and Poles since many years. And German media attacked Kaczynski brothers eg. as potatoes. Erika Steinbach idealises her father, a Luftwaffe officer who stationed in occupied Poalnd. The majority of Poles don't understand the difference betwen Nazi forms.

Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? It's unfair when somebody accuse that during the debate in Poland Steinbach is called "blonde beast". It's unfair because it's biased. Maybe somebody said something like this but it is not part of real debate in Poland which I observe in media or between politicians. It's like to say that neo-Nazi parties rules in Germany lately, while they have no real power and only few seats in one state parliament. 89.79.103.10 (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to start any discussion on whether the above-mentioned statements are true or false, but to present reasons for the critique of E.S. in Poland, as it's one of the sections in the article. In other words, the section is not to suggest whether the Poles are right or not. It's role is to show main points of the critique (which may be biased, determined by history or whatever, or may be fully objective as well). The provided statements are from Polish press. Regards, Montessquieu (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I basicly agree with Montessquieu who simply inteded to display the state of debatte. However, I gently ask Xx236 to keep in mind that there is, in scales of taste, a difference between (the rather ironic) potatoe-article and e.g. the photo montage showing Mrs. Steinbach wearing a SS-uniform. Furthermore, I would also like to remind 89.79.103.10 that it was not just "somebody" who called E.S. a "blonde beast" but Mr.Bartoszewski who is the official apointee for German matters of the Polish goverment. And, last but not least, the almost agressive tone of your comments (except for Montessquie) may serve as evidence for my statement as well...(08:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.236.241.230 (talk)

  • As I have written the majority of Poles ignore the differences between German uniforms. I don't know why the artist selected a SS-uniform rather than a Luftwaffe one.
  • My comments are sometimes agressive, beacuse I'm frustrated by anti-Polish bias of several authors and articles. And because I frequently know the subjects better than my opponnts, who impose their POV using some Wikipedia tricks and biased sources. Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me a quote of Mr. Bartoszewski saying that Steinbach is a blonde beast. He denied that he called her like this on his blog. He explains that he used in one of his speech the term from Die Zeit newspaper (also there is a book in Poland: "E.S. A beauty or beast?") and media misrepresented it as his own opinion about E.S - probably to cause sensation. So you were misinformed in this matter. The worst thing that Mr Bartoszewski said about Mr. Steinbach was calling her "anti-Polish". While he is not so great in diplomacy in my opinion he is not so stupid to use such an abusive term and therefore I do not believe only a few results from Google where Mr. Bartoszewski is connected with "blonde beast". There are a lot of mistakes in press so I would rather believe Mr. Bartoszewski denial. However, if you have a better quote of his speech please provide it. 89.79.103.10 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 89.79.103.10, unfortunately I have so far merely found articles written in German as I cannot read Polish and articles concerning that topic seem not to exist in English (presumably because except for Poland and Germany nobody in the world is interested in the debate...): http://www.zeit.de/2009/13/Sikorski It is an interview withe the current Polish minister for Foreign Affairs and has recently been published in the German newspaper "Die Zeit" which you might know?! In the very first two paragraphs, Mr. Sikorski confirms that Mr. Bartoszewski has said "blonde beast" with regard to ES but as part of a comparison in the sense of "for some she is a blonde beauty, for others she is a blonde beast". Hence, I am a bit supprised that he now seems to completly denie to have said something like this at all. I guess it is because he knows quite well that it was not that "great in diplomacy". Regards, (83.236.241.230 (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Mr. Bartoszewski is not denying that he used the term at all. He is denying that he called her like this by himself. He used this extreme comparison only to show how great is difference of opinions about Mrs. Steinbach. Maybe it wasn't the best way to do this but repeating that Mr. Bartoszewski is calling Mrs. Steinbach like this without giving the context of his words is deceptive. Also arguing on this basis that in Poland calling Mrs. Steinbach "blond beast" is part of the real debate is misleading. However, nobody denies repeating Mr. Bartoszewski words but it should be done in objective way without skipping the "blond beauty" opinion about Mrs. Steinbach which he also used in his speech. 89.79.103.10 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erika z Rumi - translation

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Halibutt/Erika_of_Rumia.Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For most of pre-WWII period

[edit]

I don't know if it's correct, but the former version was false.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC) In fact the quoted article says that the father's ancestors lived in Silesia, not himself. Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmel/Westpr. is not the matter of language

[edit]

