Talk:Günter Grass/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pointless

I agree completely with DLX's comments above, but I think it's pointless to respond to such injudicious and inane comments as those left by 'Corinthian.' Why dignify this sort of comment — apparently from a non-User — with a reply? Indeed, why keep it on this page?

Sca 16:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum:

Roger Cohen contributed an excellent commentary on this issue in the New York Times Sept. 6, in which he observed:

Humanity is double. Just as love and hate reside in proximity to each other, the noble and the abject are not distant neighbors. We may wish that it were otherwise, but purity is not always or even often the midwife of beauty. While the moralists bay at each other in this age of faith- driven certainties, the novelist explores the ambiguities that are the painful heart of human nature.

Sca 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I find the article unbalanced in that it dedicates an enormous amount of space to the Waffen-SS controversy. Grass is one of the greatest living writers. A lot more should be said of his literary contributions.

--Larean01 12:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced Seconded

This page is a total disgrace. While I do agree that it is important to note the Waffen SS issue and represent it fairly and from a balanced view point, but this does not mean it should be the core of the article on this man. One paragraph, one measly paragraph on the Nobel Prize for literature. What a disgrace.

What a totally warped article this is. In no way is this encyclopedic. This article is just as wikinazi as the man is being accused himself of being.

This article is clearly run by one of wikiality's many cabals. It's jaundiced, prejudiced, wikiized "truth".

Nazism, and the distortion of truth is pure evil whether it comes from a writer or from wiki editors. These days it's much more common to find Nazis on wikipedia than it is jackbooting through streets in uniform.

The Waffen SS were pure evil. But so it seems are some of the editors of Wikipedia, and the twisted cabals they represent.

Agreed. I "third" this. I am not a person with a left-leaning past and I might be expected to belong to a grouping who has a loathing for Grass, but his political orientation and his abilities as a writer are two different things. The way the Grass article currently stands is a laughing stock, totally disproportionate. No empathy either. As a person with a German / Kashubian past and in view of the way that the minds of young people were wired at first during the war and then rewired after the war (first the Hitlerian brainwashing, then the reeducation and the remorse), people might consider giving the man somewhat of a break. Are his works lacking in humanity? Of course not. What I really wish to say is that someone within the Wikipedia apparat (a senior editor, I don't know how tenure is attained, perhaps Jimmy Wales or his anointed right hand person), should jump in here and set the imbalance straight. The man is a writer of great stature and at present (December 07) the whole center of balance is off. Yes, the SS consideration should not be glossed over. Should it be the axle around which this treatment turns? No. Scrap some of the current SS center of gravity (don't ignore it) and restore balance to the item. Knowing Grass, methinks, he was embarrassed and confused, although a smidgen of opportunism probably exists with most authors. Wanting to be a success is a human trait. I see him as a convoluted but great author, even if his world view doesn't suit me. --Sean Maleter (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anschluss?

Did West Germany "annex" East Germany? I think it's better to speak about reunification, not annexation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fafifurnik (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Two WP:Undue sections

The sections on both the 2012 poem (also suffering from recentism) and his teenage membership in the Nazi are absurdly WP:Undue, especially since the Tin Drum gets exactly one sentence. Too many articles are filled up with some editor's hobby horses and it's really unencyclopedic. CarolMooreDC 19:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I was thinking the same myself. The long section on the debate on his military service is also redunant because this is covered in the early life section. I'm taking the liberty of shortening this material significantly now. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see one paragraph on his military service with references in the early life section, including mentioning later controversy. Similarly a couple sentences on the poem. (Though there should also be sections on a couple of his other works which are notable enough to have articles.) If there is little material and no references on either it just begs for someone to either put back all or most of the same material. CarolMooreDC 20:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It could be slightly expanded (I'm looking into this now), although a very detailed discussion like the one that was just removed is out of place for an article like this. The section didn't really focus on his military service as such, but rather on the recentism-like debate in the media a couple of years ago. The main issue back then, was that he was criticized, mainly by the political right-wing, of hypocrisy. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Good move to make it its own article, especially since this interesting development[1]. I have a feeling there's more that can be put under social activism. Busy with other things but might expand early life section if you do not. CarolMooreDC 20:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I would not support a fork in the article. We should resolve this here. The idea is to work collaboratively. Span (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no fork anywhere. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Since other of his works have their own article and there was quite a bit on his newest one, creating an article was a natural alternative and if it had occurred to me I would have suggested it. CarolMooreDC 12:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The major defect in the article is that the two sections on his SS-Waffen enrolment and the 2012 appear as WP:Undue violations only because Grass's extraordinary literary career and his novels have been almost totally neglected by editors. In a biography, of the modern 500 page sort, these episodes will account for 3 pages at most, and are indeed trivial compared to his life achievements. However, they can't be elided or forked because the literary section is underdeveloped. The Waffen SS-bit should be done in 3-4 lines (compare someone like Hans-Dietrich Genscher or Pope Benedict XVI with a similar background, or the parallel pages of Israeli politicians who were militant terrorists at one stage of their careers, like Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin), where the 'controversial' aspect is muted). Much of the basic legwork could be done by simply translating the German wiki article.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the people you mention (such as Pope Benedict) were members of the Waffen SS. Mr Gunter Grass stated that he believed in the aims of the Hitler Youth till the end of the war - i.e. the aims of the, collectivist (Social Justice supporting), National Socialist party. Mr Grass remained a socialist (he simply switched brand to the SPD) and, therefore, his hatred of the "capitalist" United States (the great enemy of collectivist "Social Justice") also remained.176.249.239.141 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

