text:
Mount Mansfield

Mount Mansfield is the highest mountain in Vermont, reaching an elevation of 4393 ft above sea level. Located in the northwest of the state, it is also the highest peak in the Green Mountains. Its summit is located within the town of Underhill in Chittenden County; the ridgeline, including some secondary peaks, extends into the town of Stowe in Lamoille County, and the mountain's flanks also reach into the town of Cambridge.

When viewed from the east or west, this mountain has the appearance of a (quite elongated) human profile, with distinct forehead, nose, lips, chin, and Adam's apple. These features are most distinct when viewed from the east; unlike most human faces, the chin is the highest point.

Mount Mansfield is one of three spots in Vermont where true alpine tundra survives from the Ice Ages. A few acres exist on Camel's Hump and Mount Abraham nearby and to the south, but Mount Mansfield's summit still holds about 200 acre. In 1980, the Mount Mansfield Natural Area was designated as a National Natural Landmark by the National Park Service.

Located in Mount Mansfield State Forest, the mountain is used for various recreational and commercial purposes. "The Nose" is home to transmitter towers for a number of regional radio and TV stations. There are many hiking trails, including the Long Trail, which traverses the main ridgeline. In addition, the east flank of the mountain is used by the Stowe Mountain Resort for winter skiing. A popular tourist activity is to the 4.5 mi toll road (a steep, mostly unpaved road with several hairpin turns) from the Stowe Base Lodge to "The Nose" and then hike along the ridge to "The Chin."

Geology and soils
The dominant bedrock of Mt. Mansfield is a mica-albite-quartz schist common to the Green Mountains, with mica being the most abundant mineral. Layers of quartzite are found locally. The soils, mostly podzol, are stony with fine-earth fractions grading through textures of fine sandy loam, loam and silt loam; they are mapped mostly as Londonderry, Lyman, Peru and Tunbridge Series with considerable areas of rock outcropping around the summit.

Name
The name of the mountain comes from the dissolved town of Mansfield, Vermont, in which the mountain was located (its territory was later divided between the towns of Underhill and Stowe), but the source of the town's name is the subject of some dispute.

Several of the original grantees of the land in Mansfield were from Mansfield, Connecticut, which in turn is known to have been named for Moses Mansfield, one of the chief landowners there. However, Benning Wentworth, the governor of the British colony of New Hampshire, issued a charter to a group of grantees in what he dubbed the town of Mansfield, possibly for a chief justice of England, Lord Mansfield (a British judge who deemed slavery illegal on British soil in 1772). Wentworth had good reason to honor Lord Mansfield by naming a town after him: Mansfield and another English official had jointly ruled in 1752 that the land between the Connecticut River and Lake Champlain should be considered part of the Wentworth-governed royal province of New Hampshire, and not of New York, which also claimed that territory.

The Town of Mansfield was formed before anyone involved had visited the site; when the townsite was surveyed, it was discovered to be mostly mountainside. Although a few hardy pioneers settled in the town's few lowlands, the town was dissolved by degrees, with the portion generally west of the mountain being annexed to Underhill in 1839, the eastern portion to Stowe in 1848 after a vote of the citizenry. The dividing line did not run exactly along the ridge of the mountain; thus, the Chin is in Underhill and the Nose in Stowe. Prior to the mid-eighteenth century, the mountain was known by its Abenaki name, Mozodepowadso, which translates to Moosehead Mountain.

Topography

The ridge which forms the "head" of the "man" is aligned generally north and south. The "Adam's apple" is on the north end of the ridge, and the "forehead" to the south. From north of the mountain, looking south, this ridge appears as a triangular peak. At the northeastern portion of the mountain, there are cliffs. At the base of these cliffs (on the western side of the Notch Road, Vermont Route 108), there is a honeycomb network of talus caves. There are cliffs on the eastern side of the Notch Road as well. These two sets of facing cliffs are separated by 3 yards at their base.

Skiing
Mt. Mansfield is the home of Stowe Mountain Resort, one of the oldest ski areas in the United States. Along with other expert trails, a group of trails, known as the "Front Four", are Goat, Starr, National and Liftline. They have steep pitches, many natural hazards (rocks and trees), and little grooming. There are also cross country ski trails around the base of the mountain and on its lower slopes. The Bruce Trail descends the east side of the mountain while the Teardrop Trail descends west side. In addition to Stowe Mountain resort, Skiing is also available at the nearby Smugglers' Notch Resort.

Climate
Mount Mansfield is located in a boreal temperate rainforest and receives more than 80 inches of precipitation each year on average and has a humid boreal climate (Dfc). Lower elevations of the mountain have a humid continental climate

Summer days on the mountain are warm coupled with cool nights, while winters are long, cold and snowy, lasting from November through April and with annual snowfall averaging 235 in. The highest daily snowfall recorded was 28 in and occurred on March 15, 2017. The highest snow depth recorded was 149 in and occurred on April 2 during the very snowy winter of 1969. According to the NOAA, snowfall has been recorded on the summit for every month of the year. Mount Mansfield averages 197.7 nights at or below 32 °F annually. Extreme temperatures ranges from 85 °F on May 28, 2020 to -39 °F on January 9, 1968.

title: Mount Mansfield


text:
Talk:Former eastern territories of Germany/Archive 1

Neo-Nazi content ???
This page contains a Neo-Nazi, content which is offensive and insulting, starting the World War II again, and should be removed. Mestwin of Gdansk 18:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If this page should be more than a redirect to East Germany then it needs to talk about the area now - ie a discussion of east/west differences etc. Secretlondon 18:43, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Niko, what's that war you're waging? You cannot just cut out approaches that question the right wing view! And how many Germans Stalin killed is NOT pertaining to Eastern Germany, cruel as it might have been.*

Max

 * Sorry, I mixed up the versions here. But the first sentence holds true!

Max

Pardon? I'm not sure what you mean. The deaths of 3 million East Germans are indeed highly relevant. Nico 20:49, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And "It is now considered politically extremely incorrect" is nothing but your point of view, and I will remove it again. Nico 20:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Try saying that publicly in Germany and see what happens! The the importance of the death toll is of course conceded, I just forgot to copy it.

Cheers, Max

It's still a point of view, and there are many Germans, for instance the approximately 2 million members of BdV or a Landsmannschaft, who are willing to say it publicly. That makes it a controversial issue. Thus, we have to avoid a sort of POV on it. Nico 21:03, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And the Landsmannschaften aren't politically incorrect with the term in the sense of "hurt nobody, scare nobody?" If I had wanted to spread my POV it would have been much different. In the article about Hitler there could be no moral judgment (which I didn't make), because it might disturb its objectivity regarding some people who are actually fond of killing Jews? Just a thought.

Max

You may dislike the Landsmannschaften or the CDU/CSU or the Labour political party in Britain or whatever, but an encyclopedia still should be neutral. And conserning Hitler, as long as there are little accept for moral judgements in the articles dealing with Stalin and other war criminals, the Hitler article should be more NPOV as well in my opinion. Nico 22:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Which does not disprove my point that referring to the two wings of ex-German territory as being situated in Eastern Germany would be considered politically incorrect. Actually, that is an understatement. If a politician said it, people would consider him dangerously revanchist. But jedem das Seine. Who would benefit from a colder Hitler article? P.S.: Oh, yeah, seen your history. Won't correct your stuff any longer lest I run into more POV accusations. Much too exhausting. I know others have given up. I'll leave it up to the Americans who know the stories from Landser-mags. This way, it's not going to be balanced, but one is at a certain ease with being a German, cos, like, the others were always meaner.

Somewhat irritable, Max

I really don't think this article is the place for this. There are already articles on these groups - if only they believe this then it should stay there. Secretlondon 22:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Methinks it can very well stay as it is now. Max

I'm very sorry about the statement about "Americans" above. I know there are Americans writing for wiki with an amount of knowledge that I can never hope to attain, and with great political integrity. I just noticed that right-wing positions are swallowed much more naturally by many, which I sometimes doubt is healthy. For Germans, 50 years perpetrators, love victimizing themselves since 2000 for all kinds of things. DOn't believe all you hear

Sorry, Max

The rest of my statement remains unchanged.

Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive
I must admit that it breaks my hart to, basically, restore a User:Wik version, and I am suspicious of Wik's expertise when it comes to matters of contemporary Germany, BRD and DDR, but comparing the last version by Wik with the last version by Nico, the former is quite simply so much more correct and the latter so much more propagandist: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Eastern_Germany&diff=2663272&oldid=2654218

This is not to say that the version I restore, in my humble opinion, be perfect - only much less flawed than the current.

However, I strongly oppose the idea that the term "Middle Germany" should have been anyhow "invented" after 1945. I wasn't born then, but what happened, I guess, is that an already used term became politically charged. --Ruhrjung 08:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

taken from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress
Eastern Germany should be together with East Germany. Nico is removing an interesting staff from Erika Steinbach without any reason. Cautious 22:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Eastern Germany is a completely different article, and it not dealing with the German Democratic Republic. And the Gabrielle Lesser article is not about Erika Steinbach, and there is no need to copy the whole Erika Steinbach article. Besides, you are inserting strong POVs. Nico 22:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Eastern Germany cannot be about something else then East Germany, because both terms are too close to each other. Cautious 23:43, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I have proposed to move East Germany to German Democratic Republic, which was rejected. As long as East Germany is dealing with the former state of DDR this article will stay here. Nico 23:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It should be crearly stated that this is only about irredentsim, Anyway misleadingCautious 23:51, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Peace treaty after WW2
Dealing with sentence: However, the final article of the memorandum said that the final regulations concerning Germany were subject to a separate peace treaty. This treaty wasn't signed until 1990.