Rumia was occupied by Germany. Erika Steinbach says Rahmel/Westpr. suggesting she was born in Germany proper. An English language reader should be informed about the context. Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasnt't part of occupied Poland, but was integrated into Germany proper. Erik Steinbach was born in Rahmel, Danzig-West Prussia, Germany (now Rumia, Poland). Rahmel was part of Germany until 1920, was annexed by Poland in 1920 without plebiscite, was reannexed by Germany in 1939 and reannexed by Poland in 1945. That's the context, however, this is not the Rahmel/Rumia article, but the Erika Steinbach article, and the history of the place before the birth of Steinbach is irrelevant. UweBayern (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny to see how you forgot to mention circumstances surrounding German annexation in 1939 (and how much it eventually cost everybody), while pointing out lack of plebiscite in 1920. If you want to put things into context, I think this is a more appropriate one. Cyon (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. The article you are referring to deals for a large part with victims of Josef Stalin. What have they to do with Erika Steinbach!? If the history of the place before the birth of Steinbach is relevant in her biography at all (which I seriously doubt), the history of occupations and annexations of Rahmel did not start in 1939 but in 1920. The occupation took place in 1920. From the German point of view, the place was merely liberated after 19 years of Polish occupation in 1939. No Polish occupation in 1920 would mean no need to take it back a few years later. UweBayern (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were discussing here legitimacy to call the town in question by its German name at the time of Erika Steinbach's birth, not Erika Steinbach herself. You bring forward what you call "the German point of view" - can you tell me how you differrentiate "the German point of view" of that time from Nazi ideology? Were Germans free to voice any opinion they wanted and not actually compelled to declare as their own views what Nazis wanted them to? I gave the link to the WWII article in order to put all this discussion into broader context of events. The invasion of Poland and subsequent annexation of Rumia, as well as renaming it to Rahmel - all this happened during this War, at which time only the Axis countries regarded it as legitimate. Moreover, all these were the deeds of the Nazi government, which is now universally regarded as a totalitarian regime guilty of many crimes against humanity, and subsequently most of its acts are considered illegitimate, also in Germany. Therefore, the integration into Germany proper you talk about can also be safely regarded as illegitimate, and, what follows logically, Rumia was part of occupied Poland, not of Germany. So IMO, for the years 1939-1945, we should use a name suitable for a Polish town, not a German one. Cyon (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name Rahmel in Westpreussen says that there existed some Westpreussen as a German land 1939-1945. Erika Steinbach uses the name pretending she was expelled from Germany. Yes, you are right it's a Nazi POV, but I prefer to be careful, because I used to have problems with many German editors, who didn't like my texts.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that it is invidious to refer to Rumia/Rahmel as being in "German-occupied Poland" in 1939 when it could even more reasonably be considered to have been part of Polish-occupied Germany from 1920 until 1939. If you call it "German-occupied Poland" you are really taking a political position. Specifically, you are endorsing the Treaty of Versailles and the annexation of West Prussia to Poland, while denying that West Prussia was re-annexed to Germany in 1939, which it certainly was, with as much legitimacy as it had been taken away in 1920.

It is not a specifically "Nazi" position to say that West Prussia had been traditionally part of the German state and was again in 1939-1945. That certainly is what maps from 1914 and 1940 show. What we are dealing with here is a refusal to acknowledge an historical fact because of its political implications. Calling it a "Nazi POV" is just an attempt to prohibit consideration of it. I contend that the contrary position is also a POV, and certainly not more valid.

Unfortunately, stepping outside the confines of World War II propaganda (upon which the post-war world political order depends) to be truly objective is beyond the capacity of many people, including a preponderance of Wikipedia editors. Consequently we are not going to be able to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaddingtheGreat (talk • contribs) 19:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any mention of her assessment in Germany

[edit]