There already was quite a bit in the article just removed yesterday from which another couple sentences could be drawn, leaving it in the early life section. CarolMooreDC 12:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

First translations published in national newspapers of various nations

Can someone please add the dates and references for when translations were first published in national newspapers (as opposed to websites of said newspapers) in Spain and Italy?

(Link to the appropriate section, [2]). --155.55.60.112 (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"What Must Be Said"

If you are claiming legal reason for persona non grata is not important and factually incorrect, find sources for your claim. The current version is properly sourced.--AsiBakshish 18:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

It's evident to everyone that he was declared persona non grata because of his poem, not because of his involuntary military service as a conscripted child soldier 67-68 years ago which he himself disclosed years ago. The fact that he was declared persona non grata as a result of the publication of the poem suffices for this article. The rest is just factually inaccurate (he has never been a member of the Nazi party or any other Nazi organisation, a conscript is not a member of anything) propaganda of some extreme-right party in a country Grass has never visited and probably has no intention of ever visiting, and does not merit any extensive mention in the biography of one of the world's most famous living writers. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User Josh Gorand is not being objective. They seem to have a personal agenda regarding the article about Gunter Grass and I suggest that this user be asked not to contribute their subjective opinion to the article. The Der Spiegel source in the article clearly reads the following: "Er habe sich freiwillig gemeldet, erklärt der Schriftsteller im "FAZ"-Gespräch, "aber nicht zur Waffen-SS, sondern zu den U-Booten, was genauso verrückt war". Dort hätte man aber niemanden mehr genommen, die Waffen-SS habe jedoch in den letzten Kriegsmonaten 1944/45 genommen, "was sie kriegen konnte"." (see http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/literatur/0,1518,431333,00.html). If user Josh Gorand speaks any German, they will understand immediately that the first five words of this quote from the Der Spiegel source read that Gunter Grass was a volunteer (not a conscript) and that he attempted initially to join the submarine divison of the German naval forces but ended up in the Waffen-SS because the navy did not accept any volunteers at the time (while the Waffen-SS did take anyone they could get their hands on - refer to Der Spiegel article, and quote from this article above). The same source further states clearly that Gunter Grass, at the time, regarded the Waffen SS an elite unit - prior to my first contribution to the Grass article, Grass' encounter with the Waffen-SS was described as "only to find out that it was the Waffen SS when he arrived" (see [revision]). While I respect the fact that Josh Gorand obviously holds high esteem for Grass as a writer, user Josh Gorand should not be allowed to misrepresent published facts (e.g. Grass was a volunteer, NOT a conscript) or ban other published facts that paint a less favourable picture of Grass in his early years (the fact that Grass did all this 67-68 years ago does not change the fact that he carried out these actions). Edit: apologies for not signing. --Somename somewhere (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Conscripted / drafted in the Waffen SS