The treaty was never signed. Why 1950 and 1970 treaties are missing. Cautious 23:48, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because the 1970 treason by the DDR spy Herbert Frahm only recognized the borders temporarely as factual, although the areas were still considered rightfully German. Nico 23:53, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * "treason by the DDR spy Herbert Frahm"? And some people here were thinking Nico was a serious contributor! --Wik 00:17, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just the comment we would expect from a supporter of DDR, claiming that this police state was not totalitarian. Nico 00:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Nico, pro personam arguments are not what wkipedia wants. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to find some serious arguments, you don't have to use namecalling.Halibutt 18:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But it were recognized in 1970. Cautious 23:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No. It wasn't. Anyway, the DDR paid CDU members of the parliament to vote for Frahm, so it was treason and it was illegal. Nico 00:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are kidding. Treaty is a treaty Cautious 00:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Nico, apparently you forgot that the treaty was ratified by the Bundestag. All of the MPs were bribed as well? And the Germans who voted for them?Halibutt 18:41, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

cut from Protected page and pasted here

 * Eastern Germany - edit war between Cautious and Nico. Cautious wants it redirected to East Germany, and Nico is reverting. →Raul654 22:24, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Simple vandalism. User:Cautious is blanking an article he doesn't like. That is a blockable offense. Nico 22:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * (As a disinterested observer) - He's not blanking the page, he's redirecting it. They are not the same thing. →Raul654 22:43, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there a practical difference between replacing this page with a redirect to Wikipedia:Village Pump or just blanking it? Nico 22:46, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason for having East Germany and Eastern Geramany other then East is already protected because of your edits and you want at every price have your own Eastern Germany? Put your acceptable version to East Germany. Cautious 22:57, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * East Germany is dealing with the German Democratic Republic. They are different articles dealing with completely different issues. Nico 23:05, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As a fairly neutral observer, couldn't this be solved by putting a header at the top of the article saying something like:

This article is about the former region of eastern Germany, not to be confused with East Germany the former communist state.

Such a header is used at Irish Republic the historic state, which is easily confused with the Republic of Ireland. G-Man 19:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
 * Sounds like a good idea. Nico 05:45, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For everyone not so familiar with rightwingish delusions: Herbert Frahm = Willy Brandt

Though they murdered six millions, in the ovens they fried, the Germans now too have God on their side (Bob Dylan). PUH-LEASE! Brandt was merely stating the obvious, the existence of another state, which had a government and citizens. The only one that would totally ignore that was your hero Walter Hallstein. Of course it was also treason by Brandt not to shoot Russians 41-45, right? And it's POV to state that the Germans disguised as Poles attacked Gliwice in 1939, right? Call me a traitor. I've been living here long enough to know my facts. Max

Yes, his citizenship was revoked. He didn't serve his country. He was a traitor. Even now, republican Americans consider people who didn't serve in the Vietnam war, where they killed million of Vietnamese civilians, unpatriotic or traitors. SO why shouldn't German traitors be considered traitors? You are living in Berlin, where my mother was born, and where she studied as well in the 70'ies. You do not have much freedom of speech in Germany, so thing isn't changed much since the 30'ies. You only have new lords in your house. Allied war-time propaganda does not interest me. Outside Germany, the history is not so black and white as you think.

 * You do not have much freedom of speech in Germany, so thing isn't changed much since the 30'ies. I'd be interested to know where the hell you got that idea from... --Palapala 09:35, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

As for the DDR, it was not a state. And it had no citizens. The inhabitants were citizens of Germany and occupied by Soviet. There is a difference. Frahm was a socialist whose ideal was Soviet. Of course he recognized their puppet state(s). Would you expect such a person, and such a Trunkenbold, to do otherwise? His staff was even paid by Stasi. However, I would like to cite Herbert Hupka, who expressed the opinion of loyal Germans: "Das Deutsche Reich existiert fort. [...] Ostdeutschland umfaßt nicht nur Ostdeutschland jenseits von Oder und Neiße, also den heute unter polnischer und sowjetischer Herrschaft stehenden Teil des Deutschen Reiches, sondern auch das Sudetenland und die deutschen Siedlungsgebiete zwischen Ostsee und Schwarzem Meer." (Dr. Herbert Hupka, MdB, 1984) -- Nico 06:58, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * And I thought we long ago abandoned the idea of "SBZ" and "DDR" (as opposed to DDR). And of course there were citizens. You could visit them and talk to them, if you wanted. (One of the nicer outcomes of the Ostverträge which the cited Trunkenbold helped get under way.) --Palapala 09:35, 2004 Mar 12 (UTC)

I would like to cite Herbert Hupka, who expressed the opinion of loyal Germans

Loyal to what? I'm loyal to my conscience, not to some abstract patriotic duty. I don't hate Germany. I just would hate a Germany that wants to expand after failing miserably twice. It doesn't and that's just fine.

In fact, people here are allowed to talk a lot of nonsense publicly (though clearly not as much as elsewhere) if they like (and boy, some people do!) if only they don't deny the Holocaust which I take you don't do. Fact is just that most people don't use their freedom of speech to talk nonsense. The Günter Guillaume affair could have happened to anyone and did not influence Brandt's Ostpolitik, you know that as well as I do. He just wanted Germans to get real and deal with facts. Stop your slander. The GDR was very real indeed. As for Hupka - he was a typical case of unbelehrbar. And it's not a bad thing not to take part in an aggressive war you don't believe in. Actually, in this case, it's not even right if you do. I don't care if German history is considered greyer elsewhere. Modest behaviour is a moral duty. Know what's criminal? To keep the man in charge of the Rassengesetze in office. I might cite the expellee Dieter Hildebrandt at this point, but won't, lest you call him a traitor too. It's not political correctness, it's moral decency.

Max

"Aggressive war you don't believe in"? Which aggressive war? Even Stauffenberg and most of his friends were in favour of liberating the areas occupied by Poland since the first world war. As Great Britain dominated most of the world, and they had stolen the very few colonies of Germany, it was not exceptional that Germany wanted some land as well. So was the spirit of that time. To the West, Germany offered peace, in fact they did not even declare war. Great Britain did. And the Soviets were not much better, they attacked Poland themselves. And how about the US, Great Britain or Poland? These states attacked Iraq last year, according to the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs because they wanted oil (see BBC's article). Germany just did what other states also did and STILL ARE DOING! Btw, USA, with their long history of slavery and genocide of Africans as well as native Americans, had Rassengesetze until the 60'ies or 70'ies. So there are a lot of criminal Americans as well. Nico 08:36, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

>''I just would hate a Germany that wants to expand after failing miserably twice. It doesn't and that's just fine. ''

I'm not sure what "expand" is referring to. Truly, a Great Power like Germany is not dependent on large amounts of land anymore, and there are other ways. The British have lost their colonies as well. But if you are referring to Eastern Germany, it is a matter of recognition of human rights, and I reserve the right to be in favour of liberation of these areas, because they belongs to Germany and to the people of Prussia. You might also be interested to know that, in Scandinavia, German claims on Eastern Germany, especially the Königsberg region, are not considered "right-wing" in the same degree as in Germany. Most Scandinavians will understand such a claim, although it is not a very actual topic here. Btw, this is a highly interesting site: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com -- Nico 09:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Did I say I was a fan of Stauffenberg's? There is no such thing as "Prussia" any more. As I said, I don't care what people in other countries think. You lose a war, you have to carry the consequences. You know that Munich 38 was bogus, Neville Chamberlain was butter in the hands of Hitler. And whether you declare war or not is not crucial here. Crucial is whether you wage war. And the British didn't even help Poland! And - just because other countries treated their minorities badly that doesnt mean that the Nazi crimes were any less harmful. By the way, I'm against the US meddling with Arabia. Max

The thing is, that the history is written by the victors. Certainly they forced the Germans to "carry the consequences", with ethnic cleansing of half of my country, and most of the part which means something to me. But I do not understand your position. What the mostly Bavarian and Austrian Nazis did in a different century is not the responsibility of the Prussian people, which tried to get rid of them. And the crimes of the stalinists, or the US, were even worse, they killed (and deported) a lot more people. However, the genocide of between 10 and 50 million people committed by the Russians are of course not the responsibility of young people in Russia today, and the genocide of million of African people who were killed in slave transports are not the responsibility of today's young people in the US. And they do not take and carry that responsibility either. See? Not many Americans feel responsible for the crimes committed as late as during the Vietnam war, or Israelis for the crimes committed against the Palestinian people. There is of course a difference between all these countries and Germany: They were not defeated. But that is a question of military force, nothing else. If the Arabs occupied Israel, the Israeli people would learn in school that their country was bad and that the Arabs liberated them. Some Israelis would believe that as well.

>''There is no such thing as "Prussia" any more. ''

Indeed, there is. I'm a Prussian myself. Although a nation in exile, Prussia still exists. It was also prososed to rename Berlin-Brandenburg Prussia if the states were merged (which they wasn't, unfortunately). But Prussia - as a politicial entity - will rise again. Preußen soll leben!! Nico 16:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nein, Preußen ist tot.

And that has more with Prussia's glory to do than with the Nazis' exploitation of traditional Prussian virtues (efficiency, Protestant Work Ethics...) and non-virtues (as unquestioning obedience, for instance). Prussia had become a symbol of industriousness, expansionism and militarism, which had raised and united Germany after the disastrous Napoleonic Wars, but also been a chief contributor to two world wars.

