Talk:Kulturkampf/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old tall

Hey, folks, the Kulturkampf and the attempts to suppress Polish identity overlap, but neither is wholly part of the other. As Nightbeast suggests, in a history of Poland, a discussion of the Kulturkampf would focus on its anti-Polish uses, but in a more general approach, the Polish aspect is not central. I expect that Bismarck felt it necessary to take on the church for a number of reasons: (1) it was a competitor against the state for the people's allegiance, in a way that Protestant churches could not be--at least before the days of televangelists, (2) Prussia, its German-speakers heavily Protestant, had swallowed the rest of Germany, with a much higher percentage of Catholics, making the Catholic Church available as a possible rallying point against the "Prussian yoke", (3) the annexed non-Germans in Poland and Alsace-Lorraine were Catholic and even less likely to be assimilated into a Germany dominated by Prussia, (4) Austria, Prussia's long-time opponent for domination of the German-speaking world, was Catholic, and (5) the schism in the church caused by the assertion of papal infallibility and other fallout from the First Vatican Council may have seemed to provide a good opportunity. I assume, too, that the Kulturkampf was not the only time in Prussia's almost 150-year occupation of western Poland that Polish language and culture were suppressed.

Some explanation of the changes I've made: I think it's important to note that there were a lot of Catholics in Prussia. Also, Württemberg was majority Protestant, with a Protestant dynasty, and Baden was very slightly majority Catholic with a Protestant dynasty, so it doesn't make sense to call them "Catholic" states. john k 06:42, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A big portion of the people in the alsace were prostestant and 96% of the population was german speaking and from german descend. Kulturkampf was not a national conflict here. unsigned comment by anon 11:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What about merging the article at Kultur to this article on Kulturkampf?
--Ruhrjung 10:06, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

No because "Kultur" is distinctive from the cultural war Bismark had with catholics.WHEELER 20:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I once again agree with WHEELER. "Kultur" is an idea of a generic German culture, or whatever, and the Kulturkampf is a specific historical event. They should have separate articles. john k 20:24, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK! :-))
--Ruhrjung 20:04, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)

"Kultur" is NOT an idea of a generic German culture, or whatever. "Deutschtum" (Germanhood) would be something like that. "Kultur" simply is a term meaning culture in wider sense.

Kulturkampf

I have just finished reading "The Kulturkampf in Prussian Poland" by Lech Trzeciakowski, translated from the Polish by Katarzyna Kretowska, Columbia University Press, 1990. I recommend it for those researchers who would like to know the Polish perspective on this. It provides significant insight into the reasons that Poles would have emigrated from Poznan~ after 1871/72 and a more in-depth explanation of why Bismarck's push to Germanize the Poles who remained only succeeded in unifying them across the three Partitions.

Rewriting history: the Kulturkampf was not anti-polonistic

The external links by User:Molobo and the Category and link to Anti-Polonism by User:Witkacy are intentionally trying to imply that Bismarck had anti-polonistic reasons for his Kulturkampf, which history books would deny. Bismarck, who's widely seen as the founder of the German Empire, was motivated by an infallibility dogma by a Pope and used this to fight for the autonomy of the state. The newly gained authority that Bismarck's measures paved the way for, ALSO allowed Bismarck to forbid for example the teaching in Polish, because teaching in another language other than German would have opposed the German national consciousness according to the German Wikipedia, which had its heyday in the German Empire and was part of the imperialistic course later under Wilhelm II. Bismarck was hated by Catholics as a result of the Kulturkampf, one even committed an assassination on Bismarck, that Bismarck only just surviced, so when Bismarck tells the Reichstag, which was increasingly beset by German Catholics, in a speech that his unsuccessful Kulturkampf was not against them but against Poles, it must be understood as an attempt to bury the hatched, to excuse it. Bismarck appealed to the German national consciousness of those who he might like not to have as enemies. Bismarck was fired not only because of differences with Wilhelm II but also because he didn't have majorities in the Reichstag, which was beset by Catholics and Social Democrats. And what is widely known about the end of the Kulturkampf? Bismarck gave up the fight and except for civil marriage and some detail as always unconnected to Poles, in favour of the Pope and the support by Catholics. The "undeniable proof" of Molobo and Witkacy is a speech aimed at reconciling the German Catholics and don't we all know the lack of honesty of politicial speeches? What Witkacy and Molobo are trying to do is only distorting history here.NightBeAsT 12:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Nightbeast, but this seems too much like your original research. Please provide reliable sources to support your speculations, instead. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I could translate some passages of history books on the Kulturkampf if that's what you're asking for. It just takes some time. I find it quite arrogant that some guys like Molobo, whose interest in the truth is, using less incendiary words, not that of a mirror when it comes to Germany in connection to Poland and to make a verdict that comes to another conclusions than history books which are written by Doctors and Professors of history would be another absurd distortion of history. Like I said, it takes time to do that so please wait some days.NightBeAsT 10:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism; some context, please?

Rather than revert-warring over the category and link, can someone please rework the text to put references to the Anti-Polonistic nature of the 'Kampf into some sort of context? As the article stands, the text would lead one to believe that suppression in the eastern provinces was because they were Catholic, not because they were Polish. So if these additions are appropriate (on which I express no opinion, personally), the article text should make clear why this is the case. Alai 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to the Bismark's speech --Molobo 17:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Bismarck's speech

The link provided by Lysy is also quite volatile in my opinion. I think the best idea is to add the text of the speech to [1]. I don't know how to do it though. Alx-pl D 10:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

All Internet links are temporary ;-) and we can only speculate about probability of which one will last longer. This one belongs to H-German, a member of H-Net Humanities & Social Sciences OnLine. This said, I'm happy to have the link removed if it really bothers you. I also would like to have the text on wikisources if anyone would care to put it there (but check the copyrights for the translation first). --Lysy ^(talk) 10:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, it seems it is copyrighted. I tried to find an on-line resource with the German version of the speech, but the best I could find was this which is quite unsatisfactory. Alx-pl D 19:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

None of my history books would draw a connection to Anti-Polonism or what that word stands for. The article tries to overemphasise it completely. Look at how other encyclopaedias describe the Kulturkampf, like the Catholic (the first entry if you search for Kulturkampf with Google), or this, the third link (the second is Wikipedia) or this or what does Britannica say? Even links that are about a 'Prussia'sation are thrown in there. The article misrepresents the Kulturkampf completely in favour of an everything-is-anti-polonistic paranoia. The article is therefore all but neutral, but cannot be made neutral since every attempt at doing so leads to a revert by Molobo or Witkacy and is often followed by increasing the bias by certain contributors as some kind of punishment. I know that it's useless to use the talk page although I'm sure certain users will join the discussion but only to pretend to be interested in a discussion. Only when a third party decides on the matter, there can be a change.NightBeAsT 18:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC) And mine do as well as Bismarck.Case closed. --Molobo 19:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.phf.uni-rostock.de/fbg/33/grundkurs/arbeit/kultur.htm 2.2.2. Kulturkampf und Landesverweisungen

Gleich nach der Reichsgründung 1871 begann auch in den polnischen Provinzen Preußens der "Kulturkampf" Bismarcks.(14) Diese Auseinandersetzung zwischen militantem Liberalismus und säkularisiertem Staatsapparat einerseits und der katholischen Kirche andererseits drehte sich hier vor allem um Sprache und Schule. Das Schulaufsichtsgesetz vom März 1872 sollte die polnische Geistlichkeit aus ihrer Kontrollstellung in diesen Fragen verdrängen. Deutsch wurde zur Sprache des Volksschulunterrichts (1873), was einem direkten Angriff auf die nationalkulturelle Eigenart der Polen in Preußen gleichkam. Durch diese Germanisierungspolitik wurde auch das politische Empfinden der Masse der katholischen Landbevölkerung geweckt. Es gründeten sich in zunehmender Zahl polnische Bauernverbände.(15) Die zweite Phase Bismarckscher Polenpolitik ist durch den Kampf gegen den polnischen Adel gekennzeichnet. 1885 kam es zur Ausweisung von 32.000 Polen mit ungeklärter Staatsangehörigkeit, die jedoch häufig schon seit Generationen in diesen Gebieten beheimatet waren.(16) Die Aktion wurde mit brutaler Härte auch gegen zahlreichen Widerstand, selbst bei preußischen Konservativen, durchgeführt. Unangefochten blieben dagegen die sogenannten "Grenzgänger", polnische Saisonarbeiter, die aus dem russischen und galizischen Polen herüberkamen und als billige Arbeitskräfte für die Rentabilität vieler Rittergüter sorgten.(17)

The cherrypicked article describes politics of the German Empire in connection to Poles and only describes the effect of the Kulturkampf in this regard. Possible conclusion: Kulturkampf is important to politics concerning Poles, yet politics concerning Poles are unimportant to Kulturkampf NightBeAsT 14:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

(14): Auf den engen Zusammenhang weist hin: Engelberg, Ernst: Bismarck. Das Reich in der Mitte Europas. Berlin 1990, S. 443. (15): Wehler, Krisenherde, S. 185 f. (16): Vgl. dazu Neubach, Helmut: Die Ausweisungen von Polen und Juden aus Preußen 1885/86. Wiesbaden 1967. (17): Wehler, Krisenherde, S. 186 f.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12204c.htm Broadly speaking, the causes of Polish immigration have been political, religious, and economic. While economic conditions have been the direct cause, it must be borne in mind that the indirect causes, political and religious, are quite as potent as the economic. Prussianizing, which lately has assumed a religious as well as a political aspect, renders the progress of Prussian Poland distasteful to the Poles, because whatever progress is made must be along Prussian lines. The Kulturkampf gave the American Poles many of their noblest priests, through whose influence thousands of Poles came to America. While Prussianizing by means of class legislation, expropriation, and colonization has not been very rapid, its methods have been attended with a certain measure of success. The economic prosperity of Western Germany has checked the emigration of Prussian Poles from the empire, and the Poles already form an important and growing part of the population of Westphalia and the Rhenish provinces.

The cherrypicked article is from the Catholic Encyclopedia but does not concentrate on the Kulturkampf, but on Poles in the United States. The wikipedia article, however, should concentrate on the Kulturkampf. The Catholic encyclopedia also has a long article concentrating on the Kulturkampf, which has only two hits if you search for "Poles" and zero if you search for "Poland". --> Possible conclusion: The Kulturkampf is somewhat important to Poles in the United States, yet a focus on Poles is irrelevant when focussing on the Kulturkampf.NightBeAsT 14:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Both of which claim that Bismarck wanted to concentrate on the Poles : 1.His excuse was that the members of the aforesaid Catholic Section of the Department of Worship were guilty of too close relations with the Poles. 2.Shortly afterwards he caused the house of a Polish canon in Posen to be searched by the police, in the hope of finding there correspondence that would enable him to convict Windthorst of an alliance with the Poles. --Molobo 00:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.gillmacmillan.ie/ecom/Library3.nsf/0/c0c8affeaf63f40b80256e360056e821?OpenDocument F. Minority Problems (1) The Poles: Bismarck disliked the Poles as Slavs, as Catholics, and as a people determined to restore their national independence. Bismarck tried to destroy their identity by banning their language from public life. The government gave loans to Germans to buy out Polish landowners and Bismarck refused to allow Leo XIII to appoint a polish primate. However, Poles of all classes united against these measures and Polish nationalism intensified.--Molobo 19:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Why did you not quote the paragraph on the Kulturkampf on the same page?

D. The Kulturkampf

(1) Reasons: In 1872 Bismarck began the Kulturkampf to destroy the political influence of the Catholic Church in Germany. As a Lutheran and a Prussian he could not understand how German Catholics could divide their loyalty between their country and their religion. He misunderstood the doctrine of papal infallibility, which he feared might be used against him for political purposes. He particularly disliked Ludwig Windthorst, the Zentrum leader, who was his toughest opponent in parliament.

(2) The May Laws: In 1872 the Jesuits were suppressed in Prussia and in 1873 Adalbert Falk, the Prussian Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs, introduced his 'May Laws'. These brought clerical education and appointments under state control, introduced government inspection of schools and made civil marriages compulsory.

(3) Opposition: Pius IX denounced the May Laws and German Catholics united to oppose them. By 1876 all Prussia's bishops were in prison or in exile. Only 30 of 10,000 priests accepted the laws. At the same time, the Zentrum increased its numbers in the Reichstag from 58 to 100.

(4) Failure: Bismarck intended the Kulturkampf to destroy the influence of the Catholic Church and unite Germans. It failed on both counts. Even Protestants disliked the May Laws because they interfered with their religious rights and many felt that religious persecution was out of place in the nineteenth century.

(5) Reconciliation: By 1878 Bismarck realised that the Kulturkampf had failed and that the empire was more divided than ever. Besides, the Socialists were becoming increasingly powerful and Bismarck needed an alliance with the Zentrum to resist them. The accession of the conciliatory Leo XIII to the Papacy facilitated reconciliation. Bismarck allowed the May Laws to lapse. Clergy were restored to their positions and schools were returned to the Church.

