Talk:Schleswig-Holstein

History section, lacking citations

I have, just now, noticed that there's only 1 citation in the history section, at the very end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torspedia (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Almost a decade later and the history section is still largely unsourced. Ringtail Raider (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Denmark relationship

The historical part of the article is confused: It appears that King Christian IX of Denmark had only daughters and that he was dying around 1864 (he lived until 1906!). Also, the king was king of Denmark and (until 1864) duke (not king) of Schleswig-Holstein.

The text needs re-writing by someone who masters the very complicated history.

S.

I think that the article meant Christian VIII of Denmark !

The king dying in 1863 was Frederick VII of Denmark. He was childless. --Valentinian 14:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

---

In order to make it more accurate, I've removed the following paragraphs:

For its part, however, the Danish Crown was not overly concerned with this development, partly because Schleswig and Holstein seemed to have always belonged to Denmark; partly because this was before the era of Nation-states and there was nothing strange with several different languages being spoken by the sovereign's subjects; and also because no powerful state in the south had ever challenged its power. In his role as a Duke of Holstein the King of Denmark actually belonged to the Holy Roman Empire of German nation, i.e. Germany of those times.

A dramatic and strange collision of national interests would however occur when certain, previously avoided, basic factors came into play with the opening of the 1800s.

The first, the odd fact that although Schleswig and Holstein had indeed belonged to the Crown of Denmark for ages past, it was in fact, in a most technical sense, a separate state, the unseparable Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. Indeed, Schleswig, Holstein and Denmark had the same ruler (the 'King' of Denmark and the 'Duke' of Schleswig and Holstein, but due to international treaty obligations originating centuries earlier, there was never any actual legal unification of the two areas.

The second fact however, proved problematic. As a matter of House-Law and State Succession Laws, which together form the legal conditions which govern the inheritance of Noble honours and privileges - Schleswig Holstein could never be inherited by a female, whilst the Kingdom of Denmark could. So-called Salic Law governed Schleswig-Holstein, that is, as part of feudal tradition which states that since women cannot contribute to military defense, they may not inherit land - Schleswig Law, as agreed to in earlier times, quite specifically forbade female inheritance. The Law of the Kingdom of Denmark, on the other hand, was cognatic - not discriminating by gender.

Unfortunately for Denmark -- at a time which proved opportune for the Dutchies' primarily German population -- it was observed that the Frederik VII had only daughters, and no sons. By ancient obligation, the one land must be inherited by the Danish Crown Princess, and the other by a male - a cousin of the son-less Danish King who happened to be German by speech and custom.

The confusion above needs to be straightened out.
-- Ruhrjung 23:17 19 May 2003 (UTC)

An important component in the Schleswig-Holstein problem was that German nationalists claimed that the Salic Law applied to both Holstein and Schleswig while Danish nationalists claimed that Denmark and Schleswig had the same law of succession but that Holstein followed the Salic Law. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't have the text of the peace treaty to hand, but as I recall its paragraph 5 had some fascinating stuff about the "grandfathered" transitional method of sorting out issues about the transferred population, the "optant" method. Perhaps someone can look it up and incorporate material from it. (Note: there is another significant paragraph 5 in Danish history, the one in the penal code used in the 19th century to close down houses of ill repute - one in Copenhagen was closed so often it became known as the "Paragraph 5"!) PML.