Prussia is dismembered. The sooner Germany could get over the loss of East-Prussia, West-Prussia, Pommerania and Silesia, the better for the German people.

...and for the neighbouring people. I'm convinced that the very worst things Polish nationalists can do today, is to provoke a nationalist response from within Germany.

Things have gone good for Germany. Feeding thoughts on a revenge leads to nothing but the ultimate disaster. --Ruhrjung 17:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. And don't forget that large and important parts of what became Prussia in the 18th and 19th centuries still remain in Germany.

Generalization has become all too rampant now. Sample:

What the mostly Bavarian and Austrian Nazis did in a different century is not the responsibility of the Prussian people

You're right, after the hyper-Prussian Hindenburgian parties brought Hitler to power there wasn't much of a chance to get rid of him any more. The notion that the Nazis were a Southern phenomenon is ridiculous. You won't tend away the Polish people that settled in the region after 1945, no matter how hard you try. That phenomenon had nothing whatsoever in common with the Jewish settlers in Palestine prior to 1948. Germany's main objective is to live in peace with its neighbours, and that's what we're doing, and that's what our history calls us to do.

And my personal favourite:

It was also prososed to rename Berlin-Brandenburg Prussia if the states were merged

Those were the days :-) I've rarely ever laughed as hard as back then. Although I must admit that the proposed castle should look somewhat more pleasant than the Palast der Republik. It was utterly, utterly incoherent.

>"The notion that the Nazis were a Southern phenomenon is ridiculous. "

Ridiculous? München was even officially named the Hauptstadt der Bewegung. Why was Prussia destroyed, and not Bavaria?

>"Germany's main objective is to live in peace with its neighbours, and that's what we're doing, and that's what our history calls us to do."

Maybe your history calls you to do something like that, but, please, only speak for yourself. Nico 20:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Nico, did I get you wrong or did you just state that a new war in Europe is what Germany needs? I hope it's my English, and not your beliefs.Halibutt 22:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

3 millions killed
Could anyone provide any data to prove this right?Halibutt 19:00, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to ask for the same. Davies cites a document of Berlin's Allied Administration Commitee stating that there were 3.5 millions Germans for transfer. You speak of 15 millions. Cite your sources please. -- Forseti 09:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Any sources, Nico? I'd like to hear them. Especially that if I correct the numbers you'll probably start an edit war...Halibutt 09:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * So far I placed a tag over the whole article. In case anyone tried to erase it - please Cite your sources first.Halibutt 09:52, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good example of how to use the msg:disputed trailer. First raise the issue at the talk page, if no concensus is reached there, one can either remove the contested claim, or if that meets opposition flag the article as disputed. --Ruhrjung 11:43, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem is that I'm pretty sure Nico would erase the and remove any other version. But apparently there's no choice...Halibutt 10:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, you keep ignoring this question and adding the 3 millions number. Quote your sources. Please, quote your sources or else this childish edit war will never end. Halibutt 00:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, are you there?Halibutt 09:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm basically not reverting the number, but rather the POVs. I posted some casualities here and have also admitted that "over 2 million" maybe is more precise than "until 3 million". Nico 04:40, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * i like the present wording - now it's finally clear that these numbers are disputable and the figure given is bdv's version, not a G*d-given truth. Good job!Halibutt

1970 treaty
Nico, why are you constantly deleting any mention of the border treaty? Halibutt 05:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

more wordage
"Some revisionist allegedly claim, that in" Among other things, that's obviously POV. ugen64 02:34, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

"Historical" Eastern Germany
Historical Eastern Germany? Who invented that term? Surely Eastern Germany or Eastern Germany (historical) are preferable.
 * That's a good question. 'Historical' suggests that it was German as long as Germany goes. Incidentally the majority of the area got German (then Prussian) in 18th century and remained so for 123-144 years. Also using the term would lead to paradox of calling the same terrain both historically German and historically Polish. I primarily mean Greater Poland, the cradle of Polish nationality. So perhaps the title should be changed to 'Former Eastern Germany' or similar, less charged term.

 * Agree. The title of the article is misleading and should be changed. Lysy 16:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Also there is existing article on Regained Territories that deals with the same territory, just crediting them with Polish name. So perhaps both articles should be merged into one, with existing Historical Eastern Germany and Regained Territories made redirects. -- Forseti 17:38, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yup, I second that. With the only difference that there should be a brief (three to five sentences at most) description of the term Regained Territories in that article, especially that it is really used in Poland. The rest, however, could be merged. Perhaps the Oder-Neisse Line could be merged as well..? Halibutt 17:48, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * Merging will be a challenge to NPOV. Currently the "Historical Eastern Germany" obviously reflects some German POV that is not necessarily fully shared by the rest of the world. Lysy 18:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Until the articles are merged, I'm going to move this article to a less misguiding title of Eastern Germany (historical) if no one opposes this. Lysy 21:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I oppose!
 * This is a far too sensitive area, and particularly Poles ought to remember the problems we have had with regard to articles on towns and provinces in present-day Poland.
 * Regards!
 * --Ruhrjung 21:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * All right, could you support your opposition with some firm arguments please. Thanks. Lysy 21:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No. My position is pragmatic. I want to avoid unnecessary blod shed. :-)
 * I am not sure I favor a merge either, but it is not that I took a position against here. Only the proposed temporary move.
 * Anyone with the slightest understanding of contemporary Germany must realize that Eastern Germany (historical) by some (trolls and others) would be understood as the new Bunesländer, and thereby you invite to yet a new article on the lost territories.
 * I'm sure a temporary move have potential to turn out as counter-productive.
 * I appreciate, however, that you asked before you moved!
 * --Ruhrjung 22:07, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * I see. (I thought the new Bundesländer would be "former East Germany" in English). I take your pragmatic point, though. Even if still I claim this article title is misguiding and presenting quite biased POV (as the current contents of the article is, as well). Lysy 05:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Facts and figures
I think this needs to be sourced:
 * According to the Federation of Expellees...15 million Germans were displaced from their homes and over 2 million people were killed or died during the process. These numbers, however, are disputed.

The source for the numbers mentioned should be given, ideally with some sort of analysis to go with them, and the alternative numbers alluded too with the names of those who propose them should be mentioned. Philip Baird Shearer 20:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Extremely POVish article
This article as it is now has extremely biased POV. Any mention of the Polish inhabitants of the areas in question is promptly omitted as well as it's slient about how the territories had fallen into German hands in the first place. Instead it concentrates on German settlers, and how they were expelled without compensation (as if Poles or anyone else was getting any compensation when expelled). An unaware reader might conclude that these were historically German grounds that were then taken from Germany and occupied by other nations. Other than that the term "Historical Eastern Germany" is maybe common in German usage but this is English language wikipedia and it should not be here, in this form at least. It could equally be called "Western Poland" instead. --Lysy (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The difference seems to me to be that you wish to talk about the different nations who have inhabited the area. I think the article will become unfocused if we do that. I think it better if the terms of reference are kept to the time and the specific areas which were incorporated into the State of Germany. The wording "large settled German communities" was introduced by me on 23 October last year as a formula of words which seemed reasonably neutral and not area specific. The wording does not claim that the areas in which they were settled that they were the major communities. To say that there was a large settled Jewish community in Frankfurt am Main pre war, or that there is a large settled Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets does not imply that those populations were or are a majority in either town.

 * In order to maintain the focus, we need to know whether it is supposed to be an article about certain territories (historically disputed between Poland and various German countries) ? Or is it just about the German way of calling these territories ? I believe that you assume the latter ? Certainly it's not the current English usage, as the proper name for the area in English would be "Western Poland" (unless you're a revisionist). If I read your intentions right and you think that the article is about the German POV naming only, then mosts of its contents now is irrelevant and should be removed. --Lysy (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What relevence is it to this article if Poles or anyone else did or did not receive any compensation?

 * None, I agree. No expulsion whether of Poles or Germans assumed any compensation. This is obvious and needs not to be mentioned, feel free to remove it (I already did, but it was you who restored it, I think). --Lysy (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The major reason for mentioning compensation is because it was still politically relevant during the discussions for some East European countries entering the EU. If the Germans who were expelled had been compensated (or the issue had been settled by treaty) then much of the political/legal problems of the eastern nations and the EU would not have arisen. For example San Francisco Treaty settled the question of POW compensation by Japan for their mistreatment, even though many British POWs think that the compensation they received from Japan in the early fifties was (literaly) small beer. The question of compensation could not have been addressed until the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany and as the groups have continued to press for it, presumably it was not addressed in that treaty. The other reason for mentioning it is that it gave/(gives) the Federation of Expellees a tool to use in their propaganda campaign.

 * I agree, but this is not an article about Federation of Expellees or Polish-German political relations. If you think that ethnic and population issues belong to this article, then they should be addressed in their entirety, including Jews and Poles, and not limited to German settlers only. It should also mention that Germanisation and particularly German colonisation of these territories was a purposeful German policy in 19th and beginning of 20th century. --Lysy (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * As to the title I am quite open to it being changed, but as others have pointed out it is difficult to find a suitable name. I don't think that "Western Poland" is not a sensible name because not all the territory being discussed is in Poland and Western Poland as a title describes different regions at diffrent times. Philip Baird Shearer 09:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * First we need to know what is the intended subject of the article, as I stated above. Is it about the territories, or about the German way of calling them ? I'm open to either suggestion. If it's about the territories, I don't see why should we limit ourselves to 19th century history only. And then I also would insist on changing the name to something less POV, not implying that these disputed grounds were historically German or not. On the other hand, if the article is about naming only, I think it should explain why this name was used and need not contain all the other speculations about compensations and so on. --Lysy (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand the article to be about three things:
 * It is not just about the formal and informal German description of the region before Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany it is also an article about how English speaking people referred to the area after 1871 and before 1945. Before 1945 the English usage was the same as most German usage between those dates. Since 1945 it has been about the dichotomy between some Germans usage and general English usage of the phrase "East Germany".
 * The the second is to explain the oddity that for more than 40 years this issue over the boarders was not put to bed.
 * The third but not least very important use of the article is to nail some of the lies and exaggerations which sites sympathitic to extream right wing views tell about the region.