So again the obviously the Kulturkampf is worth mentioning in the context of politics concerning Poles but politics concerning Poles are not worth mentioning in the context of the Kulturkampf. The sources you offered, Molobo, were all cherrypicked but still couldn't dispel the view of politics concerning Poles as pretty irrelevant to the Kulturkampf. My history books came to a similar conclusion. If you want their translations, just ask me for them but since I know little of copyright laws, do not hold me responsible if posting their material, albeit translated, may be a copyvio, ok?NightBeAsT 14:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

http://h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/speech.html [The immediate background for this long speech was the brutal expulsions from Prussian territory of Poles and Polish Jews carried out in 1885. Many of these people had been resident in Prussia for years but had not become citizens, no easy matter in Germany. Polish deputies in the Reichstag formally questioned the government on these policies. Bismarck responded by denying the competence of the Reichstag in Prussian state matters. Shortly thereafter a majority of the lower house of the Prussian parliament moved a declaration for the protection of German interests in the eastern provinces. With this friendlier stimulus, Bismarck laid out the principles of the government's Polish policies. A typical Bismarck speech, it was delivered extempore (as were all speeches in the Reichstag and German state parliaments), filled with innuendo and threats and short on specific details. The intention here is to stifle criticism of an increasingly rigorous anti-Polish government policy, justifying it as an entirely reasonable response to Polish provocation. All the good will comes from the German side; all the bad faith belongs to the Poles. Source: Eugen Kalkschmidt (ed.), Bismarcks Reden (Berlin, n.d.), pp. 173-86. Translated by Richard S. Levy.] A fragment of the speech. Otto von Bismarck: When I think about the reasons for this, there comes to mind the Catholic department [of the Prussian government] which, until its abolition by my direct intervention as minister-president, possessed the character of a Polonizing organ inside the Prussian administration. (Unrest in the Center Party and among the Poles). Under the direction of Herr Kraetzig--I hope he lives still, it had become an institute of a few great Polish families, in whose service these officials pushed Polonization in all the contested German-Polish districts. That is why it became necessary for me to agree to the abolition of this department. And this is actually the reason I generally concurred in the Kulturkampf. [5] --Molobo 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I want my textexternal analysis, not the text. Propaganda for the Parliament, which consisted to a great percentage of Catholics at that time, cannot be equated with confessions in church for absolution. Politicians are not usually considered to be the most honest people when they hold speeches to convince and pursuade. Maybe we could find out more if we had the untranslated speech, for the English version of the speech appears nowhere else.NightBeAsT 14:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

So far you haven't provided a single argument that would prove in any way that claims of several historians, historical sites, history books, as well as statements of Bismarck are false and Kulturkampf didn't have an antipolish aspect.--Molobo 21:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You're backed by historians and history books? Tell another one! Why on earth should I disproven you when you're claiming something you cannot prove? Should I disprove that God doesn't exist when you just cannot prove he does? Kulturkampf is anti-Polowhatever? No, unguilty until proven guilty. I still want my text-external analysis and you as master of fishing sources from the internet should be able to do so. The fact that you posted sources that include the Kulturkampf but nothing that focuses on the Kulturkampf clearly underlines the fact that focusing on the noteworthy Kulturkampf your allegedly anti-polonistic laws are negligible.NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As it seems, the usual arguments are used here. Bismarck instigated the Kulturkampf to limit Catholic influence. This had negative influence on ethnic Poles. Therefore, the conclusion is made that "one of the main reasons for Kulturkampf was the fight against Polish culture in Germany". Mathematically, A-->B ::= B-->A, a Fallacy. Groeck 03:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong argumentation, since Kulturkampf had laws aimed only at Poles regardless if they were catholic or not.Furthermore your statement can't abolish the fact that Bismarck indeed claimed Poles were the reason for the Kulturkampf.Stating that he said so in his speech is no way POV.--Molobo 15:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I don't think your "laws aimed only at Poles regardless if they were catholic or not" are said by historians as part of the Kulturkampf. These are the sanctions that matter in the Kulturkampf:

• Kanzelparagraph: clergyman were forbidden to pray over affairs of the state
• Preußisches Schulaufsichtsgesetz: All schools were put under governmental control
• ban of the Jesuit Order
• May laws: the employment of clergymen should be controlled by the state (condition Abitur, state exam)
• stopping of all financial givings to the church
• dissolving of all settlings of Orders
• introduction of civil marriage (registry office)

Sorry but laws were made against Poles also-for example the buying off land from Poles in order to give it to Germans,for example Rugi Pruskie or Colonisation Commission, or laws against using Polish language, or Germanising names of Polish cities and towns. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC) "These are the sanctions that matter in the Kulturkampf:" Your personal view. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Who claims that Bismarck said so? This is at best a historical source that you interpreted. I've seen no one else say Bismarck said the main reason were Poles. And since the Catholic encyclopedia and certainly any other respectable source made no mention of that speech, it mirrors very, very well that it is totally redundant. In short, mentioning it is a POV in the form of a complete overstatement.NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but Bismarck said so in his speech dated January 28, 1886. http://h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/speech.html When I think about the reasons for this, there comes to mind the Catholic department [of the Prussian government] which, until its abolition by my direct intervention as minister-president, possessed the character of a Polonizing organ inside the Prussian administration. (Unrest in the Center Party and among the Poles). Under the direction of Herr Kraetzig--I hope he lives still, it had become an institute of a few great Polish families, in whose service these officials pushed Polonization in all the contested German-Polish districts. That is why it became necessary for me to agree to the abolition of this department. And this is actually the reason I generally concurred in the Kulturkampf. [5] From my personal point of view, there would have been no Kulturkampf. (Vigorous contradictions from the Center Party.) --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Playing historians

Molobo's edit summary for deleting the POV-warning: "No reason for the tag. Previous reasons countered by Bismarcks speech where he claims destruction of Polish culture was one of reasons."

First of all, I've so far seen no historically reliable source which defines Anti-Polonism as a main reason for the Kulturkampf. Even so, two unnecessary links in the article leading to the systematically-POV article Anti-Polonism are included, as if the Kulturkampf was all about Anti-Polonism! Of all the four external links, two deal with the Kulturkampf as such, and one leads to one of Bismarck speeches, the other a German page that briefly mentions the Kulturkampf in connection to the relationship with Poles, yet you did not decide it was more unbiased to also add the page's article on the Centre party, its article on the end of the Kulturkampf, its article on the most important phase of the Kulturkampf, its article on Bismarck's enemies of the Empire or its article completely focused on the Kulturkampf - you simply cherrypicked the link that could help the aim of propagating the view of the Kulturkampf as anti-polonistic - the German page's main article on the Kulturkampf does not spend a word on Poles, so why should the wiki article then? Furthermore four links of the See also-section lead to articles dealing with Germanisation ("Deutscher Ostmarkenverein", "Drzymala car", "Rota", "Prussian Colonization Commission"), one link leads to "Kultur", another to "Anti-Catholicism", and like I said, the link to Anti-Polonism. So 5/7 links are clearly biased and aimed at propagating the illusion that the Kulturkampf was anti-Polonistic. That bias doesn't end there: Bismarck's speech was used again - as if it were historically important - and dedicated an entire sentence in the article to. I haven't seen any history book or any reliable source that mentions the speech in connection to the description of the Kulturkampf, which makes it some kind of original research. As a journalist and someone who claims to know anything about the history of Germany, I'd like you to give me an analysis of Bismarck's speech that comes to the conclusion that Bismarck was telling the truth and not spreading propaganda. You've so far glossed over a textexternal interpretation of the text, only personal textinherend. . Please provide reliable sources that see it differently by putting it into their articles on the Kulturkampf, eg does the Catholic encyclopaedia on the Kulturkampf include the speech? Which does? If I delete all these biased statements, you'll revert them. If I try discussing, you'll respond with prejudiced and one-sided "proof", like a lawyer would do. Discussion with you always seemed to me to prove futile - like on Talk:Anti-Polonism - until someone draws attention to the article and the number of contributors diminishes your influence on the article. By removing the tag you even deny there's a dispute over the article's neutrality. Molobo, you don't decide when a dispute is over - Wikipedia:NPOV dispute does. Thus the removing of the tag is Avoidant vandalism. NightBeAsT 18:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

" First of all, I've so far seen no historically reliable source which defines Anti-Polonism as a main reason for the Kulturkampf." Besides Bismarck admitting that it was one of the main reasons :) Molobo

Is rhetoric in politics (= propaganda) a historically reliable source? Since when? Who says the source mirrors Bismarck's intentions? No one? So it must be misleading.NightBeAsT 12:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"So it must be misleading" Your POV.However writing that Bismarck said so isn't a POV.Unless of course you claim the speech is a forgery. --Molobo 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course a German source on Prussia also confirms it.Note that you wanted to delete both sources.Molobo

"Sein Kampf gegen die „ Reichsfeinde“ nach 1871 umfaßt daher nicht nur Maßnahmen gegen sozialrevolutionäre Tendenzen, sondern auch die nationalen Sonderbestrebungen im Reich, zu denen vor allem die Polen zu zählen sind. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist der von Bismarck in den siebziger Jahren inszenierte „Kulturkampf“ zu betrachten, der sich in bezug auf Polen im Besonderen gegen den katholischen Klerus richtet." (translated by me) "His fight against the "Enemies of the Empire" after 1871 therefore comprised not only measures against socialrevolutionary tendencies, but also the national special endeavours, which above all the Poles are to be counted. Against this background Bismarck's in the 70s initiated Kulturkampf is to be examined, which in regard to Poland in particular is directed against the Catholic clergy." Where are the words "main reason", "major reason" or anything else connected to reason? This is not even an article on the Kulturkampf. The page's actual article on the Kulturkampf makes no mention of its connection to Poland, does it? So they didn't regard it as noteworthy at all either.NightBeAsT 12:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course it mentions it.--Molobo 20:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[2] Truth will out. I see no mention in that article.NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to look better: Your claim : "This is not even an article on the Kulturkampf." Article speaks about the reasons of Kulturkampf: Das Problem Preußens mit den polnischen Provinzen wird nun zur nationalen deutsch-polnischen Frage, das Klima zwischen Deutschen und Polen rauher. Bereits 1863 hatte Bismarck mit der militärischen Hilfeleistung für Rußland bei der Niederschlagung des Januaraufstandes unter Beweis gestellt, daß er zu keinerlei Zugeständnissen in der Polenfrage bereit sei. Sein Kampf gegen die „ Reichsfeinde“ nach 1871 umfaßt daher nicht nur Maßnahmen gegen sozialrevolutionäre Tendenzen, sondern auch die nationalen Sonderbestrebungen im Reich, zu denen vor allem die Polen zu zählen sind. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist der von Bismarck in den siebziger Jahren inszenierte „Kulturkampf“ zu betrachten, der sich in bezug auf Polen im Besonderen gegen den katholischen Klerus richtet. Der Entzug der Schulaufsicht und zahlreiche Verhaftungen von Geistlichen der römisch-katholischen Kirche mobilisieren breite Schichten der polnischen Bevölkerung und verstärken die antideutsche Haltung. --Molobo 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Bismarck's speech cannot be found in my history books, which suggests the speech is actually irrelevant" I guess you own the whole library of the world.Just because you don't have a book with the speech doesn't make it irrelevant.Your argument is quite, not even absurd, its simply silly.Molobo

If I look at what new history books say on the subject of the Kulturkampf and see that historians describe it differently than it is here, it most likely ought to be described like that. Don't get me wrong but you and me, we're not historians, and when books that are accepted by Gymnasiums as reliable source for history, written by doctors and professors of history, have a different notion than you, I'll pick them as reliable source of information, sorry. No offence, just interest in realism.NightBeAsT 12:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

" we're not historians, and when books that are accepted by Gymnasiums as reliable source for history" Oh you are still in Gymnasium ? I advise you to read more scholary works involved with history. Btw my Gymnasium books-Roszkowski, write quite clearly about antipolish aspect of Kulturkampf.They also have pictures of satire in magasines involving figures of Bismarck, Kulturkampf and Poles.Btw they are also in the link you wanted to delete.--Molobo 20:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Why should I still attend Gymnasium? Because I have access to history books accepted by Gymnasiums? I must admit it's not a dumb tactic of you: for example if I said, "yes, I still attend Gymnasium", you'd leap for joy, for your conclusion-jumping would have been a lucky shot for once and you could cherrypick that outcome of hasty conclusion to delude yourself, thinking your jumping to conclusions is actually good; if I said, "no, I study at the Humboldt University of Berlin", your conclusion-jumping would have provided you more information. Not all people brag about their CV - for example Alx-pl doesn't and nor does Groeck for that matter. You'd have to delude yourself if you assume they didn't all receive a good education. So since I'm actually pretty sick of your logic (Gymnasiasts --> access to books accepted by Gymnasiums, Nightbeast --> access to books accepted by Gymnasiums => Nightbeast --> Gymnasiast), for now I'll therefore keep you in ignorance of my career. And as for your *wise advice*: thank you, and the same to you.NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Your personal life is of no relevance to the article NB.I suggest writing less emotional entries in the future. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"we're not historians" Oh they are : http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/eceurope/gdposen18711890.html "Prussian Poland

The Polish deputees in Prussia's diet voted against the Province of Posen's integration in the Northern German Confederation (1867) and into the German Empire (1871) - to no avail. Bismarck therefore regarded Poland's nobility and the nation's Catholic clergy as threatening the state. In 1871, Bismarck launched the state's attack on the Catholic church, called KULTURKAMPF. In the Province of Posen, the policy was regarded as anti-Polish. Archbishop COUNT LEDOCHOWSKI of Posen was deposed and sentenced to 2 years in prison in 1874. Most higher church officials were imprisoned; many Catholic parishes, for several decades, were without a priest. In 1873, German was proclaimed the exclusive language of education throughout the province, 1876 the exclusive language of the administration, 1877 of the courts. In 1886 the SETTLEMENT LAW was passed, by which the Reich subsidized the acquisition of farms in Posen by ethnic Germans. With Bismarck's dismission in 1890 the Kulturkampf ended. In 1885 the population of the province numbered 1,715,618; of whom 1,131,869 were Catholics, 531,722 Protestants, 50,866 Jews; by nationality c. 880,000 Poles, c.725,000 Germans (Meyers).

While many Poles up to 1871 had been loyal citizens of the Prussian state, state policy now stirred them up, turning many into ardent Polish patriots. In 1873 a Polish system of SAVINGS BANKS was established, Peasants' Clubs sprang up."

Look, and again the article focuses on a topic other than the Kulturkampf (namely "Prussian Poland" here), which again underlines the fact that only when you look at relations with Poland the Kulturkampf plays a role, but when you look at the Kulturkampf relations with Poland play no role. Mathematically: Kulturkampf >> National minority struggle by Poles. Of course not as extreme but still comparable to: Poland >> Molobo. In other words, if you look at Molobo, Poland plays a role - but if you look at Poland, Molobo plays no (significant) role. Now that you get it, you'll certainly try to biasedly fish all the sources that look at the Kulturkampf AND mention Poles significantly, as if they'd play a notable role. Only when you do not know how to fish the right sources, it seems to me, you pick sources unbiasedly.