I have reviewed the sources. For each source in this article, the ultimate source is the Günter Grass himself, which is quoted in the provided links. This does not correspond to my own research on World War II, during which a large part of my family was killed. It was quite difficult to get in the Waffen SS, as opposed to the Wermacht. Nobody was "drafted" in the Waffen SS. The units of the Waffen SS were no better than those of the Allgemeine SS, even though they often did have to fight against people who could actually defend themselves. The numerous slaughters of villages in Russia were done by the Waffen SS. These were nearly systematic. [BLP violation removed]. The units that did not were stationed in Germany and in the West. I think that this article is very, very POV. [BLP violation removed]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabial (talk • contribs) 09:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's policy on original research. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, in an interview to the New York Times in 2000, he said "“I belonged to the Hitler Youth, and I believed in its aims up to the end of the war,”. In other words, he was a nazi, which was why he was accepted in the Waffen SS. [3] -- Jabial (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Jabial's main point is whether anyone was directly conscripted or if the process was more complex. We work by citing and discussing specific reliable sources. The above NYT article doesn't refute the assertion of drafting. It is not WP's role to condemn or praise the subject, but to present a neutral account. Span (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC) You do not present a "neutral account" - you assume that Mr Grass was "drafted" or "conscripted" (because the man claimed he was conscripted) - you also call his support for ever bigger government (whether in his time as a supporter of the National Socialist party or is his time as a supporter of the SPD) as "democratic reform" - an absurdly biased name for ever higher taxes, and ever more government spending and regulations.176.249.239.141 (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please review the policy I mention above. There's a big difference between being indoctrinated within a youth organization and being a member of a political party... Sindinero (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I won't go into an edit war in Wikipedia. I don't do squabbles. This is why I posted in the talk section rather than in the article itself. However, he was a Waffen SS and served in Poland. Nobody can pretend in 2012 not to know what the Waffen SS, which were part of the nazi party and not of the regular army, and which was very selective, did in Poland. He was no longer a child. He was necessarily very well noted for political opinions in the Hitlerjugend or he wouldn't have been allowed to enter the Waffen SS. I think that the people who think he was not a war criminal are very, very naive. He "confessed" what was already impossible to hide. When the Russians, God bless them, entered Berlin, everybody was a communist. -- Jabial (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In 1944 the Waffen-SS took every combat capable man they could get their hands on to fill their ranks. There was no special selection anymore. You should invest some time to research history, especially the war situation in 1944 and later. Not every german in this era was a Nazi. --Denniss (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Jabial, please find a reliable source that shows Grass was a war criminal, and then we can include this in the article. Until then, do read up both on wikipedia's policy of original research and the history of WWII. Cheers, Sindinero (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing "In 1944 the Waffen-SS took every combat capable man they could get their hands on to fill their ranks" is not wrong, but missleading, as this includes drafts of school pupils. While obviously physically capable of shooting a gung one can argue about these people being combat capable.--46.142.41.127 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The user who started this discussion is reminded, and warned, that WP:BLP applies to articles as well as talk pages of articles on living persons. In accordance with the BLP policy, libelous statements have been removed. The user is also reminded of the policy on no original research and the policy on the use of talk pages, WP:SOAP. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Anexation of Gdańsk/Danzig? Is it a some kind of a sad joke?

In section Early Lfe it is said that Gdańsk/Danzig was annexed!? Gdańsk WAS from its beginings in early Middle Ages a slavic/pomeranian/polish city. Wich you can see evan in such a "source" as Wiki. See section history of Gdańsk. After a yers in Poland Gdańsk/Danzig was annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia in 1793!!! So how can it be annxed in 1945? It can be said that after a long years of germanisation and oppression of Poles (see for example hakata) it was reunified with the Poland. You have to remamber german Operation Tannenberg which was carefuly planned (before the II War) ekstermination of Poles (in areas still occupied by germans after the partition!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.11.11.62 (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2012

Why is there no detail about his earlier life as a Nazi?

Since Grass is an obvious anti-Semite, I thought it would be useful information to have a description about this evil man who tried to exterminate my people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.39.174.135 (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

His activity with the Nazi's is detailed in the 'Early Life' section. Span (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "detailed". I would described as "barely mentioned" despite the global press coverage surrounding the revelation. Vapour (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It only has one line. Where's the information for why he hated Jews, how many Jews did he murder, controversy, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.39.174.135 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned in two paragraphs. There is lots of discussion about this above. Wikipedia does not set out to condemn or praise the subjects of the articles. We aim for a neutral point of view appropriate to an encyclopaedia. Span (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And that should mean presenting the issue with NPOV, not censoring it. The issue gained global coverage by the press so its notability is beyond dispute. "the controversy overshadow his literally achievement" is a pro Grass POV. Surely, the right way to correct undue balance in this instance is to expand section on his literary and political writing. Plus, many commentator stated that the revelation cast new light on his past literary and political writing. So this censorship do disservice to overall contents of this article. Vapour (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you just follow orders, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.39.174.135 (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Israel Bias in the Article

In regard to Grass’s poem Was gesagt werden muss, the only note of reaction is that Israel declared him persona non grata. I detect a subtle anti-Israel bias in omitting the firestorm of criticism of Grass over the poem from within Germany itself, reaching high political circles, as well as international criticism. The way it reads now, it sounds like the Israelis are being taken to task for trying to promote censorship of criticism of the nation as their predictably hostile reaction appears in a vacuum.