Having read the article I can't see any mention of how her political views and actions are viewed by Germans (except "Lecture controversy" section). How known is she in Germany? Is there any crticism pointed at her or are her views regarded as entirely normal and applauded by mainstream public opinion? I don't believe noone voices any opinion about her in German press. German-speaking editors, please make up for this. Cyon (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the stuff on Poland is way out of proportion. She's a mainstream politician in Germany. As a CDU board member, a long-time member of parliament, CDU/CSU spokeswoman on human rights and humanitarian aid, and as the President of one of the largest organisations in Germany (2 million members), she is of course a well-known politician. However, as she mostly focuses on a particular area (expellee politics) she is primarily seen as a representive of expellee interests, unlike politicians who are more generalist. There is no criticism from her own party or non-socialist Germans, the criticism usually comes from communists or other far-left groups. "Her views" are that of her organisation with its 2 million members. Her predecessors actually were a lot more hardline than her. UweBayern (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Could you source these claims and put them into the article? It would be very informative IMHO. Cyon (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not sure, how "well known" she is in Germany. I remember a TV report showing her picture to some people in the streets of Berlin and Warsaw. 90 percent of the Germans (or even more) had no idea who she was, while 90 percent (or even more) of the Poles knew her very well and reacted very...emotional. She is a conservative CDU politician and as such her views are of course not shared by everybody, but there are no attacks on her personal integrity. Probably the German view is best described by the New York Times:"German officials say they have tried to take the high road, but privately they express deep frustration with Warsaw, which they contend is exploiting anti-German sentiment to fuel a new wave of Polish nationalism"
Steinbach is even defended against accusations from Poland by people like Ralph Giordano (writer) (definitely everything else but a conservative), who titled his public letter to Wladyslaw Bartoszewski "Erika Steinbach is not a revanchist".
Generally speaking, there is a discussion about her projects (like Center Against Expulsions), not about her person. HerkusMonte (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happens that Poles are quite authoritative regarding anti-Polish attacks. That a German or US citizen ignores facts and/or context doesn't make Erika Steinbach less anti-Polish. QUite many Germans are against Steinbach - the journalist Gabriele Lesser , accused of lies, some leftists. Everything has been discussed many times, you come, you don't know and you feel entiteled to claim you know better. You don't.Xx236 (talk) 11:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Many Germans signed the protest [2] against the Centre designed by Erika Steinbach.Xx236 (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I tried to explain above, there is/was a (sometimes heated) discussion about the Center, not about Steinbach as a person
  • Concerning Gabi Lesser, who is the Warsaw correspondend of the tageszeitung, she faced the effects of the anti-german sentiments throughout the "potatoe-crisis" (taz.de das ist kein Spaß (This is no fun)), when anonymous callers at her Warsaw office used a very vile language to her
  • @xx236: I do feel "entitled to" answer to a question on the talk page, whether you share my view or not. Anyway your sentence concerning my (nonexistent) knowledge is close to a personal attack, please don't continue that way. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Steinbach is the co-author of the Center and after the death of Peter Glotz the main author. Her position is based on the project. Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Even this article says "In a response, the Federation of Expellees stated".Xx236 (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have written "That a German or US citizen ignores facts and/or context doesn't make Erika Steinbach less anti-Polish.". I don't have any idea who you are, so I'm not able to attack you personally. But yes, after your last few sentences I feel personally attacked. Please don't continue that way. Xx236 (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments about Gabrielle Lesser - this is the discussion about Erika Steinbach.Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising - bad Poles are responsible for problems in German - Polish relations.

  1. It's not the right place to discuss the problem
  2. Such opinion is biased, like any opinion of type "X ist fully responsible for X-Y problems".Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you found such words?

[edit]

"the rights of Germans who were expelled from former German territories which became Polish following the Nazi defeat in 1945? - the quoted article doesn't contain exactly such words.

The problem with Erika Steinbach and BdV is that they represent also "the rights" of Germans who settled or were born in Nazi occupied Poland and returned after the war to Germany.Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. UweBayern (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I address the wrong quotation. Is it wrong to find an error in the article?Xx236 (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was reannexed to Germany in 1939

[edit]

No, it wasn't. It was occupied by Nazi Germany.Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't, it was reannexed and integrated into Germany. Military occupation and annexation are two completely different things. Rahmel was never part of occupied Poland. UweBayern (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's your POV. My POV is that all German annexations were illegal, and Rumia was a Polish town occupied by Nazi Germany.Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That remains your POV. You should start your own blog, your own POV is not relevant for Wikipedia. I could argue my POV is that Stalinist-Polish annexations after WWII were illegal and Silesia remains part of Germany, how about that? UweBayern (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reconciliatory suitcase

[edit]

What is a "reconciliatory suitcase"?Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Expellees, an organisation with around 2 million members

[edit]

The Federation of Expellees claims it has around 2 million members. This is a Wikipedia, not the Federation propaganda forum.Xx236 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop throwing word around. The size of the organization is important to establishing context. - Schrandit (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop throwing word around." The Federation obtains member fees from 100 000 members. Erika Steinbach claims that organizations underestimate the numbers of mwembers to pay less to the Federation. She doesn't however claim that the organizations hide 95% of memebers. Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot make out what you are trying to say there. You've filed a WP:IRS, they gave you an answer. If an organizations says it hase 2,000,000 members it is fine to write that the organization says that it has 2,000,000 members. - Schrandit (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Steinbach are numbers disputed, the German news agency de:Deutscher Depeschendienst says the BdV has 550,000 members and Steinbach claims 2 million. [3] Now, we have a reliable source that disputes Steinbach’s position. Per WP:UNDUE ,Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. - Schrandit (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

[edit]
  • This [4] - these sources are editorials, for example "A guest post by Wolfgang Bittner." Or [5] "An exterior view of Arkadiusz Stempin". This one [6] appears legit but it is misused here - the whole article is critical of Steinbach but here someone cherry picked just one or two throw away sentences, and then tacked on the SYNTH of "ignoring Steinbach's real views" which IS NOT in that article. This one too [7] is an editorial. Basically you can keep the taz source, provided the text based on it is re-written in a neutral, non-SYNTH, non-bullshit way, but the others have to go. Until someone makes an effort in that regard I'm going to remove it.
  • This [8] - who? The source clearly states "But many others pointed", as in "many others in her party". Don't insert spurious tags just to make the well sourced text look sketchy. ",[failed verification]" - it's right there in the article, please read it: "Her unashamedly revanchist political views".
  • This [9] is even removing proper attribution (to editorials, which should be removed anyway).