As regards sentences like "Bismarck therefore regarded Poland's nobility [...] as threatening the state", they can even be seen as counter-argument because Bismarck wanted to help the state, not vent his hostility towards Poles. Look, if I slapped you, you could consider that as hostility; but for example if I had to slap either you or, say, Groeck, and I chose you because I'd like Groeck more, would that mean I do that out of hostility towards you? Another example: if you play football in team red (team red plays against blue) and the team that wins the match will also win a medal. Imagine you want the medal. Would you be anti-Blue-team if you did your best to beat them? Another example: imagine you saw 5€ on a roadside. If you don't pick it up, surely, another one would do that. So you egoistically pick it up. Would you be anti-everyone-else-except-for-you? No, because if you had the power to end all poverty in the world, would you say 'No'? So can you apply the theory to politics? Sure. For instance a country opposes Turkey's admission to the EU. Who would call that country Anti-Turkeystic? Or in wars: was Poland anti-German when it fought German troops in World War II? Surely, you'll say sth like. So what do you think about the Pro-something-is-not-the-same-as-anti-another-thing concept? Do you agree with me there or should we continue its discussion on Anti-Polonism?NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Again cut personal attacks, stick to the point and focus on the article in future.Then we can have sensible discussion. "they can even be seen as counter-argument because Bismarck wanted to help the state, not vent his hostility towards Poles." That is your personal opinion, and remember that Wiki isn't original research.As to rest, please concentrate on the subject. As to "was Poland anti-German when it fought German troops in World War II" Its silly, you are now compering Polish minority whos rights were violated and culture attacked to German Reich in WW@ which wanted to exterminate Polish people.In other words you are showing Poles in Prussia as aggresive threat to the state, which of course conquered them.This is very flawed comparision obviously.The aim of Prussian state was to destroy Polis culture and people, after it conquered them.They had no need of defense. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Another historian: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/bogdan/bogdan12.htm In the Prussian provinces, the fate of the Polish people had its highs and lows. An early difficult period paralleled the Kulturkampf (1871-1879) during which Bismarck tried to make the Catholic church toe the line. Polish Catholics, as well as German Catholics, were harassed by the authorities. Stubborn bishops were removed from their dioceses. Bismarck made a compromise with Rome in 1880, and conditions were temporarily ameliorated in Poland. But beginning in 1886, Bismarck embarked on a policy of Germanization in the formerly Polish provinces. He set up a colonization commission to assist Germans who wanted to move in to acquire land with help from the state. The ascension of William II briefly slowed the colonization policy, but it picked up again even more systematically in the early 20th century and numerous clashes ensued. At the Berlin Reichstag, Poland's fifteen deputies led by Albert Korfanty continually deplored this policy of German colonization of Polish land, but they were vastly outnumbered by the German deputies.--Molobo 20:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Chapter 11

The Awakening of the Polish Nation 1870--1914" The book or whatever this is focuses on the Polish nation and mentions the Kulturkampf in this context, on this understanding. Unconsciously you, Molobo, provided more proof that the theory 'Kulturkampf >> Polish minority in Prussia' is true.NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Poles weren't minority in Poznan which :) And the article has to reflect all aspects, not only those that Germans view important.However we can see that German sources also point out antipolish aspects of Kulturkampf.It seems you are trying to defend your own POV and original research. --Molobo 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC) And another :

The Encyclopedia of World History Ancient, Medieval, and Modern

Sixth Edition

Renowned historian Peter N. Stearns and thirty prominent historians have combined their expertise over the past ten years to perfect this comprehensive chronology of more than 20,000 entries that span the millennia from prehistoric times to the year 2000.

http://www.bartleby.com/67/1268.html 1872

Bismarck instituted the Kulturkampf, with a special anti-Polish emphasis as Germanification intensified. Molobo

Searching in that encyclopedia for Kulturkampf offers three hits. The third, with the directory: "V. The Modern Period, 1789–1914 > B. The French Revolution and Europe, 1789–1914 > 8. Eastern Europe and the Balkans, 1762–1914 > b. Poland > 1830–31" makes a short comment about the Kulturkampf looking at Poland. 'Kulturkampf >> Polish minority in Prussia'. The other two links don't say anything about Poland. You quoted Bartleby? So why didn't you quote this article focusing on the Kulturkampf? Oh, right, this would be unbiased and not support your arguments.NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

By definition all my sources are biased and shouldn't be used.Even when they are the same I see :) Care to explain why it was biased ? Because it didn't reflect your personal opinion ? --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Please provide reliable sources" Well since Bismarck was the author of the Kulturkampf he is the most reliable source.Of course unless those pesky Poles replaced him with a clone who wanted to spread propaganda about Bismarck :D olobo

Think again. What Hitler states in his political speeches about himself is not the undeniable truth either. Bismarck's rhetoric for the parliament is not his private diary, I'm afraid. If Bismarck said God told him to do that, would you believe him?NightBeAsT 12:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So in your words Bismack lied to the parliament by claiming he fought against Poles ?--Molobo 20:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No, in my words Bismarck's speech is, if it is Bismarck's speech, not a reliable source. I'm sorry but unlike Pawelka's speech on talk:anti-polonism, I won't waste words on your personal interpretations, just made you aware that the speech is certainly not unbiased, that personal interpretions of it would violate WP:NOR and that obviously respectable sources do not care about the speech, from which it follows that it's got no importance in an article focusing on the Kulturkampf.NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry again but writing that Bismarck said Poles were reason for Kulturkampf isn't a personal interpretation.He said so. "No, in my words Bismarck's speech is, if it is Bismarck's speech, not a reliable source." Wikipedia isn't orginal research.Sorry. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"By removing the tag you even deny there's a dispute over the article's neutrality." You can dispute that Bismarck was from Mars, it would make as much sense as your current tag, disputing Bismarcks speech as POV in regards to Bismarcks intentions.--Molobo 21:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion, your opinion.NightBeAsT 12:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion that this is my opinion.However you can't dispute that Bismack claimed that Poles were the targets and reason for Kulturkampf.--Molobo 20:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

True, it might not even be your opinion. I cannot dispute that "Bismack claimed that Poles were the targets and reason for Kulturkampf"? Cannot you read that I do it here first and foremost? The reason for Kulturkampf? Ha! Says who except for you and allegedly Mr Bismarck?NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Allegedly ? Sorry but you haven't presented any proof that this is a forgery.And writing that Bismarck claimed so isn't POV. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Nightbeast's point. What a politician says does not mean his trues intentions. For example, Hitler, after the Munich Agreement, said he would make no other claims in Europe. However, he invaded Poland soon after. --Andrelvis 20:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Using Bismarck's comments as a source on what the Kulturkampf was about is an example of original research. This article should report what historians say about the Kulturkampf, not the article authors' interpretation of primary sources. john k 21:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Writing that Bismarck declared that fight against Poles and Polish culture was reason for Kulturkampf isn't POV.We can find it in his speech.Also writing that antipolish measures were taken isn't POV-they were taken as for example forbiding of Polish language.--Molobo 20:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Writing that "Bismarck declared that fight against Poles and Polish culture was reason for Kulturkampf" is a POV in the form of a complete overstatement (because obviously that speech is completely irrelevant as far as the Kulturkampf is concerned) and (so far) original research. Anti-polish is biased because his measures (that are not part of his Kulturkampf btw) are at best anti-national_minority: he suppressed all national minorities, including the Danish, the Polish and the French. My history book dedicated a small paragraph to it, headlined 'Exclusion of national minorities'. You want it translated?NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but Bismarck did said so and until you prove that this isn't a forgery you don't have a case. "because obviously that speech is completely irrelevant as far as the Kulturkampf is concerned" Only in your opinion.As you can by examples Bismarcks words are supported by several history books, historians and records that show antipolish bias in his policies in Kulturkampf. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

And add: http://www.dhm.de/ENGLISH/ausstellungen/bismarck/169.htm In Prussia's eastern regions, the Kulturkampf coincided with a policy of Germanization, which was intensified by resettlement in the 1880s. Bismarck had made his anti-Polish stance known in drastic statements written to his sister as early as 1861:

Beat the Poles until they despair of living [.] . . . I have all the sympathy in the world for their situation, but if we want to survive we can do nothing other than wipe them out. The wolf cannot help it, either, that God made him the way he is, and one shoots him dead anyway for it if one can.--Molobo 21:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And add: http://clevelandmemory.org/ebooks/polish/part01.html#19 Bismarck's Kulturkampf

The relationship of the Prussians and their Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to the Poles provides insight on the effects of partition. Bismarck believed that a rehabilitated Poland would mean disaster for Prussia. He would not tolerate the prospect of any separatist movement in his drive to create a unified Germany. This was probably Bismarck's main motive for embarking upon the infamous "Kulturkampf,"--the "War of Civilizations," "Prussianism against Christianity."

This war began as a Prussian policy against the interference of Rome in the unification of Germany. To Bismarck it became a personal matter of race and culture, especially where the Poles were concerned. In a conflict with Rome, he knew that Catholic Poland would be more difficult to control. The notorious "May Laws" of 1873 forbade the clergy from speaking about state affairs in church, made civil marriage compulsory, and demanded that the state supervise all school inspection. Other provisions of the Laws were more harsh, and directly involved Polish Catholics. No priest could hold office in the Church unless he was German and educated at a German university. Bismarck underestimated Polish tenacity regarding matters of faith. The Church provided a great source of solace and a sense of unity to the Polish people. Polish Catholicism combines fervor with mysticism and nationalism.

In May, 1874, German was declared to be the only official language of instruction. Because of their refusal to comply, many priests were imprisoned and the churches stood empty. For the Poles, the "war of civilizations" had become a war against them and their culture. New laws were enacted which infuriated the Polish people. City names were changed. Leszno was named Lisso, Chelmno became Kulm, Pila was ballooned into Schneidemuhl, and Krolowiec and Bydgoszcz were clipped and tidied to Konigsberg and Bromberg. Letters would arrive addressed to a town of the old Polish name and the Post Office would often conveniently lose such mail. Because of civil registration of births and marriages, German officials could, and did, arbitrarily Germanize Polish family names. Sometimes resistance was a very serious matter, but it had an occasional humorous aspect. Meetings were forbidden if Polish were spoken, so the irrepressible Poles simply used chalk and blackboard. They met without breaking the law.

Prussian officials also recognized the value of attacking a sociopolitical problem by education. They hoped that by Germanizing the children through the schools they could effectively achieve

greater cooperation. Inspectors were exclusively German. The Polish language was systematically barred from all schools. The parents, however, retaught the day's lessons in Polish in the privacy of their homes. It was a tug of war for the minds of the young. By 1901, German was the exclusive language, even in religious instruction. Children were punished for praying or speaking in Polish.

One tragic consequence of such repression was the decline of Polish literature in Prussian Poland. There were a few notable exceptions, for example, the novel Placowka (The Outpost), written in 1886 by Boleslaw Prus. It is a story about the resistance of a poor farmer whose land was threatened by German colonists.--Molobo 21:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Bismarck believed that a rehabilitated Poland would mean disaster for Prussia. He would not tolerate the prospect of any separatist movement in his drive to create a unified Germany." So he wanted to help the German state. Aaargh! Bismarck, you evil anti-anti German, you!! How can you as German Chancellor try to unite a scattered Germany! And again the article, written by a Polish student, I guess, is not on the Kulturkampf. 'Kulturkampf >> Polish minority in Prussia' is applicable to the article once again.NightBeAsT 16:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Cut the personal attacks, absurd sentences and try to write something that makes sense ok ? As you can see though they are several history books, historians, history records that show antipolish policies in Kulturkampf. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that some discussion of Bismarck's anti-Polish policies should be mentioned in the context of the Kulturkampf. As I understand it, Bismarck did conflate the two in his rhetoric, even if his anti-Polish feelings were a lot more genuine and long-standing than his anti-Catholic ones. Nightbeast - I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that Bismarck's anti-Polish policies were justified? Is anyone action justified by somebody "wanting to help the German state?" I'm sure you see how this kind of statement can have implications on places you probably don't want to go. Anyway, my view is that there's a place for a brief discussion of Bismarck's anti-Polish policies in this article. They should not, however, be presented as a motivating factor for the Kulturkampf, because they were not. The two issues were related, but not the same. john k 17:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, God, no, that was not what I meant by that. Not his policies but his intention can be justified. In the field of home affairs Bismarck made a lot of mistakes and achieved rather the opposite of what he had aimed for - Catholics gained the majority in the parliament and the support for Socialism increased too. My point is that Bismarck did not care about Poland at all, only about national minorities that might want to fight for their own nation, which might be against a unified Germany. The same Germanisation in Germany did not only apply to Poles but to any other nation in general. "The German Empire as nationstate changed the living conditions of the national minorities. In Prussia lived 2.4 million Poles and 60 000 Lithuanians, in Schleswig 80 000 Danes. With the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine 1.5 million inhabitants were added to the Empire, who only spoke German in part. Language policies, which installed the German language as language for school, business and offices, ignored the national individualities. Poles and Danes fought against the Germanizationpolicies and wanted to leave the Empire, the Lorrainers to preserve their own life marked by French. Because the Constitution had no protection of minorities, the nationproblems in the Empire aggravated amid the aggressive nationalism of the the age of imperlialism." The quotation is translated from the paragraph 'Labour question and national minorities' of the biggest of my history books. The bold type word Germanizationpolitics (or however you translate the German word "Germanisierungspolitik") comes from the book too. Of course, to you 'Anti-Polish' may mean 'against Poland', which would be the correct translation of the prefix 'anti', but which in effect can then be arbitrary - if Poles are killed in Iraq, it can even be called anti-polish, as if insurgents particularly minded which nation the occupying forces are from! If Poles are treated like any other nationality, it is not anti-polish in my opinion. The Kulturkampf could even be called anti-Italish because it tried to decrease the influence of the Pope. It must be distinguished between acts that simply want to hurt Poles or put them at a disadvantage out of maliciousness and acts that hurt Poles or put them at a disadvantage but with other motives. To give an extreme example: just because you don't give your fortune away for donations to Poland, are you anti-Polish? Well, but your miserliness would be against Poland, it is anti-Polish. So if Bismarck suppresses the cultures of all national minorities in the Empire under the illusion that this could help Germany's unification, does that make his acts anti-polish? Is a Democrat anti-Republican because he opposes Bush? No, because he cares for the welfare of the US too but has a different idea - if his opinion on policies should overlap on one issue with those of Republicans, there's agreement, not hostility. Granted, there's again a border - it would be ludicrous to say that mass murders of Poles to allegedly unite Germany are not anti-polish, but where are those mass murders? (actually the connection between mass murder of Poles to Anti-polonism is what the article Anti-Polonism tries to imply with its pictures for example) Like I said, anti-[some-nation]would mean that [some-nation] is not treated equally. But where in the Kulturkampf is the specific suppression of only Poles instead of also other national minorities? I see no double standards in his exclusion of national minorities. And anyway. Bismarck's policies against Poles are not part of the Kulturkampf but part of the Germanisation policies. The Kulturkampf is Bismarck's fight against the Catholic church. They shouldn't be confused. Sure, in the Kulturkampf article the connection to Germanization or Polish minorities or whatever can be briefly mentioned, though only to the little extent that unbiasedly chosen reliable sources focusing on the Kulturkampf would do as well. Trying to make most link reflect policies against Poland is all but unbiased and the Polish part of it is completely blown out of all proportion. It really makes me wonder why there's nobody from France accusing Bismarck of being anti-French and spreading links to an "anti-French" article, in which Nazis would murder Frenchmen. Or how about someone from the US accusing the Schröder government of being anti-American for not joining the Iraq war? The Turkey accusing Austria of being Anti-Turkey? Mexicans accusing the US of being anti-Mexican for not letting them enter the US? No? Seems like Molobo is unique.NightBeAsT 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to Kulturkampf not to Iraq.Try to focuson the article.You still need to disprove that -Bismarck said what he said. -Laws were made only against Poles. "Seems like Molobo is unique" Actually I provided now several examples of historians, history books, records that say that Kulturkampf had also aspect aimed specificaly against Poles. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Nightbeast - I mostly agree with you that the kind of edits to make this article be about anti-Polonism are simply not justified. That said, Bismarck really was anti-Polish in a way he wasn't anti-Danish or anti-Alsatian. Basically, while Danes and Alsatians may have threatened the unity of the Reich, the issue of the revival of Poland threatened the integrity of Prussia. As a Prussian junker, Bismarck was bound to find the latter a more serious threat than the former. And, indeed, he did. Note his slavishly pro-Russian behavior in 1863, which seems to have been predicated at least as much on Bismarck's hatred and fear of the Poles as on his desire to get Russia on his side. Basically, the Poles provided an existential threat to Germany. The other nationalities were merely inconvenient and detracted from all-Reich solidarity. It is just as wrong to pretend that Bismarck's anti-Polish policies were simply part of a more general Germanization policy as it is to pretend that his anti-Polish views were the basic issue of the Kulturkampf. john k 20:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi John Kenney.Nobody is claiming that whole Kulturkampf was aimed only against Poles.What is however clear from books, history sites and records is the fact that it also had a strong Anti-Polish aspect, and measures were enacted directed solely at Poles, even after agreement with Rome was reached.Also the sentence that Bismarck claimed Poles were his reasons for Kulturkampf isn't inaccurate since we can find it. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo - I would not deny that there was a strong anti-Polish aspect to the Kulturkampf, and that Bismarck introduced measures directed solely against Poles I would suggest, though, that we should be careful to distinguish anti-Polish measures from Kulturkampf measures, as they are not the same thing. john k 06:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