If no one objects, I am going to add note of such criticism (as well as a lesser degree of support) within a week or so. Comments are appreciated.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We did go through all this. The decision was to split the poem into a separate article and cover the issues fully there. We spent a long time hashing it all out and finding some consensus position, fully referenced by strong sources. I recommend looking at the poem's article and bringing any proposed changes to the talk page. Cheers. Span (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that presently.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Grass visual arts work

Hello, as a Wpedia editor today I happened today to check the Grass page for the first time. Besides the summaries of recent controversies whose summaries struck me as fairly balanced I found Wikepedia's failure to acknowledge his significant graphic work quite inexplicable and incompetent.

After triying to make a corrective entry including a web citation of a random show of his graphic art and a statement about its neglect, my entry was briefly displayed, then removed.

How is the Grass page managed by Wikipedia, and exactly by whom, upon what standards? How can the complete absence of his graphical works ever be excused? This oversight and obstinance severely tests one's confidence in Wikipedia.

W, Woodward Williamstown, Mass — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwberlin (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The Grass page is not 'managed' by Wikipedia, but by editors like you and me. Many articles are lacking and need expansion in important areas. That's not an "oversight" on anyone's part nor a lack of competence (q.v.), but simply indicates work that's still to be done. I was the one who reverted your changes, because your edits disrupted syntax throughout the article. Please feel free to make use of the sandbox to test out your edits and wikipedia syntax before making live changes to an article. As I've said on your talk page, I support the general impulse to add mention of Grass' visual art to this page, but please do so in a way that doesn't harm other parts of the article. I suggest reading up on how wikipedia works, and checking out the help desk or the WP:Teahouse. I heartily welcome anyone who wants to improve articles on literary topics, and look forward to your future contributions. Sindinero (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Images for the "printable version"

In my browser, the printable version has two pages with nothing but the infobox and the images as a column on the right, and the text starts at page 3. The location/position of the images should be changed (completely); some be put on the left and further down or both. --Schwab7000 (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why Waffen-SS controversy barely mentioned?

I came to read more about it here and a bit taken back by the fact this article mention only in passing that he was a member and there was a controversy. This kinda a smack of censorship by fanboys. Surely, the right way to correct undue balance is to expand his literally and political view section rather than censor this controversy, whose notability is beyond doubt from global press coverage. Plus his literally material as well as political view are so much related to WWII era, and many, at the time of controversy, commented that the revelation cast new light on his literally and political writing. Whether this amount to hypocrasy (yes, imo) or overshadow his literally achievement (no, imo) should be left up to the readers, not wikipedia editors. Vapour (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Critics

Under Waffen-SS revelations it states that Grass was "publicly critical of Germany's Nazi past, unlike many of his conservative critics."

Shouldn't there be some outside reference to these critics and their statements? This phrase strongly implies that many of his critics are Nazi sympathizers. I would think that this is a statement requiring some support. DrDuav (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)DrDuav

Gunter Grass as Visual Artist

As an occasional but knowledgeable contributor to Wikipedia, concentrating on multi-talented artists worldwide, e.g. the Slovene architect Joze Plechnik and the Nicaraguan painter Armando Morales, I tried in 2013 to add a small section to the Gunther Grass Wikipedia entry covering his modest but real and significant work in the visual arts, mainly engraving. My contribution was immediately removed by an unknown editor. When I challenged the removal, the editor refused to identify himself. I assumed that the controlling editor would eventually recognize the need for a modest recognition of Grass's work in the visual arts and add a section. https://www.google.com/search?q=gunter+grass+etchings&espv=2&biw=1313&bih=559&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=dRIeVZeDJcflsASp_4CICQ&ved=0CB0QsAQ&dpr=1

Today after various additions/corrections in other esteemed artists Wikipedia entries, I checked the Grass entry and found, after two years had passed, nothing had been added on his works in the visual arts. This omission is seriously wrong, and foreshortens Grass's life and character. The controlling editor's judgment is thus deeply questionable. I hereby challenge whomever has monopolized the control of the Grass Wikipedia entry to identify himself and explain why Grass's material output in the visual arts has been omitted. Otherwise, as a major Wikipedia donor, I will escalate to senior Wikipedia management to get to the bottom of this scurrilous censorship of Grass's life.

