Talk:Schleswig–Holstein question

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

Untitled[edit]

Many Wikipedia users prefer to avoid having tags at the tops of articles, particularly if they aren't relevant to readers. Consider using these tags sparingly, and use the talk pages to discuss how to merge articles where it's not obvious whether or how the articles should be merged. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Merger: yes or no?[edit]

  • In the History of Schleswig-Holstein, the problematics of 1840's-1860's (which, after all, is only a few decades of a history of thousand years), has taken disproportionately big space. In other histories, special questions or eras have received own articles. Why not allow it here? There is much else in the province's history, and all that should not be dwarfed. Therefore, I think I am for not merging these articles. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)
You are right, but I think both articles need to be heavily rearranged, which seems like a lot of work. Martg76 4 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)
What Marg76 said. There is lots of good information on all these pages, and they need lots of work. But the current titles are just fine, and the S–H Question is a valid and common entry in encyclopedias and history books. Oppose the merge (although without zeal). Arbor 5 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)
  • Since it was me who added the merge tags in the first place, I am now replacing them with the more appropriate cleanup tags. Martg76 6 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
I've put merger-tags back in, even though clean-up may be more appropriate. There are too many double infos, even within one article, and the more important issues and results are hidden behind lots of details. --Matthead 06:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Although I oppose the merge, whether it ultimately occurs or not, it will probably be easier to edit these articles into shape separately before trying to merge them, since the amount of detail in each seems appropriate for the interest level in each. Lethiere 01:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the history of Schleswig-Holstein has a bearing on this question: see history of Schleswig-Holstein for details.

and merged what bits of the history matter was not duplicate. Anthony Appleyard 14:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup issues[edit]

  • Notices that parts of this article seem to have written or translated by a non-native speaker. Caravaca 10:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have spell checked the article and tried to make sense of a few garbled meanings. The source for this article is a bad OCR scan of Encyclopedia Britannica. Thuresson 22:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Schleswig-Holstein question might have been thus early settled but for Valdemar's ill fortune in being taken prisoner in 1223. During his captivity his governor was beaten at Molln by Count Adolf III, to whom Valdemar restored his countship as the price of his own release. A papal dispensation from oaths taken, under duress excused a new war; but Valdemar himself was beaten at Bornhövede on July 22, 1227, and Holstein was permanently secured to the house of Schauenburg.

Were the governor and Valdemar physically beaten (whipped or something?) or were they defeated in battle? Nloth 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The line refers to the Danish defeat in the battle of Bornhöved in 1227. Valentinian T / C 22:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All references on teh entire internets to "right of indigenacy" come back to the Britannica article used here. Google suggests that perhaps they meant "indigency". Surfing about suggests that a "right of indigency" could mean the right to have ones defense counsel or medical treatment paid for by the state. That doesn't seem self-evidently what was meant in the context here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.110.244.98 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened between 1472 and 1767?[edit]

Currently we have one paragraph ending: Finally, in 1472 the emperor Frederick III confirmed Christian I's overlordship over Dithmarschen and erected Dithmarschen, Holstein and Stormarn into the duchy of Holstein.

The next paragraph begins: In 1760's the duchies' rulers of Russia had no interest in maintaining their part of Holstein and their confused and disputed common rights in Jutland, and in 1767 the empress Catherine II resigned them...

What happened? How did Russia get involved? Nloth 23:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two events aren't connected. The last sentence refers to the short reign of Peter III of Russia. He was a Gottorper, so he hated Denmark and wished to destroy it. One of his armies was on its way to attack Denmark but turned back around 30 kilometers from the Danish lines. Catherine the Great had just deposed her husband from power, and she issued a counter-order cancelling the attack on Denmark. Valentinian T / C 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partition ambiguity[edit]

In Schleswig-Holstein Question#Language and nationality, this version had this sentence in its last paragraph:-

This idea, which subsequently had supporters both among Danes and Germans,
proved impracticable later owing to the intractable temper of the majority on both sides.

The two words which I have boldfaced here, contradict each other. Which of the two clauses happened after the other?

I have changed it to

This idea, which afterwards had supporters among both Danes and Germans, proved impracticable at the time owing to the intractable temper of the majority on both sides.

Or should it be this?:-

This idea, which at the time had supporters among both Danes and Germans, proved impracticable afterwards owing to the intractable temper of the majority on both sides.

Or what?
Anthony Appleyard 06:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which province did Prussia take from Austria?[edit]

In the war with Austria, Prussia took Schleswig from Austria, not Holstein. The facts here need to be checked. This is important, because the fact that Austria had Schleswig, the northern most province, was relevant in later tensions with Prussia. Prussia already had Holstein, so it didn't have to "take" it from Austria. I tried to correct this error, but someone changed it back, and I have no interest in an edit war if you are insistant on changing it back. This contribution was from 84.186.193.38 16:20, May 20, 2007

It was the other way around. Following the 1864 war, Prussia held Schleswig, Austria held Holstein. If you wish to see a readily available German source, see e.g. "Dtv - Atlas zur Weltgeschichte", Band 2 from Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag. Valentinian T / C 14:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic Languages?[edit]

First the article speaks about the history of German and Danish in the territory and then it suddenly states: "Over centuries of development Slavic languages slowly disappeared and Germanic languages merged to form a Low German dialect"

What have Slavic languages to do with this at all? Both Danish and German are Germanic languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.242.55 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic languages were spoken in eastern Holstein in the Middle Ages from the 8th up to the 11th-12th century. See Obotrites, who settled in Lauenburg and Ostholstein. But someone has removed the sentence in question anyway, so... Zipor haNefesch (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ancient antagonism between German and Dane[edit]

"There was also the national question: the ancient antagonism between German and Dane, intensified by the tendency, characteristic of the nineteenth century, to consolidate nationalities."

What antagony does this refer to? What conflicts did Jutes and Saxons or Frisians have? In my understanding the conflicts arose among far away dukes and kings. Not the local populations. 46.114.41.142 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed seem to be 19th century nationalistic concepts anachronistically imposed on earlier periods in history. I would have no problem with the sentence being removed altogether. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just done so and attempted to replace it with something more in line with the scholarship in nationalism studies concerning the creation of the nation-state in the 18th c. vckeating (talk) 12:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to sentence case[edit]

Per long-standing policy, article titles should be in sentence case, not title case. This means the title of this article should be "Schleswig-Holstein question", not "Schleswig-Holstein Question". This is also the case used by Encyclopædia Britannica and elsewhere.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy understanding[edit]

I'm struggling to understand the following, from the second paragraph: "Schleswig was a part of Denmark during the Viking Age, and became a Danish duchy in the 12th century. Denmark repeatedly tried to reintegrate the Duchy of Schleswig into the Danish kingdom."

If it was Danish in the Viking Age and Danish in the 12th Century, then why did it have to be reintegrated? Does this mean it was an independent duchy in the 12th Century? If so, we need to find the words to say so. IceDragon64 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC) 74.82.228.16 (talk)The Duchy was united under Denmark and the German people insisted to live/reside there, so the Monarchy of Denmark created a very special area where the German people and the Danish people might come to meet and cohabitate, even unto marriage. Germans should go no further into Denmark than this area, as there might be troubles. Should always be Danish, as long as I live, and I am possibly more German than Danish.74.82.228.16 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Schleswig-Holstein Question. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eastern Question which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schleswig–Holstein_question&oldid=1208367771"