---

What is so special about the Frisian dialect spoken on Helgoland that it needs a reference in the Languages paragraph? Actually the correct term would be "Halluner". Also, there are a multitude of North Frisian dialects. Halluner is closely related to Fering and Ömrang which is spoken on Föhr and Amrum, respectively. I think this reference can simply be removed.
JK 19:37 11 June 2006 (UTC)

---

From Blackbourn, History of Germany, 1780-1918, I think it can be deduced that Bismarck could complain that the succession was being used to reduce Prussia's influence in Europe. He turned it to what he thought was his advantage. The British government was not pleased with the result, but seems to have judged that Britain just did not have the military power to deny Prussia. On the other hand, the alliance forged between the British and Danish royal families could have tipped the delicate balance in Britain whether to form an alliance with France and Russia to try and curtail Germany's economic strength leading to 1914. Michael Moore, Stockport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantheist (talk • contribs) 20:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Expellees

Someone with some solid, data-based info might add a sentence or two about the significant number of eastern-German expellees who settled in Schleswig-Holstein after 1945. A very large number were landed there after being evacuated by sea from Danzig (Gdańsk) and Pillau (Baltiysk) before those ports were overrun by the Red Army. I read somewhere that a fairly large number remained in Schleswig-Holstein.

Sca 17:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are correct about the expellees, although refugees might be a more accurate word than expellees. As I understand it, they were not kicked out of their home areas by the advancing Soviet forces but were fleeing to avoid the revenge that they feared from the Soviets. My mother grew up in Schleswig-Holstein and was 18 when WW II ended. She remembers a large influx of refugees ("fluechtlingers" in German) arriving in the last months of the war. She hasn't said a lot about which specific areas they came from or how long they stayed but I could probably find out from her and relatives still in the area. Mind you, I don't suppose Wikipedia actually wants that kind of anecdotal evidence, preferring articles published online....

Rhino (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Post World War II Referendum?

Was there any kind of referendum - or discussion of having a referendum - in Schleswig-Holstein after World War Two so that the remainder of Schleswig could join Denmark? My mother, who grew up there, has mentioned that there was a referendum and that sentiment among native Schleswig-Holsteiners was in favour of joining Denmark. However, she says that the large number of refugees in the area did not favour the proposal and it was defeated. Now, I'm not clear on whether such a referendum actually took place or was just proposed but never happened. Or maybe my mother is just confusing the 1920 Referendum with events just after WW II. She describes these events as if they happened while she was around but the 1920 Referendum was before she was born so I'm inclined to think that at least talk of a referendum took place after WW II.

It seems to me that if such a referendum took place after WW II it should be included in this article, even though Schleswig-Holstein ultimately remained part of Germany. Even serious talk of such a referendum seems like something that should be mentioned, even if it is only a sentence or two.

Rhino (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rhino (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Languages

The official languages are German, Low German, Danish, and Frisian.

• This is probably wrong. Cf. de:Diskussion:Schleswig-Holstein#Quellenangabe_Amtssprachen. 85.183.215.138 17:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The last time I visited Germany, in 1999, I was told by people who had recently visited Schleswig-Holstein, that a lot of the locals were refusing to speak anything but Low German (Plattdeutsch) to visitors from other parts of Germany, even though they were all perfectly fluent in High German (Hochdeutsch). Apparently, this was seen as an expression of Schleswig-Holstein nationalism. I realize this is entirely anecdotal but I wonder is someone in or close to the area might be able to shed some light on this phenomenon and provide actual citations to show the extent and motivation of this movement? Rhino (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Though I'm not from Schleswig-Holstein but Mecklenburg, I know many people from there. Afaik few people do actually speak Low German and those who do will speak High German to anybody who wouldn't understand them.--MacX85 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge it is not taught in school, however I have heard that there is a "movement" to revive low German in order to preserve the area's culture. My parents, who grew up there during WWII, are probably the last generation to really speak it on a daily basis. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Wind Energy

Some mention might be made of their impressive wind power infrastructure, I don't think i'm the one to do it.MennoMan (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Land Seal