Hoping for a speedy and just resolution. William Woodward Williamstown, Massachussetts, US-01267 Bwberlin (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation request for bibliography

Requesting citations for the entries in a list of published works of a major author is absurd. Each entry IS a citation to the work in question and can be verified with anyone with half a brain. In this case it can only be considered a WP:POINT violation that an editor editwars to tag the entire seciton of citations to Grass' works as uncited. At this point I am willing to attribute it to incompetence rather than malice. But not in the long run. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Grass was the author of "The Tin Drum". Today's featured article is about a Japanese drum that is sometimes made of tin. What do you think? 1234567890Number2 (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"of Kashubian ethnicity"?

If his father was German and his Mother Kashubian, then he is of mixed descent and the phrase is misleading. Also the sources don't really bear out the claim. One is a Polish article boldy asserting that Grass "always" identified as Kashubian. Such a generalized remark would need to be sourced with at least one or two statements by Grass himself in order to be credible. Also the expression "schnauzbärtiger Kaschube" (moustached Kashub) in the German article really isn't proper source either, that's a commentor trying to sound original and making assertions, not even claiming to cite Grass. Unless we have a reliable source where Grass can be shown to actually have identified as "of Kashubian ethnicity", that particular phrase is not warranted. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "of Kashubian ethnicity" and "of mixed descent" contradict each other. Certain is that Grass is often described as "schnauzbärtiger Kaschube", not only in the cited Focus article. The demand that Grass identify himself as Kashubian runs counter to WP:PRIMARY – secondary sources win – and shows lack of familiarity with his best known work, The Tin Drum. The current wording in the article is clumsy, but correct & relevant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not about orginal research, but about providing a reliable source. What I would demand is e.g. a reference to an interview where Grass states his self-identification or to a biography which says so. An offhand remark by a commentator certainly doesn't "win" here. Now, the biographic fact is, that he was of mixed descent (not sure why you think this is a "clumsy" expression, as far as I can see, it is stylistically neutral). That's what can be stated as a fact. The only way you could state factually that he was "of Kashubian ethnicity" would be if you understand "ethnicity" as meaning "ethnic self-identification" and you have some evidence, that Grass actually did see this as he primary identity. But no such source has been provided. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(Re "What I would demand is e.g. a reference to an interview where Grass states his self-identification"): In an interview with Erhard Kluge from Deutsche Welle in 1997 (transcript), Grass is asked whether he is proud of his Kashubian-German, multicultural origin and responds "I wouldn't say that I'm proud of it, but I am certain that this double-rootedness has made me rich. I am equipped with several sources [...]" ("Ich will nicht sagen, daß ich stolz bin, aber ich bin gewiß, daß mich diese doppelte Verwurzelung reich gemacht hat. Ich verfüge über mehrere Quellen. [...]". ---Sluzzelin talk 14:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Which really doesn't corroborates the claim that he "always said he was Kashubian". Clearly he always emphasized his mixed decent. The claim that he "indentified as Kashubian" without further qualification is therefore misleading. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Grass self-identified as Kashubian, as demonstrated by the cited source. An argument that he "wasn't really a full Kashubian" is like an argument that someone who self-identifies as Jewish "is only a quarter-Jew" or "half-Jew". I don't know of any Wikipedia article where we dismiss someone's ethno-cultural self-identification on account of the fact that only one of their parents belonged to the relevant group. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

http://wyborcza.pl/1,75475,17744558,Gunter_Grass_nie_zyje__Noblista_mial_87_lat.html#ixzz3XDIG5oiR which says: "Pytany o tożsamość narodową, mówił, że jest Kaszubą" (when asked about his ethnicity, he always said that he is Kashubian). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If his mother was Kashubian or his father was Kashubian or if both parents aren't Kashubian at all... all this doesn't matter, as long as he claim himself as Kashubian. We are all kind of "mixed descent", aren't we? But it's not up to others to say what I am. It's simply not their business! I am born in French and I am French and it doesn't matter if my parents are black and they were born in sub-Saharan Africa. But seemingly for some people in Wikipedia I am not a real Frenchman.--92.224.150.67 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's list JFK as German, he clearly claimed Ich bin ein Berliner. 62.155.193.160 (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, we have to list him as Irish, he clearly have no American ancestors, all of them were Irish. So he isn't even mixed!--92.224.150.67 (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Well ok, now it says, he "identified as Kashubian", which is less wrong than "he was of Kashubian ethnicity", but still wrong enough. It is still not born out by the provided sources, because he clearly refused to pick sides, here he clearly emphasizes his mixed inheritance ("doppelte Verwurzelung"), so, pushing him towards one side is not warranted. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it again to do justice to his own stated mixed identity. I would urge you to leave it that way, unless you really have a source where he point blank says that "I identify as Kashubian", else this is pov pushing. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)