As a Pole (I am making that assumption by your name and POV) that you might not be aware of is that for most native English speaker this is an example of the old phrase "This is a far and distant country and about which we know little'". Most English speaking people have no idea that Poland today is not where Poland was at the start of World War II. Most assume that the countries of eastern Europe are roughly where they were before World War II, give or take some small boundary changes. Even less know anything about the Postam agreement's provisions for Eastern Europe, or the "Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany". Now while there should be an article about what happened to Polish boarders and Polish people immediately after World war II, this article is not the place to do it. I personally think that the article title Western betrayal is a very bad one, but I understand why it carries that name and I understand why you wrote on the talk page "I second on that. Also the main purpose of the article is to explain the meaning of this particular phrase and not an other one." I think that likewise you should respect the title of this article and concentrate on explaining it.

By explaining that millions of Germans moved west during the middle to late 1940s and territories which had been under German jurisdiction passed to other jurisdiction, is informative for most English speaking people who can read up on the other consequences of the immediate post war dislocations and boundary changes of other people on other pages. They can also read about the details of the various territorial claims, some of which are still relevant and important for the people of the region today, in other articles which specialise in these things. For example I would encourage you to link into the "see also" any other articles which are relevant to issue of Polish people who moved west at the end of World War II, but I think the focus of this article should stay broadly on the area called Eastern Germany between 1871 and 1945 and the Germans who inhabited that area. Philip Baird Shearer 14:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Good. Firstly yes, my POV is obviously Polish biased. If the purpose of the article is to present German POV only, this should be made clear in the text. Or we should explain that the article is not about the territories (as it is today) but about the notion itself and the usage, similarly as it is done with "western betrayal" that you refer to (Western betrayal is a popular term ...). Because this is English wiki, it should be also made clear, that: "it is ... about how English speaking people referred to the area after 1871 and before 1945". I understand your grandfather could use this term to address the area, but you would not.

 * I don't think this is really about why the borders issue was not formally settled, as it deserves an article of its own. Especially that it concerns the times after 1945, so it is not relevant here. Or maybe move this part to Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany article indeed ? Few words of explanation here: As you know under communist rule, there was no Germany but GDR that bordered with Poland. Both Poland and GDR were completely dependend on Russia (not to the extent of the other countries that were included within Soviet Union, but still had not their independent foreign policies in reality). All the countries in the eastern bloc had officially friendly relations to each other and the Soviet Union was warranting the status of their borders. Therefore for Russia it was quite convenient to maintain this issue opened, as it kept both GDR and Poland even more dependent on Soviet Union. Of course they could not sign any bilateral treaty without Soviet consent. Anyway, why would they ? Their mutual relationship was "so friendly", no settlement was ever needed. This is also why Poland never got any reparations for the damage done by Nazis during WW2. Poland was just too friendly with GDR to ever demand this. Needless to say Poles never received any compensation neither when they were expelled by the Nazis during WW2 nor when they were expelled by the Soviets immediately after the war. But as you said, this article presents German POV only, so this does not belong here.

 * It might be worth mentioning though, that most of the Germans in these East German territories, including Erika Steinbach's parents were settled there during WW2 only. Since this article is not about the expellees, though, I believe this part of content should be moved to Federation of Expellees etc.

 * As for the expulsions and lack of compensation, it also does not belong here, as it refers to events that happened after 1945 and do not concern the usage of the term in the years 1871-1945.

 * I will try to modify the article along these lines so that it remains focused on what it is intended to be. --Lysy (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

" Historic Eastern Germany or Ex-German Eastern Territories is an anachronic term used since 1871 until 1945 to denote..." is not correct. To put words in my grandfather's mouth as you suggested above:, In 1935 my grandfather would not have said "Historic Eastern Germany", he would have said "East Germany". Today if I wanted to describe those areas internationally recognised as part of Germany east of the Oder in 1935 I could use the term or "Ex-German Territories east of the Oder–Neisse line" (which would not be a bad title).

 * And this is exactly what puzzles me. Why wouldn't you use the current names of the areas in question like "Western Poland" or "Kaliningrad region" ? Do you know many other English speakers using the term "Historical East Germany" to call Western Poland, or is it just yourself ? Imagine you are going to visit Wrocław. Would you indeed say "I'm going to Historical East Germany", or "going to Poland" instead ? It is an anachronism. --Lysy (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If I were visiting Wroclaw, then I would be visitng a place in Poland. But if I wished to talk about German forward deployement in east Germany at the start of World War I, I might wish to qualify the phrase "east Germany" by linking it to this article so that the reader was not under the illusion that east Germany meant the common modern English usage what is now described as "East Germany", but east Germany as it was between 1871 and 1945. In English this is no more contriversial than using the lable Spanish Netherlands in articles about the Eighty Years' War and visitng Brussels in Belgium to day. It would not be an be "anachronism" to say that the Battle of Waterloo took place in the Spanish Netherlands it would be wrong. Philip Baird Shearer

 * So are you saying that the name is in common usage in English today ? I've checked google and it seems it only exists in wikpedia clones or mirrors and on some German originated sites. It seems like the term is in use in Germany but not commonly in English. I've checked "Spanish Netherlands" as well and got well over 20 thousand hits, so this seems completely different. Previously you said it was in use in English between 1871 and 1945 but not any more. Therefore I assume it is an anachronism. --Lysy (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No it is not but we need a lable/title which describes the area and as yet no one has come up with a better lable for the article. There is another section on this talk page where you can suggest other names. I do not think that this is the section to discuss this. However whatever name which is used is not an anachronism because it is describing ,what was, now. Philip Baird Shearer

I am surprised that you find this sentence "Before unification they would not normally have been referred to collectively but instead by the names of the principalities or Hanseatic port names." objectionable. Perhaps you can explain why, as it seems to me to set the context. I find this particularly strange that you remove this but not the mention of Napoleon et al.

 * Well, it was actually you who said: Don't need the history lesson of before 1871 because Germany did not exist as a unified state therefore not part of Germany. I'm fine to leave this in as long as you don't delete the other parts claiming that you don't need the history lesson. Maybe someone does ? --Lysy (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Glad we have agreement on this, but I would have prefered it if you had been consistent with the removal of all pre-1871 history. Philip Baird Shearer

"Occupation: Don't you think Warsaw was occupied by Germany during WW2 ? Is Warsaw East of Oder or not ? What do you find POV here " Of course Warsaw was occupied along with the rest of Poland as was most of the rest of Eastern Europe. But this article is about those areas internationally recognised as part of Germany from 1871 to 1945, not about the occupations or areas annexed by the Germans post 1938. This does leave the complication of those areas recognised between 1871 and 1919(?) but not recognised as such after 1919 and annexed by the Germans post 1938. I suggest that those desputed provinces are moved from the article to the talk page until a form of wording can be worked out which is succinct and has a NPOV. The thing to remember with this is that "the past is a different country. They do things differently there". This is very true of annexation and international acceptance of it pre-UN and the "Fourth Geneva Convention" Philip Baird Shearer 17:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, the article is about the areas internationally recognised as part of Germany from 1871 to 1945 (what is "internationally recognised" anyway). But the sentence in its current form is not. Either the sentence needs to be replaced, or "occupied" is in place there. --Lysy (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * internationally recognised: see the article and subsection on State. Philip Baird Shearer

BTW for simplicity and clarity I am assuming above that there is a one to one mapping between German internationally recognised territory and "large settled German communities" but you will know better than me if there were "settled German communities" of several generations who lived outside the formal internationally recognised territory of Germany as I believe was the case post 1919 in Danzig. Philip Baird Shearer 17:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, Danzig had basically German population and only small Polish minority. On the other hand there were areas under German administration that had no significant German population at all. BTW: there are still areas in Poland where there're still significant German minorities, like Slask, so apparently not all the Germans were expelled. And there are territories in Germany today with Slavic population like Lusatia. German administration is not equal to German population and vice-versa. --Lysy (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhapse you would like to work these facts into the article Philip Baird Shearer 12:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I would but as I tried to explain before, in my opinion all the discussion about ethnic composition, German settlers etc does not belong to this article. --Lysy (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Would you mind if I remove all the irrelevant information from the article, as discussed above ? (those concerning ethnic composition, what happended before 1871 and after 1945 etc.) --Lysy (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course all irrelevent information should be removed, but we have not yet agreed what is irrelevent. You think "German settlers etc does not belong to this article" I think that should be in this article, so plese do not remove that information before we agree on what is irrelevent. I will do some editing in the next 24 hours and then lets see were we are. Philip Baird Shearer 01:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I'll wait to see your edits, then. --Lysy (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Partitions of Poland

 * as well as returning territories taken by Prussia in Partitions of Poland to the recreated Polish state.

What "Partitions of Poland" when?

Either the land was recognised by the international community as German or you are talking about additional territory which was under German control but was not recognised by the international community as German. Which is it? Philip Baird Shearer 16:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You can speak of "internationally recognised state" but there is no such thing as "international recognision of a land". What would you mean by this exactly ? Sincerely, I can't believe that you have not heard of Partitions of Poland. Maybe this map will help you out. --Lysy (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I know Poland has been bigger and smaller than it is at the moment and has been partitioned several times. But is was not clear to me which partitions were being referred to. It might have been annexation of land by Germany formally Polish and before WWI under the control of Russia.