John as you can see anti-Polish measures were made part of Kulturkampf effort. Certainly Kulturkampf isn't limited to them, but nobody is claiming so. --Molobo 15:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

See where? What source claims that this belongs to the Kulturkampf, the fight of Bismarck against the Catholic church? Is the Kulturkampf in other countries defined by the Polish presence? Do you have any source that defines the Kulturkampf as fight against the Polish community, not the Catholic Church? Your own source sees the Kulturkampf as only "coincid[ing] with a policy of Germanization", not part of it.NightBeAsT 18:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

All the sources I provided. " Do you have any source that defines the Kulturkampf as fight against the Polish community, not the Catholic Church?" Read the sources I provided.Including links you delete. "Your own source sees the Kulturkampf as only "coincid[ing] with a policy of Germanization"" Sorry but my own source sees Kulturkampf as merger of both policies. --Molobo 17:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've read all the sources you provided and taken into consideration. So don't worry, and don't try to distract from the fact that you haven't got anything to counter what I said. To tell the truth, all these "read what I wrote on the page" seem pathetic. That radical revert of you was really unnecessesary and simply wrong, only adding links irrelevant to article, and the Bismarck speech for the second time, as if the first time weren't enough or overdone! And again that silly denial of a dispute. And now we've good old space cadet again. How goes the fight against German names next to the holy Polish ones? Look, vent your anger about Molobo's block somewhere else, ok? This here is pretty straightforward. The alleged Bismarck speech is irrelevant to the topic and no source that focuses on the Kulturkampf has ever mentioned it. Correct me if I'm wrong. In other words even the Catholic's Encyclopedias enormous description on the Kulturkampf finds that piece irrelevant. The links to the Polish experience in the German Empire is therefore out of place too. To make it clear once and for all, this is the Kulturkampf, the fight of Bismarck against the Catholic church, not you. If the then gained power by the state is partly used to push through a Germanization does not really make it part of the fight against the church. Like one of Mo's sources said: they merely coincided. The last link is in German, does not focus on the Kulturkampf as such and is biasedly preferred over one of the same site that focuses on the Kulturkampf, interestingly without calling the fight against Polish a reason or anything else for that matter. Last but not least, the dispute over the article was denied again, which you may call ... um ... not-telling-the-whole truth but I'd refer to as silly lying. So I'll revert again to the previous version.NightBeAsT 20:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

SpaceCadet, I know it's hard to find counterarguments in this case, but the fact that you neither discuss at all or provide a sensible edit summary despite the reverting only mirrors ignorance, laziness or simply anything other destructive. What do you want? A revert war believing that Wikipedia is a war only about 3Rs per warrior? That would explain why you put the Kulturkampf into the Polish wikipedia noticeboard and still found no support for your war, cadet. So what should I do other than revert again? That's not what Wiki should be about but in this straightforward case of dispute-denial, biased and pretty unconnected linkage and blowing a speech out of all context although no other source on the Kulturkampf has ever cared about it at all, reverting is the only sensible way against this detoriation of the article. I'd be interested in what others think of this case.NightBeAsT 07:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I never put Kulturkampf in the notice board! I put Eastern Pomerania and Royal Prussia and found huge support! Why bother putting explanations if I'm busy somewhere else and knowing that Molobo already explained everything to you over and over again many times. Also, trying to guess my thinking process is apparently way over your head, so please refrain from doing so. Your friend, Space Cadet 08:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My dear friend, if you "know" that "Molobo already explained everything" to me "over and over again many time", it shouldn't be too hard for either you or Molobo to list those "arguments" he laid out earlier. Look at what you reverted and give reasons for it, not claim that some discussion that I engaged in would do so. Everyone could do that.NightBeAsT 11:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Like I said... Space Cadet 13:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If you're so sure Molobo explained it "over and over again", just have a look at the page and tell me those arguments. Just look at what you reverted and give reasons for it. Look, this is not a game where you have to reply something and no matter what you say, it scores a goal and he who replies more often wins the debate. It's absurd to have to repeat oneself only because someone reverted with no reasons and thinks that so long as they simply they anything even if it's only "Like I said..." , this was all that needed to be done.NightBeAsT 21:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've already asked you to please stop pretending you can read my mind. It's pathetic. Space Cadet 22:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Smart distraction. Now on-topic, please!NightBeAsT 22:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, just as you claimed a statement is "proved and sourced", "proven and sourced" or "Sourced explained and proven.Read previous talk" on the talk page of Anti-Polonism and could never show that proof or explanation , you're claiming it was all explained here too. I'll treat your claims in the same way as I and others treated them on the talk page of Anti-Polonism: as completely unconvincing statement to gain time (to put it less inflammatory). The following is an excerpt from talk:Anti-Polonism and the result of the discussion was the deletion of analysed statements:

"German courts and Polish language and culture

• "German courts have not only forbidden divorced Polish-speaking parents to teach their children Polish"

Actually not. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Teaching_of_PolishNightbeast

What are you denying ? It was proven and sourced/ Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So are you calling this (little) discussion proof of your claim? I bet you everyone reading it would call it quite the opposite.NightBeAsT 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• " but also voiced objections to raising them in Polish culture, claiming that to do so would be harmful to their development" Not even Molobo could make an attempt to defend that made-up crap. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#German_courts_and_Polish_culture

Proven and sourced.Read previous talk.--Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Tell another one! Where is that discussion? Where is that undeniable source and proof?NightBeAsT 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• "In addition they have been cases were Polish workers have been ordered by their employers to talk in German during their private time outside of work." Still unsourced, unexplained and illogical. How could an employer do so?Nightbeast

Sourced explained and proven.Read previous talk. --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, I seem to be unable to find the sources you refer to. Please provide link for inclusion of reference in main article. My apologies if I missed a link in previous talk. Groeck 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The only thing I can find is that Molobo claimed it in Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_5#Protection. But where is Molobo's proof?Nightbeast

Since my questions have still not been answered there, I don't expect the Kulturkampf "all explained read discussion"case to be any different, except that at the moment here's a lack of a third party(eg I'd really be interested in John Kenney's or Alx's opinion for example). It's a bit lame to merely revert a page for reasons you'd best not tell, having some revert-brothers-in-arms as cadet army and post a small unconvincing remark on the talk page or into the edit summary, you could really thwart a reasonable outcome of the discussion. But maybe accusing others of not having read, it's maybe only you. To make it clear:

Now, if Molobo could find any arguments why it should be reverted, I'd be glad. This would have to include:

1.why "template:Long NPOV" was deleted despite the fact that:

• There's no use disputing here's a dispute about NPOV. What we're all discussing is not the factual accuracy but the bias towards the Polish-related amount in proportion to the rest of the article, and the historical value of the Bismarck speechNightBeAsT

Comment Not my problem if other aspects of Kulturkampf are ignored by editors.If you have knowledge about the other aspects add them.Whatever you think about Bismarck's speech is your POV.--Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So in other words you've a different point of view and say you believe the description is neutral. Fine, I don't for reasons I'm constantly telling you. That's what you call a neutrality dispute.NightBeAsT

2. why there should be Bismarck's supposedly translated speech despite the fact that

• political speeches contain propaganda and are thus unreliable, if not misleading
• an external link already leads to it
• it is blown out of all proportion and so making the article biased
  • even large, very detailed articles (like that of the Catholic encyclopedia) did not include it, implying its irrelevance
  • although the Kulturkampf has had a lot of time to be analysed thoroughly by historians, obviously no article on the Kulturkampf could be found that saw it necessarily noteworthy to include the speech into their descriptions, each underligning the speeches irrelevance

Comment Bismarck's speech is added because its history, and shows his attitude towards Polish people.Whatever you think its true or not is again-your POV.--Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

everything is history, but not everything is relevent and therefore unbiased in a context. If you think it shows his attitude towards Polish people, you've interpreted what historians refer to as a primary source. Wikipedia is a no original research so since obviously no other source on the net and none of my books at home took it in, we've a new interpretation violating WP:NOR. "The only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say."NightBeAsT

3. why all the Polish-related links were added despite the fact that

• they're relatively irrelevant and more relevant ones should be preferred. The only common topic is that they've got to do with Germanisation, whose link is already in there
• they're relatively irrelevant

Your POV. Molobo--Molobo 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • a link to the "Settlement Commission" is irrelevant

Your POV. --Molobo 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • because apart from Wikipedia mirrors I couldn't find a single link on the Internet, which could give information on the "Settlement Commission", the subject seems irrelevant (at least in connection to the Kulturkampf but probably in general too)

Comment Your POV. Not shared by German historians:

http://www.zeit.de/2004/26/A-PolBoden?page=1 Molobo

Again, the Zeit-article does not 'discuss material that is directly related to the article' Kulturkampf. Granted, the Kulturkampf seems noteworthy enough to be dedicated a short sentence in a 5-paged story on a Polish national hero that also mentions the Settlement Commission, but what matters is whether an article on the Kulturkampf mentions the guy and the Commission. Besides, since when does one journalist represent "German historians"?NightBeAsT

• • • IF the Wikipedia article the link leads to is accurate (I'm willing to bet it isn't), the SCommission has as only common theme the Germanisation in Prussia, so in other words a link to the article Germanisation is enough for those further interested in it
  • a link to "Drzymała's van" is irrelevant

Your POV. --Molobo 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • the subject described in the article is even only described as by-product of the Settlement Commission

Comment And thus can be linked.--Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

So because it is less relevant to the Kulturkampf than the Settlement Commission, it should be linked?NightBeAsT 15:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is it less important ? Its a national symbol so it has relevance. --Molobo 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • a link to "Rota (Oath)" is irrelevant

It is a national song, that was proposed as nationam anthem. --Molobo 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • the subject described in the article is even only described as by-product of the Settlement Commission.
    • not even the century conforms to that of the Kulturkampf...

Comment The policies of Kulturkampf were in effect in XX century.--Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

And? That would justify a mention of the 1848er revos, German emigration to the US, Bismarck's wars of unification, a mention of the Gründerjahre etc, and since there are more Germans in the German Empire than Poles, I guess, we'd have to neglect the Polish-related links.NightBeAsT 15:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but history doesn't go by majority of population neglecting history of ethnic minorities, besides on territories taken by Germany from Poland in partitions Poles were majority of population. --Molobo 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Rota was reaction to the policies of Kulturkampf.--Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Oh, and Mr ... Hans Müller may have read the paper longer than on many days when he read about the Kulturkampf. That, too, "was reaction to the policies of Kulturkampf". How many articles focusing on the Kulturkampf itself mentioned either event? So I guess Rota and Mr.Hans Müller have to stay away from the article.NightBeAsT 15:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? --Molobo 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • a link to "German Eastern Marches Society" is irrelevant

• • • it's got to do with Germanisation, only Bismarck was long dismissed as Chancellor, only Germanisation merely coincided with the Kulturkampf

Comment The policies of Kulturkampf in relations towards to Poles were continued.--Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

These laws were not part of the Kulturkampf, the fight against the Catholic Church. In addition, it falls into the German course under Wilhelm II. Besides, it's got nothing to do with the fight against the Catholic Church. And anyway, extremely few notable sources on the Kulturkampf, if not none at all, would fill their article with that irrelevant thing.NightBeAsT 15:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This laws were part of Kulturkampf policies, and as Bismarck stated Kulturkampf had a goal of countering Poles. --Molobo 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • The Society was byproduct of policies made in Kulturkampf.

--Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• more Germans lived in the German Empire than Poles and logically more Germans were influenced by the Kulturkampf than Poles.Why should links to Polish-related articles be dominant?

Comment More Poles lived in Polish territories conquered from Poland(which btw were autonomous regions for long time) then Germans.Furthermore this is a fallacy, just because there are not as many articles to Germans persecuted by Kulturkampf doesn't justify deleting other articles.Simply create them instead of complaining.

--Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Are we speaking of the Kulturkampf, whose centre - according to the Catholic Encyclopedia's article's introductory paragraph - was mainly Prussia, or the narrow-minded view on only Polish territories? Oh, did I forget that Poland was the centre of the universe again? Regarding the "fallacy", I cannot figure out what you're talking about. Anyhow, since the Polish-related proportion in articles that write on the subject of the Kulturkampf is not dominant at all, the links should reflect that.NightBeAsT 15:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We are speaking about Kulturkampf which according to Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identities and Culteral Differences by Keith Bullivant, Geoffrey Giles, Walter Pape "had a specificaly anti-polish aspect". Page 41.You can see it on google print.

• links to the fight against Socialism are to be preferred since it was the second of the two notable internal struggles (there are not yet articles in en-wiki but the fight against socialism can be translated from de:Sozialistengesetz and de:Sozialgesetzgebung)

That they've got to do with Germanisation Germanisation was merged with Kulturkampf.This was already shown in scholary works given on the talk page. --Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Which said "merged"? I can only read "coincide". Kulturkampf = fight against the Catholic Church. Ende Gelände.NightBeAsT

4.why the category "Anti-Polonism" was re-added despite the fact that

• your own source say the Kulturkampf only coincided with a policy of Germanization
• the Kulturkampf is defined by most sources as sth like a fight against the Catholic church and if at all, almost never, as fight against Poles

Comment Sorry you are incorrect.Kulturkampf is quite often mentioned as struggle against Poles as shown by examles given(which you ignored).Molobo

So where is it mentioned as "struggle against Poles"? Just point that source out! Just as you claimed on Anti-Polonism that statements were proven and sourced, you seem to be lying again here.NightBeAsT 15:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)\

Bismarck speech and various sources already given by me on this talk page. Try the book mentioned above, it writes the same thing. --Molobo 14:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• the article on Germanization already includes a link to Anti-Polonism
• the made-up definition of the neologism Anti-Polonism, as opposed to Anti-Polish (like "against Poles"), implies hate and hostility and (as the pictures suggest) mass murder of Poles by Nazis, which alledging the Kulturkampf of having such attributes in common is near insanity

Comment Actually on both topics you are incorrect, we already established that Antipolonism isn't a neologism (its in Polish Encyclopedia and used in works). As to Nazi plans and mass murder of Poles by German Reich, well they reflected views of Bismarck:

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/cgjs/publications/hbpolgerpol.html "German anti-Slavism, which was often directed at the Poles, had prominent spokesman in the nineteenth century. In a letter in March 1861 to his sister Malwine, Bismarck, for example, expressed the Prussian-German attitude towards the Poles which turned out to be a blueprint for the future: "So clobbeth the Poles so that they despair; they have my deepest sympathy for their situation, but, if we want to exist, we have no choice but to wipe them out ('ausrotten'); the wolf cannot help it that he was created by God the way he is, but one shoots him yet, if one can."(11)

When the German empire made frenetic attempts to germanise her Polish provinces, she was supported by organisations like the Ostmarkenverein or the Pan-German alliance. These endeavours were also well received by prominent German intellectuals. As, for example, the sociologist Max Weber, once a member of the Pan-German alliance, put it: "It was we who humanised the Poles"(12). This anti-Slavism was to be brought to a climax during the Third Reich."