Sorry but none of these edits have any kind of legitimacy behind them. They're POV pushing clear and simple.VolunteerMarek 08:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Representing countercriticism as was done in one of the links you provided ([10]) is definitely legitimate and belongs to the article.Estlandia (dialogue) 09:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These weren't "counterciticism"s they were editorials with quotes cherry picked from them. We don't use editorials and opinion pieces, much less cherry pick quotes from these in Wikipedia articles.VolunteerMarek 03:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only "recent" edit was VM's attempt to remove some balancing views, not supporting his POV. And no, the claim "...Merkel for whom Steinnbach (sic!) had been an uncomfortable presence, due to her unashamedly revanchist politics..." is not right in the article. The "unashamedly revanchist politics" are mentioned in a completely different context and it's you who assembles it to push a (your) certain POV. Considering your last example: "German presss claimed that especially conservative nationalists in the PiS are blamed ..." is misleading and a matter of WP:CLAIM. I think it's already quite clear who blames whom. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these weren't "balancing views" but some editorial and opinion pieces which have no business in a Wikipedia articles. You want to put "balancing views" in, fine, find some reliable sources which aren't newspaper editorials. Otherwise I can go into the Obama article and put in all kinds of nonsense that people write about him in newspaper editorials.
As to the revanchist views thing - it clearly states that. I paraphrased the source to avoid copy vio. But fine, if you think that the mention of the nature of her views should go into a separate sentence, that's fine.VolunteerMarek 03:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rumia, again

[edit]

Re [11]. The town where Erika's father was stationed, Rumia was part of Poland before the partitions of Poland, in 1772 when it became part of Prussia. It was also part of Poland in the interwar period. Now, Erika's father was NOT stationed there during the 19th century, or the 18th. He was stationed there in 1941, during World War II, and the reason for his stationing there is that Nazi Germany invaded Poland and annexed the place. That is the relevant context.Volunteer Marek 21:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this is quite relevant, given Steinbach's political career context. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miacek, if you're gonna start edit wars [12] (you've reverted 3 times in six hours, without even bothering to post to the talk page!) then at least 1) respond to comments on talk and 2) don't use misleading edit summaries (stuff about "falsification of history" and other nonsense).Volunteer Marek 22:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Steinbach was born either in

Germany occupied Polish city Rumia (only Nazi allies accepted the annexation)
or in
Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia - such was the Nazi name. However since the Nuremberg Trials I wouldn't support legality of Nazi aggression and annexation. Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should add a link to the [Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia]] to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

[edit]

What kind of added value do such sentences altered to the incomprehensibility have, cf ″Some German media especially blame conservative nationalists in the Law and Justice are blamed″ or ″The way she is portrayed in Polish public has been described some editorial writes as having″? Exercises in WP:WEASEL that ended up with linguistic monstrosities? Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The awkward language was there to begin with, I just added "Some German media" and "some editorial writers". I was going to clean up the grammar but your edit warring and edit conflicts got in the way.
Glad you're finally using the talk page, though I'm sorry it took a 3RR report to get you here. Better late than never I guess.Volunteer Marek 20:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Erika Steinbach is much more widely known in Poland and the Czech Republic than in Germany"

[edit]
If "Erika Steinbach is much more widely known in Poland and the Czech Republic than in Germany" so why the majority of the sources are German, only few Polish and no Czech ones? This makes the article POV, and the POV is German. There is no cs:Erika Steinbach nor cs:Erika Steinbachová, there exists however cs:Peter Glotz and it was Peter Glotz who was an "expert" in Czech matters, Erika Steinbach being "one" in Polish matters. Xx236 (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Erika Steinbach informs about mostly Soviet crimes comitted by the Red Army, NKVD and Soviet trained and supervised Polish communists, why nothing here about the Soviet crimes and Russian media aren't quoted? Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.svoboda.org/content/article/2159666.html
As far as I understand noone in Russia understands the connection between Soviet crimes and Erika Steinbach.Xx236 (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Against Expulsions

[edit]

Centre Against Expulsions has been replaced by the Visible Sign and Bundesstiftung Flucht, Vertreibung, Versöhnung. Xx236 (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bundestag biography

[edit]

The biography contains several informations quoted in the article, sometimes referred as "Citation needed". Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Erika Steinbach. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

all over the world in the past century

[edit]

Maybe, but mostly German victims of the Expulsion.Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Erika Steinbach. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Erika Steinbach. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Erika Steinbach. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erika_Steinbach&oldid=1225789453"