Fair point on land, althought I think you could have understood in by common English language usage. To quote the first sentence in the article on states "A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty."

So either these the territoy east of the Oder were part of the "definite territory of the state of Germany" and internationally recognised as such, or they were occupied/annexed by Germany during WWI and were not recognised as part of the definite territory of the state of Germany by the international community. Which is it?

It would seem to me that the sentence is refering to a period before 1871 and as you and I agreed, does not need to be covered by this article. Philip Baird Shearer 17:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * What I'm questioning is calling these territories German. This is POV again. Personally I would call them "occupied by Germany", but I think that "returning territories taken by Prussia in Partitions of Poland to the recreated Polish state" perfectly matches historic truth. Do you question that these ground were taken by Prussia or that they were returned to recreated Polish state ? If this is true, do you have any reason to pretend that these territories were German ? --Lysy (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not POV to call the internationally recongnised "definite territory of the state of Germany" as they existed in 1914 German, than it is to call the "internationally recongnised "definite territory of the state of Poland" Polish. If someone was to write in a wikipedia article that Silesia is currently "occupied by Poland" you would object and if you did not I would.

Perhapse we can come to a better solution than you sentence please see the next section.

BTW Please do not just revert everything, but edit your changes as I don't think that everything I added before your last revert contriversial or was under discussion. Philip Baird Shearer 18:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Note that I did not insist on using the "occupied" wording in the article, just stated the unquestionable facts. --Lysy (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually the territories were taken over two times-in Partitions and later after fall of Duchy of Warsaw which regained Poznan after uprising there against Prussian rule.--Molobo 20:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
I think that if any of the territories mentioned in the Treaty of Versailles ( 1919) paragraph were ceded to Germany in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (3 March 1918) then this should be mentioned as those territories were not recognised by the international community as part of the "definite territory of the state of Germany".

It is probably worth putting in a sentence to the effect that Treaty of Versailles with Woodrow Wilson's promotion of "self-determination" for  nations, and following so soon after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, was a catalist for the international recognition of many states including Poland and Lithuania, and this lead to the the placing of some territory which had been internationally recognised as German since 1871 under the juristiction of other nations, along with Danzig under the League of Nations. Philip Baird Shearer 18:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Such sentence would give a false impression that these territories were of historic German character when in fact they were under German control for less then century(since the Duchy of Poznan was in theory a seperate region under autonomy for a long time after 1815)--Molobo 20:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not think that it would give the impression you are talking about providing we include the term "territory which had been internationally recognised as German since 1871" because by implication the promotion of "self-determination" for nations implies quite the contary -- that they were not German in character. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Such sentence is two light, there should be an element showing why those territores were taken from German control.Mainly the fact that have been under German control less then century and had no German majority.Saying they were "recognised as German since 1871" says nothing about this nor the reasons while they were taken away.A short sentnce would be enough to explain the reasons.Otherwise it makes an impression as they were taken out of revenge, without reason or it was unfair. --Molobo 23:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing.I don't think Partitions of Poland were reckognised internationally at all.That is possesion of these lands was reckognised by Partitions in themselfs weren't legal under the practice of law in that time.--Molobo 23:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Which laws at the time? See my comment below on GCIV. Philip Baird Shearer

 * Certainly the partitions were not "internationally recognised". But I'm also not sure that these territories were "internationally recognised as German" ("ethnically" or what ?). It seems more neutral to call then "territories under German administration" or "under German control". As I said I don't insist on the term "occupation", but using "German territories" gives an impression that Germany had some historic or otherwise rights to these areas, which would be at least disputable and highly controversial. As for Brest-Litovsk treaty, I have to admit I fail to get your point here (I thought I'd be brighter on this one today ;-) --Lysy (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said above international recognition is recognition of "A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty". It has nothing to do with the nationality of the peoples who make up the state. The UK is a state but it is not a nation. It consists of 3 1/4 nations. In the past, particularly before 1914, many more states consisted of several nations.

Until the introduction of the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949 the way warfare in Europe (and the rest of the "civilised world") was waged and resolved, was when two or more countries went to war, the victor(s) dictated a peace treaty which rewarded them and punished the vanquished. The wars between the Great Powers tended to be of a limited type, but for the minor powers loss of a war could mean loss of sovereignty and annexation. One of the most influential clauses in GCIV are articles 6 and 47 because it prohibited "annexation by the latter [occupier] of the whole or part of the occupied territory." UN charted prohibited wars of aggression and these clause in GCIV were introduced to reduce the rewards a victor could obtain by waging a war, even if they had initially been the victim of an unprovoked attack.

So if one state recognised another state then they accepted the "definite territory" of that state. If state (A) recognised two states (B and C) who had a territorial dispute, then state A had several different policies it could follow, but the overriding rule was to secure their own best interests. If France and Germany had a war then the UK as a neutral state was chiefly interested in what the outcome would mean to them. They might try to put pressure on the victor not to upset the balance of power too much, but, by and large, they would accept the terms of the bilateral peace treaty. Without any international body like the League of Nations or the United Nations, there was little else that states could do, other than break off diplomatic relations or side with one of the powers and join in the war. The breaking of diplomatic relations would only happen if one of the states involved realy thought that the other state threatened their intrests directly. Therefor the partitions of Poland were basically an internal matter for the states involved unless other states were willing to intervin because their intrests were threatened. In the case of the other Great Powers the German/Russian carve up of Poland was accepted, because their interests were not damaged enough for them to go to war over it. Own self interest to this day means that states are very reluctant to get involved in the internal conduct of a government over people within its "definite territory". States are also notoriously reluctant to recognise the territorial break up to a state into constituent parts. On the Western Front of World War I the western victors peace treaty the Treaty of Versailles was typical of the sort of treaty that victors dictated pre GVIV.
 * Transferred territory.
 * Limited the enemy's ability to fight
 * Reparations.

But in the East it was more complicated. First the German had obtained a victors treaty from the Red Russians. This placed large areas of the former Russian Empire under their control. Second Woodrow Wilson's promotion of "self-determination" for nations, was not the sort of thing that traditional colonial powers like Britain and France would countenance for their spheres of influence, but they were willing to consider it for those former Russian territories subject to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

So in the East we have to make a distinction between those territories internationally recognised in 1914 as belonging to the state of Germany since 1871. Those territories (if any) annexed by Germany under Brest-Litovsk and those territories under the indirect control of Germany under the terms of Brest-Litovsk. This wording is a attempt to cover this:

 * The Treaty of Versailles with Woodrow Wilson's promotion of "self-determination" for  nations, and following so soon after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, was a catalyst for the international recognition of many states including Poland and Lithuania, and this lead to the the placing of some territory which had been internationally recognised as part of the German Empire since 1871 under the jurisdiction of other nations, along with Danzig under Polish and the League of Nations' control.

Which in simpler terms says that the some of the territory east of the Oder that was internationally recognised as part of Germany in 1871 was not internationally recognised as part of Germany in 1920.

The details of what went to which state is already in the article so we do not need to mention them again. But as I said above it is not clear to me if all the territory listed under Versailles transfer were part of the German Empire from 1871 and 1914. Philip Baird Shearer 12:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

" Therefor the partitions of Poland were basically an internal matter for the states involved unless other states were willing to intervin because their intrests were threatened." You are wrong.The partitions were violation against practice of of law of that time since the rulling monarchy was abolished.

" Therefor the partitions of Poland were basically an internal matter for the states involved unless other states were willing to intervin" Which was was what Grt.Britain and Ottoman Empire did by not reckognising those actions.

"The Treaty of Versailles with Woodrow Wilson's promotion of "self-determination" for  nations, and following so soon after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, was a catalyst for the international recognition of many states including Poland and Lithuania" That is incorrect.Russian Empire, Germany, and Austro-Hungary reckognised Poland and its creation as a state well before those events.

"Which in simpler terms says that the some of the territory east of the Oder that was internationally recognised as part of Germany in 1871 was not internationally recognised as part of Germany in 1920." Whatever a territory is part of a state doesn't mean it is a historical part of a nation.Saying that these territories were German is incorrect.Saying that these territories were historically and ethnicly Polish is correct.If you want to say about  their legal issues then, you will have to count time when they were Polish for circa 800 years, then were part of Prussia after partitions, then part of Polish state of Duchy of Warsaw, then autonomous region in Prussia, then incorporated into Prussia and then into German Empire.Howver that would be too long.Saying they were part historically and ethnicly Polish territories taken over recently by Germany is more correct  --Molobo 14:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I've been working on other things so sorry for the delay:
 * You are wrong.The partitions were violation against practice of of law of that time since the rulling monarchy was abolished Please provide a source for this statment and if it were true how do you explain the Congress of Vienna? Or the Partition of Russia in Treaty of Brest-Litovsk or the particion of German in Treaty of Versailles.

 * Whatever a territory is part of a state doesn't mean it is a historical part of a nation. Of course you are right. England is a nation but, England like Scotland (another nation) are both parts of the state of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". It is quite possible for a nation and a nations lands to belong to a State which contains more than one nation, or for a nation to exist in more than one state, eg Ireland. So what is it you are trying to say with that statment?