As you can see both Bismarck and Nazis viewed Poles as animals to be exterminated.

--Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but to me the difference between a neologism and an accepted word means it appears in more than just a handful of works. If it is a matter of opinion, how can I be incorrect there? I must have forgotten that your point of view is the universal, omniscient truth... As for your comparison of Bismarck and Hitler, Bismarck may have been suspicious of the nationalistic struggle of Poles, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, and once expressed his contempt of Poles in a letter but hate? war? murder? No sorry, that's just what Bismarck was opposed to from the Franco-Prussian war onwards. No noteworthy source that writes on the subject of the Kulturkampf, rather than Poles, regarded the Kulturkampf as part of a campaign against Poland but only against the Catholic Church. As what would you define the Anglo-Irish conflicts? NightBeAsT 15:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but the word appears in Polish National Libary index of subjects, Polish Encyclopedia and in scholary works.It isn't neologism. " Bismarck may have been suspicious of the nationalistic struggle of Poles" Perhaps NB you have forgotten that Poles were ruled by Bismarck not the other way around.

" and once expressed his contempt of Poles in a letter but hate? war? murder? No sorry, that's just what Bismarck was opposed to from the Franco-Prussian war onwards." More then once as seen in his speech.And of course comparing Poles to animals that one can shoot without feeling guilty is quite similar to concepts of Nazis.

" No noteworthy source that writes on the subject of the Kulturkampf, rather than Poles" That means Zeit, Bismarck, Catholic Encyclopedia etc.Of course you try to distort the discussion since nobody is denying that Bismarck fought against Catholic Church.What you are trying to do is to erase all mentions of antipolish aspect of Kulturkampf. --Molobo 17:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• a tiny number of, if any, articles on the Kulturkampf categorized the Kulturkampf as anti-polonistic
• even in the Kulturkampf article there's already a see-also link to Anti-Polonism
• As for categories, according to guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."

5.why the link to the German webpage on 'Prussiasation' was added despite the fact that

• it is poor
  • it is written in German
  • it is on a different topic, unlike this article of the same page

Comment Because it deals with German policy against Poles including Kulturkampf.--Molobo 12:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't noticed it yet but the article is not to be on Poles and mention the Kulturkampf in one sentence, but on the Kulturkampf itself. Since the article is written in German and on a different topic, it's only misleading.NightBeAsT 15:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Maybe you haven't noticed it yet but the article is not to be on Poles and mention the Kulturkampf in one sentence, but on the Kulturkampf itself" Maybe you haven't noticed it yet NB but Kulturkampf had heavy antipolish aspect, was aimed directly at Poles and had consequences for decades on Polish-German relationship.

"Since the article is written in German and on a different topic, it's only misleading." The article is written on topic of Kulturkampf and its influence on Polish-German relations. --Molobo 17:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

To sum up, I've just given reasons to all the links and information whose exclusion I insist on. If you could find your "explanation" on the talk page, feel free to point it out. And just because I told you to only call truly minor edits rather than controversial ones a minor edit, doesn't mean you should delete my request and call it "personal attack", then go on and on with the concealment of controversial edits, like your latest one on this page, which, by the way, also deleted the link to the Esperanto wikipedia. NightBeAsT 23:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Nope NB.You still ignore other several works which clearly say that Kulturkampf had great antipolish aspect.Including Bismarck himself. --Molobo 17:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Another reference

Since NB claimed any book for Gymnasium is suitable for reference. History 1871-1939 Warszawa 2000 dr.Anna Radziwił prof.dr.hab Wojciech Roszkowski

Anna Radziwil-vicemnister of education in Poland, senator,history teacher, director of several Gymnasiums in Warsaw Wojciech Roszkowski-director of Institute of Political Studies PAN, lecturer in Main Trade School,Collegium Civitas, gives lectures in United States Universities, author of several works from history of Poland and the world.

Page 80. The fight against Polishness had a widespread range-it touched political sphere, national-cultural sphere, as well as economic one, and was led thru legal methods, by "law". You could process with Prussian authorities-something unthinkable in Russian part of partitoned Poland, where such an attempt would end in arrest or deportation. Intesification of the fight against Polishness happened after unification of Germany.(1871), when nationalistic(pangerman) feelings rose, whos representant was von Bismarck.This fight was led mostly in Grand Duchy of Poznan which was renamed Posen Province.Polish population had majority there(60 %) and had its own strong intelectual elites.On other lands of Prussian partition of Poland for example Pomerania Poles were minority and hadn't got strong intelectual elites.In Upper Silesia the few polish intelectuals for example Karol Miarka-who discovered his polish roots as an adult men-tried to preserve or even resurrect Polishness of the common people. In Poznan the fight with Polishness and about Polish culture took many forms.It was a fight over land, language and Church.In this fight the whole Polish society took part, both its upper classes, as well as peasents, which led to creation of GrandPolish ethos(etos wielkopoznanski)-which was made of interclass solidarity, strong connection to catholicism-the mark of being a Pole, and patriotic justified ability to selforganise and development. Centralne Towarzystwo Gospodarcze-existing from 1861, peasent circles, many forms of communes,peoples banks, and also Towarzystwo Czytelni Ludowych(Society of Reading for the Folk), singing societies-created an social infrastucture, which opposed the germanisation offensive.Gen. Dezydery Chlapowski,Maksymilian Jackowski, Roman Szymanski, priest Piotr Wawrzyniak were great patrons of these forms of national activity of Grand Polish society(...) Quite unexpectly a hero of the fight against german policy was to become archbishop of Gniezno Mieczyslwaw Ledóchowski, who at first period of his activity cut himself off from Polish activities.In 1872 however Bismarck started to pursue Kulturkampf policy.According to this priests were turned away from education for example.In schools german language was made compulsory apart from religion.Government wanted to have say in who will become who in church hierarchy.Civil marriages have become compulsory, and made of course only by german. officials.Ledóchowski who opposed this was arrested in 1874.This merging of fight against Catholicism with figh against Poles created in Polish society a feeling of identity between being a Pole and being a Catholic.It was then when the stereotype of "Polish Catholic" was created.Bismarck retreated from the most severe laws of Kulturkampf in late 70s.However antipolish legislation remained in place, and in 80s German government conducted another offensive.New steps of German government intended to increase number of Germans in polish partition and increase of the land controled by Germans and wanted a more efficient Germanisation policy.This fight was planned at beginning by Bismarck.In 1885 a measure called Rugi Pruskie was made-compulsory deportation of all polish workers who didn't get Prussian citizenship.They were repeated in following years.The first ones afflicted 26 000 people.In 1886 Colonisation Commision was made which had funds from Government and was to buyout land from Poles, and conduct settlement action of German settlers. After Bismarck left in 1890 policy of new chancellor seemed to indicate lessening of antipolish measures, but his followers intensified antipolish actions. --Molobo 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Eastern provinces

The sentence

One of the persistent results of the Kulturkampf was the increase of already existing alienation of Catholics in the Eastern provinces of Germany (East Prussia, West Prussia, Provinz Posen, Silesia) conquered from Poland.

is very strange. It is peculiar to say that East Prussia was a province conquered from Poland when we say about Germany united under the Prussian rule. It is peculiar because East Prussia is where Prussia emerged. Even if we assume that the territories were somehow under the rule of a Polish prince Konrad Mazowiecki in the 13th century the territories were not conquered from him, but were assigned to the Teutonic Order by a pope's edict. Similarly, Silesia was not conquerred from Poland directly but from Austria. Alx-pl D 19:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"Conquered from Poland" is an odd phrase even for the territories which were taken from Poland (West Prussia and Posen), because the partitions are not normally described as "conquests." At any rate, this statement seems to pushing the Polish Catholics to an unwarranted prominence in the Kulturkampf. What about the German Catholics of the Rhine Province and Westphalia? john k 19:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

""Conquered from Poland" is an odd phrase even for the territories which were taken from Poland (West Prussia and Posen), because the partitions are not normally described as "conquests." Both Prussian and Russian partitions were met with armed resistance and are described as conquests. "At any rate, this statement seems to pushing the Polish Catholics to an unwarranted prominence in the Kulturkampf'" Well for starters Bismarck stated that Poles were the reason for Kulturkampf.As for other aspects, well I would be glad if somebody would provide more information on them. --Molobo 00:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the statement was added by someone who also added this signing his name as "Molobo". NightBeAsT 23:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Care to explain what is your reason for linking to important study of current antipolonism in Germany ? Do you want it linked to Kulturkampf article NB ? --Molobo 17:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. This is a case of bad faith edits and manipulation of information.--Wiglaf 08:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please point to manipulation of information or bad faith edits.As you can see they are overwhelming number of scholary works and historians writing about antipolish aspect of Kulturkampf --Molobo 17:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Struggle of culture or cultures

The Wikipedia article and the Columbia Encyclopedia translated 'Kulturkampf' with a fight or struggle "of cultures". Yet I think correctly translated it would have to be only "of culture", because "Struggle of cultures" would translate as "Kulturenkampf". NightBeAsT 23:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC) Struggle of cultures because it fought against other cultures. --Molobo 17:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The name Kulturkampf is quite easy to interprete. It can't be anything but the same word as the Swedish Kulturkamp, meaning a "struggle for culture". I fail to see any antagonistic implications in the name.--Wiglaf 08:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

My Collins dictionary, the only German-English dictionary I have that translates it, has this entry (you can have a screenshot as verification if you like):

Kulturkampf Kul·tur·kampf m no pl

cultural war, (Hist) Kulturkampf (struggle between Church and State 1872-1887)

Also, in a Langenscheidt dictionary I noticed that a lot of words comprising the word "Kultur[other_word]" at the beginning, are translated with "cultural [other word]: Kulturabkommen=cultural agreement, Kulturarbeit=cultural activities, Kulturattaché=cultural attaché, Kulturaustausch=cultural exchange, Kulturbanause=philistine, Kulturbeflissen=(very) culturally-minded, Kulturbetrieb=cultural scene, Kulturbeutel=toilet bag, Kulturboden=cultivated soil, Kulturdenkmal=cultural monument, Kulturerbe=cultural heritage, Kulturfeind=philistine, cultural Bolshevik, Kulturführer=cultural guide, Kulturgeschichte=history of civilization, cultural history, history of culture, kulturgeschichtlich=cultural-historic, Kulturgüter=cultural assets, Kulturhoheit=cultural and educational autonomy, Kulturkanal=cultural channel, Kulturkreis=society, etc (there are like ten more; if you want more translations, just ask)

So I'd say it supports the translation "cultural war" of Collins. But I'm not sure whether 'war' is correct. Wiglaf, you translated it "struggle for culture" and while "War" usually means "Krieg" (world war=Weltkrieg etc), which even the Collins dictionary complies with, "struggle" is often translated with "Kampf". The word "Machtkampf", which the Kulturkampf was, translates as "power struggle" and means "struggle for power", which would support your translation. You could also translate it with "culture struggle" as MSN did [3]. Google has about 163000 hits for "cultural war", about 46,600 for "cultural struggle" about 1,360 for "struggle for culture". Still, I'd be in favour "cultural struggle" or "struggle for culture". NightBeAsT 13:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You are trying OR, however you miss the point that you are translating the word, not the original concept. --Molobo 22:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Further scholary works on Kulturkampf against Poles

http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/archweb_eng/Publications/dwarch/index_dwa.html#r1_1 Jarmila Kaczmarek, Andrzej Prinke (Poznań Archaeological Museum)

The victory over France in 1871 caused an increase of nationalism in Germany. From then the Germanising of Greater Poland meant the dislodging and paralysing of the "Polish element" (mainly gentry and clergy as the most aware opponents). Combating opposition against unification, Chancellor Bismark declared the policy known as the Culture Battle. In 1872 schools of a religious persuasion were closed, and the state took up the supervision of education. The estate of the Church was transferred to the supervision of laypersons, monastic orders were dissolved, and the paragraphs of the Prussian constitution assuring the freedom of the Catholic Church were removed. In Wielkopolska the Culture Battle took on a nationalistic and sectarian character. Mainly specially chosen teachers and officials were engaged in Germanisation, there was even a fund for prizes for Germanisation results. When at the end of the 'seventies the Culture Battle action became milder, this did not apply to Wielkopolska. The failure of Germanisation caused the German philosopher E. Hartmann in 1885 to proclaim the slogan - eradication of Slavs on the German territory. The President of the Bydgoszcz Regency, Tiedemann, in 1886 prepared a new Eastern policy programme: Denkschrift betr. einige Massregeln zur Germanisierung der Provinz Posen. During which, he drew attention to the fact that ordinary German inhabitants of the province were unwilling to engage till now in the propagation of Germanness, for they felt uncertain and alien in Greater Poland. The conviction of centuries of settlement in Wielkopolska was to give the German inhabitants self-assurance and convince them of the correctness of elimination of Slavs from the province terrain. In 1886 the Clearance Commission was established to buy up Polish estates. The funds of the Commission were continually increased over the following years, but the final effect was poor. In truth it had succeeded in increasing the overall number of Germans in the province; however the number of Poles as a result of higher natural increase had increased still more, especially on the towns. The price of colonisation was also high; the creation of one German farm cost the government and taxpayers (equally the Polish) 60,000 marks (for comparison a labourer for physical work in Poznań was paid 0.3 marks per hour). In the following years the Polish language was completely abolished in ordinary schools (with the teaching of religion), which provoked strikes by Polish children, quelled by beatings. After a short period of thaw in the years 1890-1894, the government returned to the policies of forced Germanisation. In 1894 on the initiative of German landowners - Hansemann, Kennemann and Tiedemann, the Organisation for the Propagation of Germanness in the Eastern Borders (Verein zur Förderung des Deutschtums in den Ostmarken) was established, called for short Hakata, after the first letters of the surnames of the founders. The organisation demanded the abolition of the use of any Polish at all from schools, the prohibition of the use of Polish at meetings and the closure of Polish newspapers. It joined the struggle for forcing through the proclamation of new laws on evicting Poles and bringing in Germans. In 1904 the settlement law was changed from the aspect of the battle with the greatest threat to German culture - Polish peasants. In 1908 the law of forcible buy out of Polish estates for the needs of German colonisation was announced (it came into force from 1912 to 1914, only 4 estates were expropriated). In order to completely stop the Polish parcelling out of land, from 1914 the government introduced first right of purchase (for the government) and of granting consent for subdivision by local authorities. The policy of discrimination against all classes of Polish society and the Catholic Church caused the acceleration of the process of developing the sense of national awareness among the Polish peasantry, consolidation of all classes of Poles and a growth of anti German bias among them. In the struggle to endure Poles had to learn good organisation and managed to effectively resist Germanisation. The slogan brought forth in the time of the greatest intensification of economic pressure "Your own to your own by your own" not only had an economic note, but also a cultural one. On the other hand, the permanent increase by the government of the privileges of German inhabitants often fuelled a sense of menace for the Poles and the bringing in of anti Polish orientated officials caused a growth of anti Polish feeling among the Germans. In this situation, in spite of periodic attempts at cooperation, also in science, including archaeology, Poznań began to have two faces - Polish and German. --Molobo 19:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Totallydisputed