Someone may need to look into the legalities of the land seal we are using. The state website suggests, there is an "Approved" public use state seal and one that is for use by the STATE ONLY!!! Just something to look into.MKLPTR 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) from the Schleswig-Holstein landesportal on the Landeswappen
(DE)
Verbände, Firmen, Vereine und andere Institutionen fragen häufig bei der Landesregierung an, ob sie das Landeswappen auf Briefköpfen abdrucken oder bei ihrer Öffentlichkeitsarbeit verwenden dürfen. Das offizielle Landeswappen dürfen nur Landesbehörden und Notare benutzen. Die Landesregierung stellt jedoch ein abgewandeltes Landeswappen zur Verfügung. Es ist dem Wappen sehr ähnlich und kann von jedermann verwendet werden. Das abgewandelte Landeswappen kann am Ende des Textes heruntergeladen werden.
Von: [1]http://schleswig-holstein.de/Portal/DE/LandLeute/Landeswappen/Landeswappen__node.html__nnn=true
(EN)
Associations, companies, clubs and other institutions often ask the Land Government whether they may print the Land coat of arms on letter-heads or use it in their public relations work. The official Land coat of arms may only be used by Land authorities and notaries. However, the Land Government does offer a modified coat of arms. It is very similar to the official one and can be used by everyone. It is available for download at the end of the text.
Source: http://schleswig-holstein.de/Portal/EN/Service/CoatArms/CoatArms.html [2]
-MKLPTR

History of the word "Schleswig".

Some ethnolonguistic studies conclude that the state's namesake and the term "Slesvig" was partially derived from a tribe of West Slavs known as "Slavsvick" that once lived in the state between the 5th century and 10th century AD.

This really needs a citation or else it needs to be deleted. I'm quite sure this comes from "Schlei's vík" (Bay of the Schlei - right where the town of Schleswig is currently located). In the Knýlinga Saga, the term "Slésvik" is used complete with native Old Norse grammar (indicating it is a term native to the language): "Ok er Knútr lávarðr litla stund heima verit í ríki sínu þá aflaði hann smiða ok lét gera kastala tveim megin Slésvikr, þar sem mjóst er yfir sundit, er útan gengr at Heiðabý." Can anyone back up claims of a heretofore never heard of Slavic tribe? 64.52.114.34 (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the claim. It had been tagged for lack of sources since October 2008. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Culture

I think the Kieler Woche/Kiel Week should be included into the list of the most important festivals, it is the biggest sailing event in the world after all. (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kiel_Week) 46.142.41.127 (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Neumünster

I'm not sure why Neumünster should be called "notable". Usually the three cities every German knows are Kiel (Capital, Harbour, Kieler Förde, Kiel Week, THW Kiel), Lübeck (rich history, tourist magnet, Hanseatic League, marzipan, World Heritage Site, Holstentor) and Flensburg (nationwide database of traffic violators, northernmost city of Germany, Flensburg Firth). But Neumünster has nothing to offer.--212.53.170.18 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Neumünster has served as a major industrial city, and still does in many ways, which is why it remains a notable city of the state. Ari-Jess (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"The former English name was Sleswick-Holsatia..."

Does anyone have a citation for the last time this may have been used? I have never seen this term, in reading any contemporary texts from the past 300 years. I suspect that it may have been used as recently as the mid-1800th century, but that is just a guess. Since the article's author as stated with conviction, "The former English name was Sleswick-Holsatia...", I'm curious to know.

Best regards, TheBaron0530 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)theBaron0530

Question about a fine point of the history

The section on the "Plebiscite in 1920" contains this sentence: "In 1937, the Nazis passed the so-called Greater Hamburg Act (Groß-Hamburg-Gesetz), where the nearby Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg was expanded, to encompass towns that had formally belonged to the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein."

I suspect that the word "formally" is a mistake and that "formerly" is meant. I don't know enough about the subject to be bold, however, so I'll just flag the question here. JamesMLane t c 17:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Other questions?

I wrote about cuisine, economy, transport and radioactive contamination. What further questions are interesting? Do somebody have a good photo of marzipan, rotspon, rum and lakritz candy?