 * If you want to say about their legal issues then, you will have to count time when they were Polish for circa 800 years No we do not because this article is about territory east of the Oder which was German between 1871 and 1945. It is not about the history of the region. Philip Baird Shearer 23:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

History section intro
The History section currently opens with "In 1871 those provinces or regions east of the Oder–Neisse line under control of German administrations sympathetic to the goal of German unity and the formation of the German Empire by Otto von Bismarck, like many regions in what is today Germany, were incorporated into the unified state." This sounds rather verbose. Can't we streamline that a bit? Olessi 00:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You think that is verbose! There are some editors of this page, See talk higher up the page, who would like to put in the history of the region over the last 1000 years. If you can reduce it without destroying the meaning I would not object. Philip Baird Shearer 08:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I have made a change. If there were any territories east of the Oder–Neisse line which were incorporated into the Germany Empire which were not under Prussian administration in 1871 please add them. Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
George Fisher

George Fisher may refer to:

Arts and entertainment

 * George Fisher (actor) (1891–1960), American actor
 * George Fisher (dramatist) (1909–1970), Welsh language author
 * George Fisher (journalist) (1909–1987), Hollywood gossip columnist and radio personality
 * George Fisher (cartoonist) (1923–2003), American political cartoonist
 * George Fisher (1927–2005), American actor a.k.a. Brock Peters
 * George Fisher (musician) (born 1970), American singer

Politics

 * George Fisher (Illinois pioneer) (died 1820), American pioneer, physician, and legislator
 * George Fisher (New York politician) (1788–1861), American politician
 * George P. Fisher (1817–1899), American politician in Delaware
 * George Fisher (New Zealand politician) (1843–1905), New Zealand politician

Science and academics

 * George Fisher (scientist) (1794–1873), British Arctic scientist
 * George Jackson Fisher (1825–1893), American physician, bibliophile, collector and author
 * George Park Fisher (1827–1909), American theologian and historian
 * George Clyde Fisher (1878–1949), curator at the American Museum of Natural History

Sports

 * George Fisher (baseball) (1855–1937), American baseball player
 * George E. Fisher (1869–1958), American football coach and college professor
 * George J. Fisher (1871–1960), American physician and sport administrator
 * George Fisher (baseball) (1855–1937), American baseball player
 * Showboat Fisher (George Fisher, 1899–1994), American baseball player
 * George Fisher (basketball coach) (1924–2014), American college basketball coach and administrator
 * George Fisher (basketball player), American basketball coach and player
 * George Fisher (footballer) (1925–2015), English footballer
 * George Fisher (netball) (born 1998), English netball player

Other people

 * George Fisher (settler) (1795–1873), Serbian-born Mexican and American citizen
 * George Fisher (bishop) (1844–1921), bishop of Southampton in the Church of England
 * George M. C. Fisher (born 1940), American business manager
 * George A. Fisher Jr. (born 1942), retired United States Army officer
 * George Fisher (miner) (1903–2007), chairman of Mount Isa Mines, Australia

title: George Fisher


text:
Michael Wilding

Michael Charles Gauntlet Wilding (23 July 1912 – 8 July 1979) was an English stage, television, and film actor. He is best known for a series of films he made with Anna Neagle; he also made two films with Alfred Hitchcock, Under Capricorn (1949) and Stage Fright (1950); and he guest starred on Hitchcock's TV show in 1963. He was married four times, including to Elizabeth Taylor, with whom he had two sons.

Early life
Born in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, England, and educated at Christ's Hospital, Wilding left home at age 17 and trained as a commercial artist. He went to Europe when he was 20 and supported himself in Europe by doing sketches. He wanted to get into designing sets for films and approached a London film studio in 1933 looking for work. They invited him to come to work as an extra.

Acting career
Wilding appeared as an extra in British films such as Bitter Sweet (1933), Heads We Go (1933), and Channel Crossing (1933). He caught the acting bug and decided to make it a career. He reportedly appeared in an Austrian film called Pastorale.

He made his stage debut in The Ringer in 1934 for the Watford Repertory Company and made his London stage debut in Chase the Ace the following year. He could be spotted in the films Late Extra (1935), When Knights Were Bold (1936), and Wedding Group (1936). He was in two musicals on stage, Spread It Abroad and Home and Beauty.

In 1937–38 he toured Australia and New Zealand with Fay Compton's stage company. The plays included Personal Appearance, Victoria Regina, Tonight at Eight Thirty and George and Margaret. While in Australia he filmed a prologue for Personal Appearance.

Back in England he appeared in the first Gate Revue, then followed this with another revue, Let's Face It and a pantomime, Who's Taking Liberty.

He had bigger film parts in There Ain't No Justice (1939), Convoy (1940), and Tilly of Bloomsbury (1940). He had a good role in Sailors Three (1940), and Sailors Don't Care (1940).

Wilding had a leading role in Spring Meeting (1941) but was back to support parts in The Farmer's Wife (1941). His films grew more prestigious: Kipps (1941), Cottage to Let (1941), Ships with Wings (1941), The Big Blockade (1941), In Which We Serve (1942), Secret Mission (1942), and Undercover (1943). He played in Quiet Weekend on stage for a year. In 1943 he performed for the troops in Gibraltar with John Gielgud.

Stardom
Wilding finally became a film name with Dear Octopus (1943). He followed it with English Without Tears (1944).

Collaboration with Anna Neagle
What really made him a star was appearing opposite Anna Neagle in Piccadilly Incident (1946). Director Herbert Wilcox had wanted Rex Harrison or John Mills and had only taken Wilding reluctantly. However, once he saw the rushes he signed Wilding to a long-term contract. Piccadilly Incident was the second most popular film at the British box office in 1946. After co-starring with Sally Gray in Carnival (1946), Wilding was reunited with Neagle and Wilcox in The Courtneys of Curzon Street (1947), the biggest hit at the 1947 British box office and one of the most-seen British films of all time. Alexander Korda cast him opposite Paulette Goddard in An Ideal Husband (1947), another hit, but it failed to recoup its enormous cost. Wilding, Neagle and Wilcox reteamed for Spring in Park Lane (1948), another outstanding hit. It led to a sequel, Maytime in Mayfair (1949), which was also enormously popular.

Wilding was now one of the biggest stars in Britain—indeed he was voted as such by the readers of Kine Weekly. Director Alfred Hitchcock then cast him in two consecutive films that he produced through his own film production company Transatlantic Pictures (distributed through Warner Brothers Pictures). The first, Under Capricorn (released in 1949), in which he played opposite Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotten, was shot mostly in London but had final retakes and overdubs filmed in Hollywood. It was one of Hitchcock's few flops. His second film for Hitchcock was the more popular Stage Fright (released in 1950), also filmed in London, with Marlene Dietrich and Jane Wyman. Thirteen years later, in 1963, Wilding starred in an Alfred Hitchcock Hour episode titled "Last Seen Wearing Blue Jeans".

Wilcox used him in a film without Neagle, Into the Blue (1950) and the public response was considerably less enthusiastic than for the films they made together. He put Anouk Aimée under personal contract and announced plans to make a movie together but none resulted.

Hollywood
MGM made an offer for Wilding to appear opposite Greer Garson in The Law and the Lady (1951); the film was not a success. He returned to Britain for The Lady with a Lamp (1951), a biopic of Florence Nightingale with Neagle and Wilcox. It was popular in Britain, though less so than their earlier collaborations.

So too was Derby Day (1952), the last Neagle–Wilding collaboration. Wilcox tried Wilding with a new star, Margaret Lockwood, in Trent's Last Case (1952), a minor hit. In 1952 British exhibitors voted him the fourth most popular star at the local box office.

In May 1952 Wilding signed a long-term contract with MGM. He turned down a role in MGM's Latin Lovers and the studio put him under suspension.

In Hollywood, Wilding supported Joan Crawford in MGM's Torch Song (1953). 20th Century Fox borrowed him to play a pharaoh in their big budget spectacular, The Egyptian (1954), which was a box office disappointment.

At MGM he was Prince Charming to Leslie Caron's Cinderella in The Glass Slipper (1955), and Major John André in The Scarlet Coat (1956).

Supporting actor
Wilding journeyed with Taylor to Africa to appear in Zarak (1956) for Warwick Films, after which his marriage to Taylor ended. He began appearing regularly on U.S. television, including the title role in the 1957 episode "The Trial of Colonel Blood" of NBC's anthology series The Joseph Cotten Show.

He had some roles in Danger Within (1959), a POW movie; The World of Suzie Wong (1960); The Naked Edge (1961); The Best of Enemies (1961); and A Girl Named Tamiko (1962).

Final films
His last roles included The Sweet Ride (1968) and Waterloo (1970).

His last appearance in a feature was in a cameo in Lady Caroline Lamb (1972), which co-starred his last wife, Margaret Leighton. His last role was in the TV movie Frankenstein: The True Story (1973).

Box-office ranking
At the peak of his career, British exhibitors voted him among the most popular stars in the country:

 * 1947—seventh most popular British star
 * 1948—fifth most popular star
 * 1949—second most popular star
 * 1950—sixth most popular British star
 * 1951—tenth most popular star
 * 1952 – fourth most popular British star

Personal life
Wilding was married four times: to Kay Young (married August 1937, separated December 1945, divorced December 1951); Elizabeth Taylor (married February 1952, separated July 1956, divorced January 1957); Susan Nell (married February 1958, divorced July 1962); and Margaret Leighton (married from July 1964 until her death in January 1976).

He and Taylor, who was 20 years his junior, had two sons, Michael Howard (born 6 January 1953) and Christopher Edward (born 27 February 1955). In 1957 he had a short-lived romance with actress Marie McDonald, who was nicknamed The Body.

In the 1960s he was forced to cut back on his film appearances because of illness related to his lifelong epilepsy.