Now even the definition contains original reasearch. Which source says there are two different definitions ("In the German culture" and "In the Polish culture")? With all due respect. NightBeAsT 14:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You are no longer credible NB.Address sources provided.It seems your education on which you constantly base your beliefs that put in articles lacked several topics.Treat this as occasion to educate yourself better rather then remove all the information from books,articles that you didn't know. --Molobo 15:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, I see no source that defines the Kulturkampf as anything other than Bismarck's fight against Catholicism, and of all your sources, none happens to have the Kulturkampf as topic. You're very good at finding source, but still you failed to find a description on it supporting your ... views. So I consider the longest description, which is that of the Catholic Encyclopedia as mirror of reality, as well as the Duden and all my history books, whose scans I can provide. You've even descended to the level of flooding the page with a source that doesn't even contain the word Kulturkampf. Now that you've rounded up Polish wikipeadians that might have similar interest like you, it might be an idea to use it as occasion to substitute you and converse with them because I honestly see no other way to continue this running in circles with you. NightBeAsT 16:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, I see no source that defines the Kulturkampf as anything other than Bismarck's fight against Catholicism Multiple sources have been provided on this talk page that show Kulturkamp engaging in persecution of Poles including statement by Bismarck himself.It seems you are either ignoring them or not reading the talk page. Once again: http://www.phf.uni-rostock.de/fbg/33/grundkurs/arbeit/kultur.htm Gleich nach der Reichsgründung 1871 begann auch in den polnischen Provinzen Preußens der "Kulturkampf" Bismarcks.(14) Diese Auseinandersetzung zwischen militantem Liberalismus und säkularisiertem Staatsapparat einerseits und der katholischen Kirche andererseits drehte sich hier vor allem um Sprache und Schule. Das Schulaufsichtsgesetz vom März 1872 sollte die polnische Geistlichkeit aus ihrer Kontrollstellung in diesen Fragen verdrängen. Deutsch wurde zur Sprache des Volksschulunterrichts (1873), was einem direkten Angriff auf die nationalkulturelle Eigenart der Polen in Preußen gleichkam.

Writes that Kulturkampf was direct attack on Polish national identity.--Molobo 17:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it reads that German language in public schools was equal to an attack against the national cultural particularity of Poles. Again the source's focus is on Poles, in this case it is a speech about the Ansiedlungsgesetz and its analysis.[4] There's absolutely no need to deny the definition of Kulturkampf as limited to Bismarck's fight against Catholicism. Still you can only say that the Kulturkampf is noteworthy in the context of Poles, but your complete incapibility of finding sources that deal with the Kulturkampf as topic mirror what you're saying makes it an open and shut case against you because this article, believe it or not, should deal with the Kulturkampf as topic. NightBeAsT 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Again the source's focus is on Poles Why shouldn't it be ? After we are talking about German policy towards both Polish people and Polish territories Germany took. Still you can only say that the Kulturkampf is noteworthy in the context of Poles Not really.It effected the hold on Polish territories gained and claimed by Germany till end of WW1. but your complete incapibility of finding sources that deal with the Kulturkampf as topic Incorrect, I already provided you with several sources that deal with this topic, including a book aproved by Polish ministry of education made by leading Polish historians. --Molobo 19:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Attempt to understand

Guys, I know that you have a long history of fight, but how about assuming some good will, and at least trying some harmonious editing ;-). Otherwise we'll have nothing more but yet another never ending revert war. I'm sure we all know this :-) Let me summarize what I understood so far from the dispute: German mainstream historiography depicts Kulturkampf as Bismarck's fight against Catholic Church. I think there is no doubt about it, right ? Now, Polish historiography focuses on the Polish context naturally and sees the brutal Germanisation of Polish ethnic minority in German Empire as the major outcome of Kulturkampf. In fact for Poles, Kultukampf is almost the synonym of Germanisation in the end of 19th/ beginning of 20th century. For some reason German textbooks attempt to ignore or diminish this issue (or not ?). Nightbeast, used to German version of history does not believe there can exist any other valid point of view on history than German, calls it original research, and asks for sources to support it. Molobo, on the other hand, being Polish, cannot believe that Nightbeast does not know "the true (Polish) version" and therefore does not believe in Nightbeast's good will. I (being Polish as well) am not sure if Nightbeast would accept Polish source ? Maybe he thinks all Poles are blinded by nationalism. How about a neutral source then ? Here I have "God's Playground. A History of Poland" by Norman Davies. Polish translation, so I'll have to translate it back into English, sorry. Book Two, Part One, Chapter 3: Preussen (1772-1918), page 618 in my edition reads: "While Kulturkampf was not directed only against Polish provinces, this is where its results were to be seen most acutely." He then goes on enumerating German official measures against Poles in 1872, 1876, 1885 through 1890. His sources for this include E.Schmidt-Volkmar, "Der Kulturkampf in Deutschland 1871-1890", and H.Neubach "Die Ausweisungen von Polen und Juden aus Preussen; ein Beitrag zu Bismarcks Polenpolitik und zur Geschichte des deutche-polnischen Verhältnisses". I don't have access to any of these books but have no reason to doubt that Davies had chosen his sources carefully. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice Lysy that I provided at least two respectable German sources quoting Kulturkampf involvment in persecution of Poles. Molobo, on the other hand, being Polish, cannot believe that Nightbeast does not know "the true (Polish) version" and therefore does not believe in Nightbeast's good will. Actually its probable that he doesn't know.German history and teaching isn't interested much in Polish relations and German policies towards Poles from what I know.However I think his nationalism makes him delete any information that doesn't confirm to idolised view of pre-Hitler Germany that he believes in. --Molobo 21:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Lysy - a few points. I don't think the issue is one between historians of German nationality and historians of Polish nationality. Historians who study Germany, whatever their nationality, write about the Kulturkampf as primarily, as you describe it, "Bismarck's struggle against the Catholic Church," although they note that anti-Polish measures were certainly contained within it. Now, historians who study Poland (most of whom, I would imagine, are Polish, but who include Davies), are obviously, and appropriately, going to focus on the effects of the Kulturkampf on Poland. The problem with what Molobo is trying to do is that he's trying to make an article about the Kulturkampf in general focus on the Polish issue, which seems inappropriate. I'd also note that a lot of historians would almost certainly argue that Bismarck's anti-Polish measures were only tangentially related to the Kulturkampf. Sure, he justified them on the basis of the Kulturkampf while that was ongoing, but continued anti-Polish measures after the Kulturkampf was over - the Kulturkampf ended in 1879, and your source notes continuing anti-Polish measures in 1885-1890. My view on this is that anti-Polish policies were, on the whole, a more consistent and more deeply felt policy on Bismarck's part than the Kulturkampf ever was, and that Bismarck used the Kulturkampf as an excuse for anti-Polish measures that weren't directly connected with it. I don't think anyone here is advocating that Bismarck's clearly documented anti-Polish policies (whether at the time of the Kulturkampf or not) should not be discussed in wikipedia - they clearly ought to be, both here and in Otto von Bismarck. What is being questioned is whether said anti-Polish activities should be seen as the principal focus of the Kulturkampf. I think there is no grounds for seeing Bismarck's anti-Polish policies as central to the Kulturkampf. john k 00:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

JK, I mostly share your opinion. What I think should be stressed here is that KK is not part of German history only, as it influenced the other nations as well, and that there are different, equally valid, points of view on this. Calling everything that cannot be found in German textbooks "an original research" I find partonising if not offensive. I understand that "officially", the KK was labelled a struggle against the Catholics, but in reality, it had its biggest influence on Polish population, intended or not. Similarly, "officially" there was a friendship between East Germany and Soviet Union after WW2, while in reality it was occupied. I don't think an article should be limited itself to present a single POV only. Similarly, as for the duration of KK, officially it inded 1879, but in reality it continued for many years, as the title of Schmidt-Volkmar's "Der Kulturkampf in Deutschland 1871-1890" book would suggest. In fact in the territories with Polish ethnic population, it continued well into 20th century. Other than that I fully agree with your view. --Lysy ^(talk) 08:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Lysy - I think we may be talking past each other a bit. I basically agree with you that there should be discussion of the role of anti-Polish policies in the Kulturkampf, and I basically agree that German textbooks should not be the determinant of what is original research. My basic point is merely that the anti-Polish measures are not integrally part of the Kulturkampf. As you note, anti-Polish measures continued throughout the existence of the Kaiserreich, while I will continue to insist that Bismarck's alliance with the Catholic Centre Party in 1879 marks the end of the Kulturkampf proper. As long as the Kulturkampf was ongoing, the persecution of the Church itself was connected to the persecution of the Catholic Poles. But anti-polonisation was not essentially a part of the Kulturkampf - it was a related, but distinct, phenomenon. john k 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you think so. Some historians (Norman Davies at least) think differently. We have two different opinions then. I'm not trying to qualify which of them is "more valid", I think we should respect both an both should be equally represented in the article. Does it make sense ? --Lysy ^(talk) 16:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, Norman Davies is a historian of Poland. Further, his work is a popular, general one. I'd be interested to see a history of the Kulturkampf itself which says that its main effects were felt on the Poles. john k 21:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on. Of course he is primarily a historian of Poland (but also Europe) and of course the book that I mention is a monography, targeted at general audience. But what's wrong with it ? I'm just showing you that there exist different points of view on Kulturkampf, they are not original research and they should be respected and presented in the article. It seems that you're now trying to discredit Davies because you don't like his opinion. I've purposefully selected him as an example because: #1 he is neither Polish nor German, #2 he is easily recognizable internationally, writes in English and can be easily verified. Of course there are many works in Polish but that's not the point. I'm not trying to push one POV and convince you that it is more valid than the other one. I'm only asking you to recognize that there are alternative views of the same thing and not to push yours. --Lysy ^(talk) 01:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to discredit Davies. But I could (and will, if the necessity arises) quote many general, quasi-poular sources on the Kulturkampf, not written by Poles or Germans, which do not view it as a primarily anti-Polish phenomenon. Which is why I suggested the need for a study of the Kulturkampf specifically, rather than general accounts. Even so, Davies is not saying that the Kulturkampf was primarily directed against Poles, but rather that its effects were felt most strongly by Poles. This is quite different. I would add that if it were to come down to German historians vs. Polish historians, I'd definitely come down on the side of the Germans. Since the Fischer controversy and 68, German historians have competed with one another in their ability to condemn all aspects of German nationalism throughout the years. If anything, German historians from the 70s on have been too eager to condemn and attack the Kaiserreich. The idea that German historians are unreliable because of their German nationalist biases is simply ridiculous when one is looking towards recent German historiography. john k 06:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Somehow, we seem to be not hearing each other. I did not doubt that there are sources which do not view it as a primarily anti-Polish phenomenon, did I ? I only tried to explain that Kultukampf had many faces, and the one seen from Poland seemed ugly. This said, as for me, I'm happy with the article as it is now and would be happy to remove the POV tag unless it's further pushed by Molobo or Nightbeast either way. --Lysy ^(talk) 08:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting information to add

http://www.texasalmanac.com/culture/groups/polish.html Back in Poland, another insurrection was put down in 1863, resulting in increased restrictions from the ruling powers. In the Prussian partition, Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, a program enforcing German culture onto the Polish people, caused about 152,000 Poles to leave the provinces of Pozan, Bydgoszcz and Silesia. --Molobo 21:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

English translation of Kulturkampf

Molobo you are wrong with your translation. The term "Kulturkampf" directly translated means "culture struggle". The term "struggle of culures" means "Kampf der Kulturen". This is mostly used in the context of eg Huntington's "clash of civilizations". The term "cultures = Kulturen" is the plural version while "culture = Kultur" is the singular one. It shouldn't be that difficult to get the difference. It seems that you are unable to fully understand German or do this as an attempt to paint Germans as anti-Polish, because by using "struggle of cultures" you have created an image that German culture was fighting against the Polish culture. Don't try to imply anti-German wordings by abusing the German language in favour of your hidden agenda. Quak 11:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Although not literal, I think "struggle for culture" fits best for Kulturkampf. However, if the literal translation works then we'll keep it. Thoughts? --Banime (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well, I was just writing long argument for mentioning more about connection to germanisation, but I see the article already evolved in very good direction. IMHO it looks good now. Maybe only one should mention the influence of polonisation of German catholic Bambers and creation of the slogan "Germanization is protestantization" - since in context of Great Duchy of Poznan kulturkampf look like a logical consequence or earlier actions of Prussian government and logical reaction to slogans as "only Polish catholic clergy and landowner" are against Prussian rule etc. I think this cases has as good influence on Bismarck policy as inclusion of Bavarians. remember also, that seen from PRUSSIAN point of view, Polish minority was far more important issue than from whole GERMAN point of view.

Obviously. The Polish minority constitued something like 40% of all the population of the Prussian state. Hardly a "minor" problem and hardly something to be lightly overlooked by Bismarck. --Lysy ^(talk) 10:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we can remove the POV tag now ? --Lysy ^(talk) 23:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC) Seems I was too fast... Szopen 19:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There's never silence until Molobo has pushed through his point of view completely. Tfine80's attempt was nice and tried to achieve a compromise but it is based on the belief, say, that when one insists on 1 and the other on 3, a compromise can be 2 and the dispute is over. No, then Pov-pushing was rewarded by giving in a bit and the following demand is again 3 to push it from 2 to 2.5 . Anyway, I'd like to ask if the picture on [5] could be taken for the wiki article. NightBeAsT 19:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If this revert war continue, I will protect this page. If you guys cannot reach an argument, RfC is one possibity. I am very disappointed by admins, representing one side of the dispute, resorting to blocking their opponents. Blocking policy cleary states that admins should avoid using their powers in the content disputes they are involved in; if you are right, find another admin to enforce the law. Cool down, and list your reasons here, I am sure some kind of a compromise can be worked out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There's never silence until Molobo has pushed through his point of view completely. NB-I provided you with several sources confirming my edits as correct. Will you addres them ? --Molobo 13:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Info

This may be of interest for editors here. Alx-pl D 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision

I have revised the article to include the relevant information as exressed by all parties as well and as fairly as I could, whilst remaining as objective as possible. I have included that the Poles were given by Bismark as the reason for the Kulturkampf, whilst maintaining that this is widely accepted to be an attempt by Bismark to dodge the issue and appease the Catholics. I also reordered the See Also section, as I felt it was in disarray.