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Schleswig-Holstein.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead way too long

This article's lead is far too long. It's more than twice as long as other German state articles, and way more than MOS:LEAD's recommended maximum of 4 paragraphs. It also largely covers everything already written in the History section, which is almost entirely unsourced. I tried fixing it back to hown it looked back in April, but User:DanielOlafson reverted it back claiming it was fine. Daniel appears to be one of the people who started this long lead back in May (along with a bunch of IPs). Since re-reverting seems to be frowned upon on wikipedia I'm just going to leave my issue here and let others work it out, but I strongly recommend shortening it back to how it was before May. Ringtail Raider (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Ringtail Raider. It is a total violation of MOS:LEAD and should be cut down significantly. Re-reverting is frowned upon on WP, but after a Bold edit and a revert, discussion is meant to occur on a talk page peer WP:BRD. @DanielOlafson has just totally ignored the talk page discussion. Poor form. Furius (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Although I might be biased because I wrote it, I do much prefer the previous version of the lead, which covered the key points in a much briefer fashion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Since no one's responded in opposition I've gone ahead and changed it back to the less absurdly long version. Ringtail Raider (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ringtail Raider

Since I missed the self-imposed 24-hour deadline to respond before the edit was reverted at midnight, and while being accused of bad form, I will now take the time to address my points. I am currently working on the project of writing the full history of the intriguing region of Schleswig-Holstein. While I agree the header is long, it is as long as necessary to provide a proper overview of the history, which I will expand upon in detail on the page. In fact, it is no longer than the header for "The German Empire," which has a similar length.

It was my mistake not to inform you about the project, only to show the process. Please allow me the time to complete the page, and once it is finished, we can discuss the final product and decide whether it should be kept or not. For now, abruptly reverting the edit is merely a distraction and, quite frankly, a nuisance.

Moreover, the version you plan to revert to contains several historical inaccuracies and mistakes. If my version isn't retained, at the very least, please replace it with something factually accurate and free of errors.

As for the footnotes, don't worry—everything will be properly covered during the process.

Best regards,

Daniel, Cand.mag in Northern European History from Aalborg University DanielOlafson (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I dunno what you mean about a 24-hour deadline, I posted that back in July. If you mean the article German Empire, I think that lead is also way too long – it's 7 paragraphs, while most articles for modern large countries have only 4 lead paragraphs (though China has some rather long ones); so it should definitely also be trimmed down, and a small region probably shouldn't have as long a lead as a full country. If there's inaccuracies then those should be fixed, sorry I didn't notice them, but it shouldn't just be switched back to the incredibly bloated lead. I'm not as concerned with the rest of the article as long as the uncited stuff is being fixed, I was just shocked by how long the lead was. Ringtail Raider (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ringtail Raider

My comments regarding the 24-hour deadline stem from Furius bringing up the topic again on September 23 at 23:31, followed by your decision to close "the debate" 24 hours later due to the perceived lack of opposition.

I understand your concerns about the header, though I do not understand the comparison or hierarchy that suggests some pages about regions must contain less information, simply because pages about nation-states somehow are expected to have more.

That said, I promise to trim the header to be more concise. However, I would appreciate some time to fully write the sections where this information becomes relevant, so it can be properly incorporated into the page.

If we can make a gentleman's agreement that the header will not be reverted as long as I trim it, I would greatly appreciate it.