Death
Wilding died on 8 July 1979 in Chichester, West Sussex, as a result of head injuries from a fall down a flight of stairs during an epileptic seizure. His body was cremated and the ashes were scattered.

title: Michael Wilding


text:
Nicky Hilton

Nicholai Olivia "Nicky" Rothschild ( Hilton; born October 5, 1983) is an American socialite, fashion designer and model. She is a member of the Hilton family by birth, and a member of the Rothschild family through her marriage to James Rothschild, a grandson of Victor Rothschild, 3rd Baron Rothschild, in 2015. She is the younger sister of Paris Hilton.

Early life
Hilton was born on October 5, 1983 in New York City and was raised in Los Angeles to Richard Hilton and Kathy Hilton (née Avanzino). Hilton was named for her granduncle, Conrad "Nicky" Hilton Jr. Her siblings are Paris Hilton (born 1981), Barron Hilton II (born 1989) and Conrad Hughes Hilton (born 1994).

Hilton was raised Catholic. She has Norwegian, German, Italian, English, Irish, and Scottish ancestry. Hilton graduated from Convent of the Sacred Heart, an all-girls Catholic school on the Upper East Side, in 2001. She took courses at Fashion Institute of Technology and Parsons The New School for Design but does not have a degree.

Fashion design
In 2004, Hilton launched her own clothing line. She also designed a line of handbags for Japanese company Samantha Thavasa. In 2007, she started her second line, Nicholai, at a higher price point. Nicholai held its fashion show for the spring/summer 2008 season on September 9, 2007, in New York City during Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week. In 2014, Hilton launched a 10-piece collection with eLuxe.

In 2010, Hilton launched a line of jewelry. The pieces are fashion jewelry and in an Art Deco style, averaging around $200 per piece. In 2015, she launched a capsule collection of handbags as part of a collaboration with Linea Pelle. Hilton said she was approached by Linea Pelle "to make a capsule collection and I really wanted to have it be classic. As in I didn't want to make these super trendy bags that would be out of style next season."

In August 2017, Hilton announced her collaboration with Tolani for a Mommy and Me capsule collection. The collection launched in stores in spring 2018. In 2019 Hilton launched a second collection with Tolani inspired by her travels. In February 2019, Hilton announced her first footwear collection in partnership with French Sole. The line, known as Nicky Hilton x French Sole, officially launched in September 2019.

Modeling
In 2005, Hilton was the face of Australian underwear line Antz Pantz alongside Kimberly Stewart. Stewart remains contracted, but Hilton has been replaced by Australian model Megan Maitland. Around this time, Hilton modeled for the cover of Lucire for its New Zealand and Romanian editions.

Other ventures
In 2006, Hilton entered a partnership to open two Nicky O Hotels, the first in Miami and the second in Chicago. That same year, she sued her partner in Federal Court in Los Angeles for damages and to seek an injunction against his use of the name. On February 12, 2007, Hilton was sued for breach of contract by her partners.

In 2014, she published her first book, 365 Style, published by Harlequin, a subsidiary of HarperCollins.

In 2015, Hilton collaborated with Smashbox, the cosmetic brand owned by Estée Lauder Companies, to create a cosmetic line consisting of three limited-edition cat-inspired makeup kits.

Personal life
At 2:30 a.m. on August 15, 2004, Hilton married childhood friend and businessman Todd Meister at the Vegas Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas, Nevada. The marriage was annulled less than three months later, with Hilton and Meister explaining they traveled apart often and had married "on a whim".

In 2011, Hilton began dating financier James Rothschild (born 1985), a member of the Rothschild family and only son of Amschel Rothschild. On August 12, 2014, Hilton became engaged to Rothschild. They were married on July 10, 2015, in London, England. They have three children.

title: Nicky Hilton


text:
Medial magma

In abstract algebra, a medial magma or medial groupoid is a magma or groupoid (that is, a set with a binary operation) that satisfies the identity

or more simply,

for all $(x • y) • (u • v) = (x • u) • (y • v)$, $xy • uv = xu • yv$, $x$ and $y$, using the convention that juxtaposition denotes the same operation but has higher precedence. This identity has been variously called medial, abelian, alternation, transposition, interchange, bi-commutative, bisymmetric, surcommutative, entropic, etc.

Any commutative semigroup is a medial magma, and a medial magma has an identity element if and only if it is a commutative monoid. The "only if" direction is the Eckmann–Hilton argument. Another class of semigroups forming medial magmas are normal bands. Medial magmas need not be associative: for any nontrivial abelian group with operation $u$ and integers $v$, the new binary operation defined by $+$ yields a medial magma that in general is neither associative nor commutative.

Using the categorical definition of product, for a magma $m ≠ n$, one may define the Cartesian square magma $x • y = mx + ny$ with the operation

The binary operation $M$ of $M × M$, considered as a mapping from $(x, y) • (u, v) = (x • u, y • v)$ to $•$, maps $M$ to $M × M$, $M$ to $(x, y)$, and $x • y$ to $(u, v)$. Hence, a magma $u • v$ is medial if and only if its binary operation is a magma homomorphism from $(x • u, y • v)$ to $(x • u) • (y • v)$. This can easily be expressed in terms of a commutative diagram, and thus leads to the notion of a medial magma object in a category with a Cartesian product. (See the discussion in auto magma object.)

If $M$ and $M × M$ are endomorphisms of a medial magma, then the mapping $M$ defined by pointwise multiplication

is itself an endomorphism. It follows that the set $f$ of all endomorphisms of a medial magma $g$ is itself a medial magma.

Bruck–Murdoch–Toyoda theorem
The Bruck–Murdoch–Toyoda theorem provides the following characterization of medial quasigroups. Given an abelian group $f • g$ and two commuting automorphisms $(f • g)(x) = f(x) • g(x)$ and $End(M)$ of $M$, define an operation $A$ on $φ$ by

where $ψ$ some fixed element of $A$. It is not hard to prove that $•$ forms a medial quasigroup under this operation. The Bruck–Toyoda theorem states that every medial quasigroup is of this form, i.e. is isomorphic to a quasigroup defined from an abelian group in this way. In particular, every medial quasigroup is isotopic to an abelian group.

The result was obtained independently in 1941 by Murdoch and Toyoda. It was then rediscovered by Bruck in 1944.

Generalizations
The term medial or (more commonly) entropic is also used for a generalization to multiple operations. An algebraic structure is an entropic algebra if every two operations satisfy a generalization of the medial identity. Let $A$ and $x • y = φ(x) + ψ(y) + c$ be operations of arity $c$ and $A$, respectively. Then $A$ and $f$ are required to satisfy
 * $$f(g(x_{11}, \ldots, x_{1n}), \ldots, g(x_{m1}, \ldots, x_{mn})) = g(f(x_{11}, \ldots, x_{m1}), \ldots, f(x_{1n}, \ldots, x_{mn})).$$

Nonassociative examples
A particularly natural example of a nonassociative medial magma is given by collinear points on elliptic curves. The operation $g$ for points on the curve, corresponding to drawing a line between x and y and defining $m$ as the third intersection point of the line with the elliptic curve, is a (commutative) medial magma which is isotopic to the operation of elliptic curve addition.

Unlike elliptic curve addition, $n$ is independent of the choice of a neutral element on the curve, and further satisfies the identities $f$. This property is commonly used in purely geometric proofs that elliptic curve addition is associative.

title: Medial magma


text:
Talk:Yes-no pen

Isn't this more suited to a dictionary? We seem to have written one article about four entirely seperate sorts of pens: at a minimum, we should have some disambiguation going on. Martin 18:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Four different dictionary definitions still does not suit it to be an article. No disambiguation is appropriate for something that is both a dicdef and has no created articles to disambiguate. - Texture 19:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With respect to your first sentence, isn't that what I just said? With respect to your second, I simply disagree, though I expect my disagreement might be more compelling if I showed you. Martin 19:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is what you said. I agreed.  I see your diambiguation page and still feel it warrants deletion. - Texture 19:35, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see. When you said "still", I thought you were expressing disagreement, my apologies. Martin 19:36, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From VfD

 * Yes-no pen - another obscure Boyerism. --Wik 17:45, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Again with the Boyerism. If I had really invented all the stuff Wik et al. think I did I would be the most brilliant genius in history. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails Google test totally. (btw, are there any geniuses that are not brilliant?) Maroux 20:43, 2004 Feb 29 (UTC)
 * All geniuses are brilliant, but some are more brilliant than others. BTW, I vote keep. Meelar 22:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everyking 20:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not obscure at all. Darkcore 04:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Boyer's refusal to comply with Wikipedia rules is moving his behaviour towards trollish. Everytime I've spent several hours doing background research into his articles of this sort I've come up with nothing to back him up, it's just not worth my time anymore. --Imran 23:25, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * What rules have I refused to comply with? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - How many makes of "yes-no-pens" (with that name) are there? Is this a one shot toy that was never produced again? How do coins qualify as a "yes-no-pen"? (That alone decides it for me.) - Texture 15:45, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many makes of "yes-no" pens there are, but you will find these (accompanying the special books they are designed to be used with) in almost any hospital gift-shop, discount store, large grocery store, &c. They are very far from being uncommon. Plus, if you'll carefully read the article, you will see that it in no way describes coins as being "yes-no" pens. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * If you read the article carefully and you will find "Another classical "yes-no" fortune telling method is the use of coins. " My point being that the article is whimsy. - Texture 18:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The bit about coins was added by another editor fairly recently. Daniel C. Boyer is not the author... -- Cyan 19:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I was never talking about whatever portion he wrote. I am talking about the article at the time it was nominated for deletion - Texture 02:17, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can vouch for the existence and prevalence of the item in question; yes-no game books were how my parents kept me happy on long car trips when I was a kid. -- Cyan 19:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:13, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, now a valid disambiguation page (though maybe a redirect would work too). Like Cyan, I used one of these as a kid. Seemed a popular class of educational toy. Martin 19:39, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Grew up on a farm, never had one. Had coins, though! Still vote to delete - Texture 19:53, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote. I remember the "Yes and Know" books. Is that what is really meant here? Josh Cherry 02:51, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Further discussion
[Reply to Josh Cherry]: The "yes and know" pens accompany the "Yes and Know" books. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just heard a feature on National Public Radio which claimed that there was a connection to a voter verification method, Scantegrity: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112558776 This is all that I know about it, but it suggests (if it is at all true) that connections should be made between this article and the one for Scantegrity. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yes-no pen