I welcome any critisisms. I hope I'm not upsetting anyone by going ahead and applying the changes.

Bobby1011 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not upset here :) Szopen 10:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement here. The leading paragraph is unacceptable now. I've no time right now but this immediately disproves the part about the stated goal. Don't be hastily swayed by Molobo. Sciurinæ 18:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Your link gives speech dated on March 10th 1873, and thus is easly discredited by Bismarck himself in his later speec dated on January 28, 1886 and thus being more relevant http://h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/speech.html.

This speech went into history as Herrenhausrede (mansion-speech) and part of it was even included into the Duden's ISBN 3411715812 to explain the Kulturkampf. Your explanation why the other one, held long after the start of the Kulturkampf, should be more relevant is poorly argued. Sciurinæ 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The speech was held later(in fact much much later) and thus is more relevent.Obviously the full intent of Kulturkampf could be revealed by Bismarck when he already implemented his agenda.Unless you have a source claiming that the speech wasn't made or is forged you have no argument. --Molobo 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I would be cautious as to Sciurinæ edits-they concentrate mainly on erasing all information about persecution of ethnic minorities under Germany, as seen here where he deleted information on Genocide of African people under the summary "irrelevant to history" [6]. I am not saying we should always ignore him or revert, but such moves on his part suggest a strong POV in regards to such events, and his edits and claims should be always at least doublechecked.--Molobo 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, as for your first sentence, stop this constant drawing of Hasty generalisations. By the least amount of indicators, the most generalising, idiotic (yes, idiotic) conclusion. "Polish players face discrimination and insults from Germanic sportstmen as shown by the example of Dietmar Kühbauer who refused to hold an interview with Adam Ledwon, saying he "stinks of Poland"."[7] was a sentence you insisted on for 5-7 reverts and a perfect example of propaganda via logical fallacies. Compare that soccer-player sentence with your first one here. As for the part about herero sentence, don't misquote me. I never said it is irrelevant to history (in general) but irrelevant to the German-Empire section of the article Germany's history-of-Germany section, and I'm still certain it doesn't belong there if you want it unbiased. As for your second sentence, you must remember Wiglaf's advice to always revert you. And finally if you want to engage in discussions - which can be plunged into doubt if your user conduct after your RfC is analysed and you being referred to ArbCom - focus on the topic. Sciurinæ 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides threats of ArbCom no comment on sources you provided on sources or no reasons stated for the tag.I removed the usuall name calling and insults--Molobo 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrectness in the defining paragraph, (as explained above) POV towards the unhistorical *Polish version* of the Kulturkampf in the defining paragraph, POV pushing in Effect on Poles (for that you only have to read what is before the compromise because you obviously still disagree). Sciurinæ 20:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide sources claiming that Poles weren't opressed during Kulturkampf, sources contradicting sources I provided, and sources showing that the Bismarck quote is forged and wasn't made by Bismarck.If you have such sources I will be glad to see them and their origins. Thank you. --Molobo 20:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

POV

No reasons are put by Sciurinæ, he continues to ignore all sources mentioning persecution of Poles or calls them cherrypicked. --Molobo 20:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My sources

My sources are:

• History 1871-1939 Warszawa 2000 dr.Anna Radziwił prof.dr.hab Wojciech Roszkowski

• Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12204c.htm

• Less Stress More Success: History (LC)

Revision for Leaving Certificate by Desmond O'Leary [8]

• World History at KMLA

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/eceurope/gdposen18711890.html

• Henry Bogdan

From Warsaw To Sofia A History of Eastern Europe Edited by Istvan Fehervary Pro Libertate Publishing Santa Fe, New Mexico USA http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/bogdan/bogdan12.htm

• The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

http://www.bartleby.com/67/1268.html

• German Historical Museum

http://www.dhm.de/ENGLISH/ausstellungen/bismarck/169.htm

• Polish-Germans in Poland

by Jan Herman Brinks http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/cgjs/publications/hbpolgerpol.html

• Two Archaeologies in one Country:

Official Prussian versus amateur Polish activities in Mid-Western (i.e.: Greater) Poland in XIXth-early XXth cent. Jarmila Kaczmarek, Andrzej Prinke Poznań Archaeological Museum http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/archweb_eng/Publications/dwarch/index_dwa.html#r1_1

And more.

I welcome Sc to provide resources contradicting information found in those I provided.

--Molobo 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision 2

As per WP:NPOVUW, the article now contains reference to polish view, and focuses on the general view of the Kulturkampf. - Bobby1011 17:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good edit, Bobby. I did a diff check, and the stuff you removed was extremely POV, as well as needing referenced. - Calgacus 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the section in order to further un-weasel it and explain a little on why is it called a part of the Kulturkampf, why and what actually happened. I used as many online sources as possible, which will hopefully end the endless revert wars and conflicts here. Any comments? Halibutt 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent revisions

I don't have any opinions as to either side of this article, but there's recently been an unregistered ip (131.173.252.9) blanking large sections of this article. I've glanced through the history and don't know if this is a POV section that is being reinserted by one party and deleted by another, but the perplexing activities of both sides make me want to see some consensus on the subject before we can say yea or nay to the propriety of the section disputed as of 18 Feb 2006. If you've got an opinion, let's hear it. :) -Kuzaar 14:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had a good look at the rewritten Polish section but thanks to its seize it is clearly out of proportion to the rest of the text. The Kulturkampf is almost always seen as Bismarck's fight against the Catholic church and not against Poles and that's why some, including me, disagree with User:Molobo's placing special emphasis on the Polish part. Sciurinæ 15:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, I see. I edited this article in the course of reverting a wide swath of german nationalist POV material added by the unregistered contributor 131.173.252.9. If there was any improper POV material in the section that I unblanked, then make what changes to it you will. I had thought this article had been simply the subject of vandalism, though as chance would have it the vandal I was following is a proponent of one side in what seems to be a fairly controversial subject that I have no opinion on. If there's anything I can help with, just let me know. --Kuzaar 15:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sciurinæ that the general informations part is now severely under-developed. However, I dissagree that expanding one section (and quite a notable one) is wrong as long as some other section is not as expanded. Be bold, add info and references to the Overview section and with time we'll have a pretty decent article on the topic, covering all important aspects of the case, not only the ones that are notable from purely German perspective. As a matter of fact I was hoping for more comments on my recent expansion, NPOVing and sourcing of the section on K. in Poland - that is some other comments than those made by the anon user (this side should not include a extrem right-wing polnish nationalism.). Halibutt 16:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a read through it later today and give some comment, if that's what you'd like. I'm new as of today to this subject and can always find time to broaden my acquaintance with history for my own sake and Wikipedia's. --Kuzaar 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Be bold!

As to Sciurinae's recent edits... I have to admit that his/hers logic completely escapes me. First he/she deleted a sentence from the header claiming that only articles focused primarily on Poles would show such a stress, unworthy of the lead section. I find it highly dubious and restored the section until Sciurinae posts some back-up for her/his claims. However, in the very next edit he/she again reverted claiming that the burden of proof of Sciurinae's claims is not on his/her side but rather on... mine? This might be a funny sport, but I suggest we stick to the normal way: every Wikipedian is responsible for his own statements and claims and should be able to prove them, without asking the opponents to do it. Halibutt 04:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I reintroduced the mention of anti-Polish stance back to the header and referenced it with a number of books. As a matter of fact it seems that it is mentioned not by some historians but by most of them. I added only a small number of sources, though there are many more in Google Books. For instance: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]... Halibutt 05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Virchow was not a freemason

see: Talk:Rudolf Virchow

Virchow was not a freemason, but he might have sponsored the freemason Rizal. Dr. José Rizal was a member of the Arcacia-Lodge No. 9 and a member of a lodge in Paris. In Germany he published the novel "Noli me tangere" in 1886 where he describes corruption of the Spanish domination in the Philippines. In 1892 he created there the Lodge Filipina, but he was deported because of this. In 1896 the insurrection against Spain raised in the Philipines and he was wrongly accused to be the agitator of the Catipunes(?), so he was sentenced to death. He was shot near the fort Santiago (Manila). One month later, 10 other Freemason were shot there. The day of Rizal's death is a national holiday of the Philippines today. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? JASpencer

Removing Catholic Insight Citation

Catholic Insight should really be removed as it states, incorrectly that Virchow was Jewish. In fact he was Protestant (I think Lutheran). The whole thrust of the Catholic Insight article is on a Jewish war against Catholicism and how among other things Judaism was responsible for events such as the Kulturkampf. I think Catholic Insight is a good guide for what some sedevacanctists believe, but not for this. That's why I'd prefer only one quote.

JASpencer 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Relationship of (Prussian) Evangelical Christian Church to the Kulturkampf?

I don't think this is mentioned in the article, but it may be interesting to try to include the attitudes and relationship between the Evangelical Church (clergy and laity) and the Kulturkampf. Did they support it? How? Did they oppose it? How? Were they passive in the face of it? I have found little on this relationship. Although I can affirm that the Protestant Churches remained silent for the most part--except when Kulturkampf legislation affected them, as in the institution of civil marriage.

They opposed it. The German article states that a consequence of the Kulturkampf was a shift in Bismarck's followership: The (mostly protestant) conservatives, who had previously been his staunch followers, became more distant, while he gained lots of sympathies with the liberals.—Graf Bobby (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Kanzelparagraf?

The Kanzelparagraf is mentioned in the opening twice and then never explained. Perhaps someone could add that...? 205.157.110.11 01:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tag

I don't believe there are any current POV disputes in this article, so I am removing the tag. If any editors believe some disputes exist, please raise them here. Mamalujo 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

External links: Contemporary

I removed this subsection. It contained three links to Pat Buchanan's speeches, two of which were broken, and I don't see it at all this relevant anyhow, since the article is primarily about the historic Prussian Kulturkampf.—Graf Bobby (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

biased and off the point

this article has a number major mistakes which have been addressed as far back as 2005:

• kulturkampf refers to the struggles between states and (catholic) church only
• variations of the kulturkampf took place in many countries
• there is too much focus on bismarck and hardly mention of the liberal majorities in the parliaments
• there is no mention of any background (e.g. general development in society)
• anti-polish policies existed before, during and after the kulturkampf and had a different background. the kulturkampf served purposes of anti-polish policies which deserves mention, not more.
• bismarck is portrayed as a culprit and the catholic church as a victim; the church was a major power player

as a result, this article is totally biased and in need of essential changes. as long as these points are not addressed, the pov tag will have to stay in place.Sundar1 (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)'

bismarck is portrayed as a culprit and the catholic church as a victim Wait, are you suggesting here that Bismarck, who boasted how he wants to exterminate whole nation he hates, is the victim here? Please explain your sentence.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikilink to the German entry

Does anyone know why the link to the Geman language "Kulturkampf" entry from this English language "Kulturkampf" entry takes the reader to Badischer Kulturkampf and not to Kulturkampf?

(I tried to "correct" it but I failed due to lack of the relevant technical wiki-insights. In any case, it may not be an anomaly at all but something well thought out by someone when I wasn't watching / listening.) Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What is (what was?) the "Kulturkampf" , and the many strands of this wiki entry

When I studied history, "Kulturkampf" was what we called the power struggle between Bismarck and the Roman Catholic Church. For many wiki readers regarding themselves as mainstream generalists, I suspect that is still the case.

As it happens, I am hugely supportive of the move by Prof Chris Clark (and no doubt others) to stress the extent to which events in Germany weren't so different from parallel conflicts underway in Belgium at the same time, and in France and no doubt other countries about which I know even less.

What we are faced with here, however, is a wikipedia entry where a succession of erudite (well, in some cases) and passionate (in some other cases) contributors have together created a vast bowl of spaghetti, some of it looking still undercooked and some of it reassuringly(?)overcooked. Taken together, the meal is indigestible because the strands - including many of the most tantalsing and interesting strands - head off in utterly different and conflicting directions.

The tendency of wikipedia entries to become intriguingly shapeless as different people bring different perspectives is not restricted to the Kulturkampf, of course, and in some ways it is one of the delights of looking stuff up on wikipedia. But (I respectfully submit, mi'lud) one can have too much a a good thing.

I wonder if there is a case to be made for separating out (as German wikipedia effectively does) (1) "Kulturkampf" in Germany (the Bismarck bit) (2) "Kulturkampf" in Belgium (where we also received a lot of "religious refugees" from Bismarck's "Kulturkampf")? (3) "Kulturkampf" in Switzerland, (4) Badischer Kulturkampf .... und so geht es immer weiter. There's also, I would think, scope for a separate entry on the local political impacts in the parts of Germany which after the ethnic cleansing and frontier changes of 1944/45 became Poland (again). None of this entry splitting is easy to do, but that is not in itself a reason not to do it before the present entry get even longer, and those of us at the wrong end of a third world telecoms infrastructure (now I live in England) have increasing difficulty downloading the thing. Or at least ... to think about separating some of it out into individual entries.

Does anyone else have thoughts?

Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not see a problem here. Encyclopedias have lots of material that you're not interested in. The article is very well structured so that if you're interested in Germany, say, everything is in one coherent place. There's a very rich guide to materials in English and German in the bibliography and notes. There are links to many other articles. There is background information on the general pattern inside Europe. If you're interested in other countries, you can look up those that interest you. Very few people, I suspect, are want to read about every country. However the current structure is useful because additional countries can be easily added, as soon as we have editors prepared to work on them. Wikipedia is not a finished product. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to synthesize the world history of conflict between the Catholic Church and 25 different states in the 19th century. In fact, the editors are not allowed to do that. Rjensen (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

charles01 and rjensen both have good points. once the section of a country has enough flesh on its bones it can very well be seperated out - that's common practice. the german kulturkampf entries are each substantial enough to merit own articles. as of yet, i do not see that in the english ones. apart from that, i very much wonder about charles01's criticism. the article, before i started work on it, was unacceptably lopsided. changes are still in progress, old and new parts still don't quite fit together with overlapping and repeating. perhaps, that is what charles01 is getting at. a little patience, please.

as to the link to kulturkampf baden, i've noticed that, too, and tried to correct it. the links are automated. perhaps it hooks up with some reference within the article.Sundar1 (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think what you are (both) doing greatly improves the entry. I agree that it was screamingly lopsided and I am more than sorry I did not make clear earlier my support and appreciation for what you are now doing with it. This entry has been crying out for a large amount of (careful) attention from well informed contributor(s) for as long as I can remember. You are addressing that. Thank you. And yes, I appreciate that your task with this is still a work in progress! Success Charles01 (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

if you check the history you will see that so far, i'm the only one working to remove the lopsidedness to which rjensen was a major contributor. this is why i called my critique of this article "the kulturkampf is not over". rjensen is now working hard to keep the strong bias and redoing my edits. i'm afraid, the article will have to remain tagged for longer time.Sundar1 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd not undertaken sufficient "who did what analysis" to pick up on this. Still haven't. I guess we all view history through our own disparate personal prisms. From my perspective, the route to a better balance presumably should lie with trying to put more beef on some of the hitherto more neglected strands and that, overall, seems to be what the two of you have been doing, regardless of who did which. I hope differences of opinion on some of this will not be permitted to truncate the quality in other ways! Regards Charles01 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I admit that I have a strong bias against the heavy-handed illiberal use of state power to suppress your political enemies, as exhibited by Bismarck. I think Bismarck realized his mistake, and he broke with the liberals, and actually formed a working coalition with the Catholic Center party. Bismarck is a nationalist, all right, but he was very hostile at all times toward the Poles and the German Catholics. In my opinion, he was not a true supporter of democracy. Indeed I agree with the argument by Clark-Kaiser's (and many others) that "In order to realize their programs of secularization, liberal parties often used measures that appear illiberal from a present-date standpoint." [Clark & Kaiser, Culture Wars p 57] Sundar1 calls that my "strong bias". ok, perhaps he can tell us what his strong bias is. Rjensen (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

bias and more

it can be more or less difficult not to be biased but i always try hard. so, rjensen, unless you point straight at edits of mine which you consider biased i do not know what you mean by "his strong bias".

you did not have to explain the obvious: your negative opinion on liberals and bismarck seeps out of every edit you make. your opinion is one thing, but how can you let yourself get carried away in such a manner writing an article as if we were still in the middle of the kulturkampf? this is not an article for bashing liberals or bismarck and you cannot judge historical events by today's standards.

the government acted remarkably constrained considering that the ancien regimes had only been reinstalled in 1815, that revolutions were violently surpressed only 20 years before, that unification had been achieved against many odds and that parliamentarism was not well established. nobody ever said that bismarck was a liberal, not to mention a true supporter of democracy. where on earth did you get that from? he was quite the opposite and who he sided with was no indication of his preferences. yes, he was hostile towards poles as any statesman of that time would have been towards a restive big minority, especially in a newly created state. but that has very limited business in this article. kulturkampf was not bismarck's invention - he only used it for his purposes. nevertheless, bismarck did not act alone and he did and could not override parliament; all laws were passed by parliaments, not bismarck.

bismarck was not, as you write, hostile towards the german catholics per se and catholics were not persecuted per se. the main opponent was always the church which fought against regulations most of which it had already accepted, albeit grudgingly, in other countries. it was defending power and functions that were not its due in a democratic society.

when talking about the "heavy-handed illiberal use of power" which you can only do from today's perspective, it's remarkable that you have no word for the power the church extensively made use of. for ordinary catholics the laws would have hardly made any difference had it not been for the church using them for its purpose.

as far as bismarcks fight against the centre party is concerned, he simply failed. but i do not recognise one law that could have been conducive for bismarcks intentions, even if they had been fully effective and i have seen no source that explains this. for me this is an open question.

as far as the result of the kulturkampf is concerned there is no logic in saying it failed. none of the laws that were at the heart of the kulturkampf (reduction of church power) were taken back. not one. the church's strongest bastions were dismantled and it had no more direct power. the gains of the centre party in parliament are trumpeted as a great success for the church, but it did not amount to any tangible advantage and it was achieved by democratic elections which the liberals had fought for and which the church had apposed. what an irony.Sundar1 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sundari cannot see his own bias--for example when he used Wikipedia's voice to attack the pope: "The pope’s handling of dissent, e. g. by excommunication of critics or demanding their removal from schools and universities, added insult to injury and was considered the “epitome of papal authoritarianism”. The RS generally agree that Bismarck failed in the Kulturkampf, for they report the Catholic Church & pope came out stronger in the end. Was Bismarck bitterly hostile to the Polish Catholics? yes indeed. As for liberalism--I favor it myself but not when it becomes illiberal and anti-religious. That is what Sundari can tolerate. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

it's disappointing that a man of your educational background cannot open up for a meaningful discussion instead of only hiding behind rs. on the discussion page wikipedia does allow to think for yourself and address inconsistencies. accusing me of attacking the pope is outright ridiculous and it seems careful reading is not your forte. writing something negative about a pope is not taboo. the heavy-handed (my words) handling of dissent by excommunication or threat thereof and the demand for the removal of inconvenient teachers are facts and did add to the dismay. check out e. g. healy p. 55. but, if you say it's bias, wouldn't it still be a far cry against the screaming bias in favour of the church which has reigned this article so far?

it was exactly my point, that the rs generally claim that bismarck failed in the kulturkampf. his first priority was smashing the centre party in which he did fail. but where in the end was the catholic church more strong? even if many or most of the laws (by number) were eventually repealed or toned down, all the really meaningful ones, the ones restricting influence and power, the ones that hurt the church most, stayed in place.

nobody disputed that bismarck was hostile to the poles. there were no non-catholic poles so locically he was hostile to catholic poles. but you're trying to twist it into hostility against catholics in general. that was not the case.Sundar1 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Our job as editors is to follow the RS, and not undertake original research. The NPOV goal of the article is to be neutral among the RS (the various scholarly interpretations)--and I believe it does that. Wikipedia does NOT require the editors to be neutral between liberals & Catholics. As for the results: I think Bismarck wanted to reduce the power of the RC church in Prussia to about the level of the Protestants (their affairs were under Bismarck's control). I think that was very bad policy. He certainly failed at that. The Pope was much stronger at the end than at the beginning, as the liberal element among the Catholics was pretty well silenced When they saw all the bishops and priests being systematically persecuted and jailed and fined. The basic reason is that the Catholic rank and file were mobilized and they strongly supported the Pope. The Church and each other. They Were mobilized in democratic fashion. Bismarck never mobilized his grassroots support-- he distrusted democracy, and thereby forfeited the strength comes from grassroots organizations of millions of people. As for the liberals, he deserted them. Liberals succeeded in their goal of nationalism, but they failed in terms of their economic objectives and they failed to destroy the Catholic Church. But I think the liberals betrayed the principles of liberalism in the name of nationalism. The liberals proved they did not believe in freedom of religion or speech for their political enemies. Rjensen (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

who's talkinig about original research? until i started with this article it was totally one-sided by picking quotes that suited your anti-liberal bias just fine. the article was and still is one long, unsystematic rant against bismarck and the liberals with many repetitions and lots of tear-jerking, totally unprofessional and certainly not npov. not even catholic sites are that biased and rabidly anti-liberal. i'm in the process of introducing some balance using the very same sources and adding a few more.

as to your ad nauseam repeated imaginary victory of the church, i do not see my question answered. and you keep adding false claims into your discourse like "failed to destroy the catholic church", just as exaggerated as the claims in the kulturkampf. no doubt, you're still right in the middle of it.

there was some influence in state politics left via democratic representation which, again, was only of use of when they were needed in a coalition (with very limited success), but apart from that, what power and influence in state affairs or society as a whole was left to the catholic church? i fail to see any.Sundar1 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

This article now is largely SYNTH and OR seemingly aiming at diverting attention from policies of German Empire, it was much better in its previous form where there was less SYNTH and unrelated rants about how bad Catholic Church was.Most of these statements have no connection with Kulturkampf and putting them here seems a bit POV if not an attempt to justify the oppression German Empire was engaged in regarding its minorities.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

nobody disputed that bismarck was hostile to the poles. there were no non-catholic poles so locically he was hostile to catholic poles.

I am quite dismayed by this stereotyping, there are plenty of Protestant Poles.In any case Bismarck mentioned Poles specifically by ethnicity several times in his statements where he compared them to animals that must be exterminated for example.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Synthesis and Original Research

I took a look at the changes made to the article and they seem highly POV, and dictated by WP:SYNTH. From the looks of it most of the information here is musings by the editor based on sources that have little to do with Kulturkampf itself and serve more of a justification of German Empire's oppressive discrimination of religious and ethnic minorities. We should also not forget that mainstream sources describe Kulturkampf mainly as event in German Empire-while there are similiar situations and names used in other contexts, the main word is used to describe situation Germany, it is not a general description applicable to all other countries. The current lead is highly misleading and goes to deviate the attention from Germany. We should cover the lead the same way mainstream sources do and clearly point out that the use of word Kulturkampf is mainly applicable to the religious and ethnic discrimination in German Empire. Of course a sentence or two could be added that th term has been used to describe other situations, but again, its main usage is in regards to German Empire's actions.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

mymoloboaccount, this article was highly pov when i started with it and in major sections it still is. i intend to get to that. it's clear what war path your're on and i will not get into new discussions on kulturkampf and the poles. you've had your say ad nauseam on this page and made your point. there is a section about the poles in this article - in my view way too big. as far as the definition is concerned, how do you explain the contemporary use of kulturkampf, of which you find numerous examples in the media in many languages? that would not work with your definition of kulturkampf. and the swiss would greatly object to having been told they only had "some" kulturkampf. perhaps you check some more literature. i also suggest you check the sources given before you tag edits as unsourced. one need not put a source behind every word - it suffices to put them at the end of the sentence or paragraph. i take great pain not to add anything without source. Sundar1 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This article was perfectly fine until you started entering your own personal claims into it. Your claims of it being POV stated above include implied claims that Bismarck somehow was a "victim".

it's clear what war path your're on war parth? Please refrain from such attitude. Wikipedia is not a background and can't be treated as such.there is a section about the poles in this article - in my view way too big The comment you made before that regarding this section included implied claim that Bismarck was a victim here. I am still waiting for an explanation of that bizarre sentence. Also are you aware that you are violating Wikipiedia rules? You can't base claims based on Wikipedia articles as sources. You need a proper, real source, not a re-direct to another wikipedia site. As to the rest, yes Kulturkampf is mainly about German Empire's oppressive religious and ethnic discrimination, while the term is used sometimes to describe events in other countries, the main part and lead of the article needs to cover German Empire and plight of the people it oppressed.While we can describe claims of attempts from 19th century to justify discrimination of religious and ethnic groups they can't be presented at face value or without context and need proper attribution and description.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

d such conflicts were a central theme of West European history from the mid-19th. century

How is this related to Kulturkampf? In Germany the main focus and intensity was in Poznan and Greater Poland, which is in Eastern Europe. It seems this article now has several cut and pasted sentences that often have little to do with Kulturkampf itself.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Background section

I went through the background section it is has almost nothing on Kulturkampf, German nationalism or hostility towards Polish Catholic population. Instead it is a large cut and paste of sentences attacking Catholicism. Which has little to do with the article at hand, mainly the German discrimination of Catholic population in German Empire. The background section right now is seriously POV, and needs to be severely trimmed. At the current stage it is highly biased and instead of explaining the reasons for the oppressive Kulturkampf measures in German Empire, it is an essay criticizing Catholic Church. While some of the religious attacks and sentences there can be used to show how religious discrimination were attempted to be justified, at the current moment it is presented in too straightforward way.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

kulturkampf in wider and narrower sense

hello rjensen. when i separated a wider and narrower sense in the lead it was to address the two different definitions floating around and constantly leading to editing conflicts. one definition is the general one, the struggle between states and church, the other definition is the narrow one, the struggle only in germany (i added german speaking switzerland and austria, because they use the same term).

you changed the second part of the definition, the "narrow sense", into "historical sense" and added a list of just about all countries where such struggles took place, thereby dropping the distinction mentioned above. have you been aware of this? do you think the narrow definition should be dropped, perhaps because it's kind of outdated?

the lead now is not logical. the second paragraph (historical sense) gives the impression, that it is different from the first, by starting with "in the historical sense", although it's exactly the same. in all the countries listed, it's about the struggle between state and church. why is it necessary to talk about a definition in the "historical" sense - both parts of the definition are in a historical sense? this needs to be fixed.Sundar1 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The job of the lead is to summarize the material that is actually covered in the article. Inserting highly POV words (like "democratic") is not acceptable. We already agreed that Bismarck is a leading enemy of democracy, so to call his campaign democratic is a serious distortion. In fact, historians like Margaret Anderson Practicing Democracy emphasize that Catholics used democracy to fight back, by organizing their voters at the neighborhood and local levels. Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

False attribution of sources

I took the time to check two sources recently added and in both cases they were falsely attributed. In case of Hungary the source stated that the term Kulturkampf isn't really the correct term, and in the second there was no mention of Kulturkampf on the page at all. Probably more sources need to be checked if they have been falsely attributed--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Racism and Kulturkampf

At the current moment there is little about racist aspect of Kulturkampf.It would be good to expand this information in appropriate section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Berend

Berend Has several times been Paraphrased in support of key arguments. I did some research on his bibliography and publications. Berend is fine on his specialty the economic history of 20th century Europe (especially Eastern Europe and Hungary), but he is not a specialist on religion, on politics, on the Constitution, on Germany, Bismarck or on Prussia. He devotes only a two paragraphs to the Kulturkampf, which he bases on one secondary sources. Is animated by a strong anti-catholic bias [""the medieval ideas of the Vatican, and the Straight jacket of the Catholic Church policy"] which has little impact on his mainline work in economics, but undermines his credibility in dealing with religion. Given the very high quality of the scholarship available, he can no longer be considered a reliable secondary source on the Kulturkampf. Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It does indeed seem so. I suspect some other sources inserted by Sundar1 need to be checked as well. Also see above where I discovered that at least two were falsely attributed to support claims they didn't make.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Berend wrote a textbook on a different subject and did not do research on Kulturkampf. By Wikipedia standards this is a tertiary source (textbook) not a secondary source (research monograph). Rjensen (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

see no reason for carping or warnings

Seems a far better than average article, tho it certainly doesn't take a liberal or Catholic view of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Huge re-write needed

The whole article is a mess with false attribution to sources(which often have nothing to do with Kulturkampf at all), OR claims, other wikipedia projects used as sources. It is a definite exmample of how WP:SYNTH and WP:OR look like.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to give this article a general grammar ad citation cleanup - but haven't been able to find references for enough of the comments and so have rolled back and marked for general POV neutrality - particularly due to the emotiveness of the language used without attribution. The intro has been taken directly from another site, which itself provides no citations, it should probably be removed entirely, but i don't feel up to the task given the history of this page Shaztastic (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kulturkampf/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Important aspects of the Kulturkampf are not shown: how did the catholics react, how did the Holy See react, which were the impacts on Catholics everyday life, especially the accusation of treachery and of ultramontanism There is no proof of a special treatment of Polish catholics compared to those in southern Germany and there is no proof of Germanization as a motivation of the Kulturkampf.Thw1309 08:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Violation of neutrality

The following statement should be deleted: "It was to ensure an open-minded and neutral education as prerequisite for a progressive society." This was the sole intent or result of the law?? The statement is false and in no way neutral. Moreover there is no footnote. Is this a personal opinion? The statement violates a number of Wikipedia rules and should go.69.127.244.223 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Constant bringing up of Nazi Germany

Are you serious? This:

In 20th Century, Kulturkampf would become an influence to Nazi Germany which copied policies of German Empire towards Catholics and its legacy assisted in justifying the ideology of mass murder

...gets removed, as its relevance to this article is, frankly, really low. We are talking the 19th century.Ernio48 (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)