Best regards,

Daniel DanielOlafson (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't close any debate, just re-shortened it after someone finally. And it was't 24 hours, it was 2 months later (during which time you did not make any edits until a week ago despite criticising my edit due to the page supposedly being under development). Wouldn't it be much easier to rewrite the shorter lead from scratch than try to cut down the long one though? Whatever you wanna do is fine as long as it's better written, the problem was just that it hadn't gotten any shorter. Again I'm not complaining about any of the rest of the article, just that Taking back what I said due to Moxy's claim that you are not citing your writing. As for the comparison part, yeah I guess I'd expect the lead for an old and massive country like China to not be shorter than the lead for a small section of Germany. Ringtail Raider (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It is great that you are undertaking a project to improve this article, but (1) you do still have to conform to WP's manual of style. The relevant section is MOS:LEADLENGTH "Few well-written leads will be shorter than about 100 words. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words." The lead before the revert was 1353 words long. (2) This is a collaborative project, so you don't get to lock the article to other editors while you are working on it. If you want a space where you can work on the article without the distraction or nuisance of other editors, then your user sub-page might be a better space for that. Furius (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Furius I do not understand either your arguments or your interpretation of mine. If you look at the editing history, multiple people have made changes to the header after I wrote it, none of which have been an issue. My frustration stems from the fact that the header was abruptly reverted. This kind of abrupt action, without any attempt at dialogue, is what I find to be a nuisance. It's particularly frustrating because I have put multiple hours into writing it, and seeing it reverted overnight, without discussion, naturally invokes annoyance.

Furthermore, I have never claimed this is a solo endeavor, nor have I acted as such. I’ve welcomed edits from others in the header and only raised objections when the entire header was reverted abruptly, which I find unreasonable.

Best regards,

Daniel DanielOlafson (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

According to Moxy, much of what you've been adding (at least recently) has been unsourced, or sources German Wikipedia. What's the deal with that? (See below) Especially considering the total lack of sources in the history section was one of this page's major issues. Ringtail Raider (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what is hard to understand. The lead is over three times as long as it should be. It needs to be reduced by at least 950 words, to about the length of the reverted version. Perhaps I am mistaken, but so far in the discussion, it's not seemed that you understand this. You said "I would appreciate some time to fully write the sections where this information becomes relevant, so it can be properly incorporated into the page," which seems to mean that you think that you have to store the material in the lead until you've finished inserting it into the rest of the article. I don't think it makes sense to use the lead as a storage space in this manner; thus I suggestd that you might use your user sandbox for this. Furius (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverting of mass edition of unsourced material

I reverted the mass addition of unsourced content. Pls review WP: burden before the readition of unsource material. Moxy🍁 19:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

What unsourced content are you referring to? It looks like it was a bunch of edits by Daniel, some of which appear to be adding sources - were they not? Ringtail Raider (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The majority of the additions were unsourced.... with multiple minor edits in between them to fix grammar.

unsourced, unsourced, unsourced, unsourced, sourced to German Wikipedia?. Should also review best image practices.

Moxy🍁 22:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Well that's concerning then, since Daniel was so protective of this page I assumed they had been writing well-sourced stuff to fix the lack of citations in several sections previously. Ringtail Raider (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

There are plethora of sources out there..... I just don't feel confident enough in adding information as I'm not familiar with the topic.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Moxy🍁 23:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy Since my credibility has been questioned, I’ll share the list of Danish, German, and English literature that I’ve based my material on. I speak all three languages fluently, as I have Danish and German heritage, and, of course, everyone today speaks English.

Danish Literature:

• Hertugdømmet (The Duchy) by Carsten Porskog Rasmussen – Aarhus Universitet Forlag, 2019

• De kongelige hertugdømmer (The Royal Duchies) by Jesper Gram Andersen – Kleart Forlag, 2020

• Den første Slesvigske krig (The First Schleswig War) by N. P. Jensen – Forlag Saga, 2019

• 1864: Slagtebænk Dybbøl (Slaughter Bench Dybbøl) by Tom Buk-Swienty – Gyldendal, 2014

• Holsten i helstaten (Holstein in the Whole State) by Steen Bo Frandsen – Museum Tusculanum, 2008

• Nationalstatens fødselsveer (The Birth Pangs of the Nation-State) by Ove Korsgaard – Samfund og Historie, 2024

German Literature:

• Schleswig-Holstein und Dänemark: Geschichte im Spiegel der Literatur by Peter Wenners

• 1864: Der Krieg um Schleswig-Holstein by Frank Jung

• Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Schleswig-Holsteinische Geschichte – Matthiesen Verlag (Author: Detlev Kraack)