text:
Me and Bobby McGee

"Me and Bobby McGee" is a song written by American singer-songwriter Kris Kristofferson and originally performed by Roger Miller. Fred Foster shares the writing credit, as Kristofferson wrote the song based on a suggestion from Foster. A posthumously released version by Janis Joplin topped the U.S. singles chart in 1971, making the song the second posthumously released No. 1 single in U.S. chart history after "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" by Otis Redding. Gordon Lightfoot released a version that reached number 1 on the Canadian country charts in 1970. Jerry Lee Lewis released a version that was number 1 on the country charts in December 1971/January 1972 as the "B" side of "Would You Take Another Chance on Me". Billboard ranked Joplin's version as the No. 11 song for 1971.

In 2002, the 1971 version of the song by Janis Joplin on Columbia Records was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame.

History
The suggestion for the title was a cordial challenge from producer and Monument Records founder Fred Foster to Kris Kristofferson. The titular character was named for a studio secretary, Barbara "Bobbie" McKee, but Kristofferson had misheard her surname. He explained that he was trying to convey the despair of the last scene of Federico Fellini’s La Strada in which a broken, war-torn, inebriated man (played by Anthony Quinn) stares up from the beach at the night's stars, and breaks down sobbing.

Narrative
The song is the story of two drifters, the narrator and Bobby McGee. The pair hitch a ride from a truck driver and sing as they drive through the American South before making their way westward. They visit California and then part ways, with the song's narrator expressing sadness afterwards. Due to the singer's name never being mentioned and the name "Bobby" being gender-neutral (especially in America), the song has been recorded by both male and female singers with only minor differences in the lyrical content.

Recordings and notable performances
Roger Miller was the first artist to record the song (in May 1969), and it appeared at No. 12 on the U.S. country chart in 1969. Kenny Rogers and The First Edition recorded the song in May/June 1969, and released it on their album Ruby, Don't Take Your Love To Town in 1969. On the Canadian charts, Gordon Lightfoot's version (recorded in November 1969) hit No. 13 on the pop music chart and No. 1 on the country music chart in 1970. The song was included on the 1970 Statler Brothers album Bed of Rose's, but was not released as a single.

Kristofferson recorded his own version of the song on his debut album Kristofferson in 1970. Later that year, his version of the song appeared in Monte Hellman's psychedelic road movie Two-Lane Blacktop. Kristofferson also appears briefly singing the song in the 1971 Dennis Hopper film The Last Movie.

Janis Joplin recorded the song for inclusion on her Pearl album only a few days before her death in October 1970. Kristofferson had sung the song for her, and singer Bob Neuwirth taught it to her. Kristofferson did not know she had recorded the song until after her death. The first time he heard her recording of it was the day after she died. Record World called it a "perfect matching of performer and material." Joplin's version topped the charts to become her only number one single; her version was later ranked No. 148 on Rolling Stone's 2004 list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time.

Selected list of recorded versions

 * 1969 Roger Miller - album Roger Miller
 * 1969 Roy Clark - album The Everlovin' Soul of Roy Clark
 * 1969 The Stonemans - album Dawn of the Stonemans' Age
 * 1969 Kenny Rogers & The First Edition - album Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town
 * 1970 Charley Pride - album Just Plain Charley
 * 1970 Ramblin' Jack Elliott - album Bull Durham Sacks & Railroad Tracks
 * 1970 The Statler Brothers - album Bed of Rose's
 * 1970 Gordon Lightfoot - album Sit Down Young Stranger
 * 1970 Kris Kristofferson - album Kristofferson, this version also appears in the film Two-Lane Blacktop
 * 1970 Bill Haley & His Comets - album Rock Around the Country
 * 1970 Sam The Sham - single "Me And Bobby McGee/Key To The Highway" (Atlantic #2757)
 * 1970 Henson Cargill - album The Uncomplicated Henson Cargill
 * 1971 Olivia Newton-John - album If Not for You
 * 1971 Dave Dudley - album Will the Real Dave Dudley Please Sing
 * 1971 John Mogensen as "Carsten Levin" Danish - single, featured on the album John (1973)
 * 1971 Janis Joplin U.S. number-one single, from the album Pearl
 * 1971 & 1972 Jerry Lee Lewis - B-side of "Would You Take Another Chance on Me" / album The Killer Rocks On
 * 1971 Dottie West - album Have You Heard...
 * 1971 Grateful Dead - album Skull & Roses
 * 1971 Loretta Lynn - album I Wanna Be Free
 * 1971 Lalla Hansson as "Anna & mej" Swedish - album Upp till Ragvaldsträsk scoring a Tio i Topp hit.
 * 1972 Johnny Cash - album På Österåker
 * 1972 Charlie McCoy - album Charlie McCoy
 * 1972 Jeannie C. Riley - album Give Myself a Party
 * 1973 Waylon Jennings - album Lonesome, On'ry and Mean
 * 1973 Chet Atkins - album Alone
 * 1973 Thelma Houston - album Thelma Houston
 * 1974 Lonnie Donegan - album Lonnie Donegan Meets Leinemann
 * 1974 Cornelis Vreeswijk as "Jag och Bosse Lidén" Swedish - album Getinghonung
 * 1975 Pavel Bobek - Chvíle, kdy jsem byl s ní, album Veď mě dál, cesto má, Supraphon, Czech text Vladimír Poštulka
 * 1979 Gianna Nannini as "Io e Bobby McGee" Italian - album California
 * 1979 Willie Nelson - album Willie Nelson sings Kristofferson
 * 1984 Joan Baez - album Live Europe '83 album
 * 1990 The Highwaymen - Live: American Outlaws
 * 1994 Melissa Etheridge - album Acoustic
 * 1997 Loquillo - album Compañeros de viaje
 * 1999 LeAnn Rimes - album LeAnn Rimes
 * 1999 Barb Jungr - album Bare
 * 2002 Anne Murray - album Country Croonin'
 * 2002 Jennifer Love Hewitt - album Bare Naked
 * 2002 Waterloo & Robinson as "Ich und BobbyMcGee" German - album Marianne
 * 2003 Jerry Jeff Walker - album Too Old To Change
 * 2004 Pink - album Live in Europe
 * 2005 Dolly Parton - album Those Were The Days
 * 2005 Arlo Guthrie - album Live In Sydney
 * 2006 Dale Ann Bradley - album Catch Tomorrow
 * 2007 Angela Kalule - The Last King of Scotland soundtrack
 * 2007 Caroline af Ugglas - album Joplin på Svenska
 * 2008 Amanda Strydom - album kerse teen die donker
 * 2010 Crystal Bowersox on American Idol iTunes release of studio version from Top 11 week, and Final 2 week, of season 9
 * 2016 Matt Doyle - album Uncontrolled

title: Me and Bobby McGee


text:
Talk:Carlists

This appears to duplicate the material in Carlism

title: Talk:Carlists


text:
Havre Boucher

Havre Boucher is a community in Antigonish County, Nova Scotia, Canada.

Description
The village takes its name from "Havre Boucher", a natural harbour that opens onto St. George's Bay to the north. The community has expanded from its original setting on the west side of the harbour to now encompass the communities of Auld's Cove, Cape Jack, East Havre Boucher, West Havre Boucher, Frankville and Linwood.

Havre Boucher is largely rural and dependent upon the fishing industry, and as a service centre for the surrounding area.

Formerly an incorporated village, offering its residents political control through an elected governing body known as a "village commission" which operated under the auspices of the Nova Scotia Municipal Services Act, its status was dissolved in 2018.

History
Construction of the Canso Causeway, which opened in 1955, saw the Canadian National Railway mainline from Truro-Sydney being diverted from Linwood to an alignment north through Havre Boucher and Cape Jack, following the Strait of Canso to the causeway. Prior to that time, the railway ran from Linwood to Mulgrave where a ferry service operated to Point Tupper. Havre Boucher saw the construction of a large railway yard, which remains in operation today by the Cape Breton and Central Nova Scotia Railway.

Demographics
In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Havre Boucher had a population of 281 living in 128 of its 137 total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of 309. With a land area of 2.69 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

title: Havre Boucher


text:
Berneray

Berneray or Bernera (Beàrnaraigh) is the name of several Scottish islands:

Bernera
There are three islands called Bernera:
 * Bernera Island, a tidal island off the south-west coast of Lismore
 * Great Bernera on the north-west coast of Lewis
 * Little Bernera to the north of Great Bernera

Berneray
There are two islands named Berneray in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland:
 * Barra Head, the southernmost isle of the Outer Hebrides (also known as Berneray)
 * Berneray (North Uist), near North Uist. Under the parish of Harris and owned as part of the Bays of Harris Estate.

title: Berneray