English Literature:

• Medieval Wars in the Duchy of Schleswig 1410 to 1432 by Nick B. Svendsen

• The Schleswig-Holstein War Between Denmark and the German States by Edward Dicey – Leonaur Ltd

• Unearthing Hedeby: Viking Age Finds from Haithabu/Hedeby by Kurt Schietzel

• Schleswig Holstein: Contested Region(s) Through History – University Press of Southern Denmark

• Generals of the Danish Army in the First and Second Schleswig-Holstein Wars (1848-50 and 1864) by Nick B. Svendsen

• The First Schleswig-Holstein War 1848-50 by Nick B. Svendsen

The reason I haven’t added the citations yet is that it’s a labourius and time-consuming process, and honestly, it’s the least "fun" part of writing history, but I recognize as the most important. That’s a fair criticism, and I accept it. But it doesn’t mean what I’ve written lacks credibility. I’ll add the citations as I go, just like I’ve mentioned before. It’s always something I do towards the end of a project, and I’ll continue to work that way at Aalborg University.

Had I known I’d have to spend so much time defending every step of my writing process for this Wikipedia page—a project that’s naturally going to take months—I probably wouldn’t have started it. But since I’ve already spent weeks researching, reading, and writing, I feel I’ve reached the point of no return, and will therefore stubbornly revert my written material back. I will, as promised, trim the header to make it shorter - as to follow Wikipedia guidelines.

As for some parts of the main body, I’m not completely happy with them myself, so their removal doesn’t bother me much.

Instead of going back and forth, can we just have a proper dialogue? If you notice I’ve written something you want citations for, feel free to message me directly. I’ll appreciate that and provide them as requested. I know I’m slow with citations, but that’s just the way I work. It doesn’t mean the sources aren’t there. DanielOlafson (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It might be worth noting that references can be done much quicker using Template:Sfn, which means that you can just pop the author surname, year and page number in e.g. {{sfn|Forlag|2020|p=22}} will create a footnote with a reference that automatically links to the item so long as it's in the bibliography section. I'll add these works to the bibliography now. Furius (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry this has been a difficulty, I think it was a lot of communication failure and leaving stuff as work in progress longer than people are comfortable with outside of Drafts. If this had just been over the course of several days it probably would've been fine, it just came across like unsourced material since it was over the course of months. I do think citing everything as soon as possible is important (especially considering Wikipedia's reputation for article reliability seems to be slipping back down lately?), but I'm much more used to citing as I go along when writing. I would love to see this page rewritten though, even though I know nothing about the subject I've become a bit invested in this article's quality. Ringtail Raider (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm restoring the material from the body now; reverting to an early version seemed excessive. I will use notes to show where citations are needed. Furius (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I've put material from the lead into the main text of the article, which seems a better place for it. The contributions are very good and do improve the article significantly. The material on the Septembernote, for example, was not represented anywhere on en.WP up till now. At times (e.g. the Saxon Wars) discussion risks going into more detail than can be accommodated in an article which has to cover both Schleswig's history and the present day state. That's not a serious problem; we can solve it in due course by migrating material to dedicated sub-pages in line with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE (cf. Tennessee, which manages this balance well, though obviously written history there is shorter).

I've sprinkled in "citations needed" throughout, but it is only important that we have citations right away for value judgements, potentially controversial claims (e.g. that the Obotrites' Slavic identity was the decisive factor in their position during the Saxon Wars), and anything relating to living people. WP is always work in progress, but readers are using it as an authoritative source all the while.

I agree that proper dialogue is the way forward and apologise for being abrupt. Furius (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there any plans to add source WP:BURDEN? Moxy🍁 13:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. WP:BURDEN suggests using tags as an intermediate step. That seems appropriate here, since none of this material is dubious or controversial. Furius (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems especially appropriate since DanielOlafson has provided a list of his sources here. Furius (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)