Talk:Brno death march

Naming

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to have a discussion on the naming of this article, as Google Scholar only give one result for the title "Brünn death march", and Google books gives none at all! This is in stark contrast with "Brno death march", which has five Google Scholar results (four this century), and six results on Google books - four this century and two from the Sixties, indicating a naming with long-standing currency in the English-speaking academic fraternity. Perhaps another title is even more prevalent. Thoughts? Knepflerle (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This article was originally derived from a German language Wikipedia article and I concur that "Brno death march" would be a better title. Unless there are rational objections, I shall make the necessary moves. Alice^✉ 19:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NCGN. The question is what the city is called in English when talking about May of 1945, which is a matter of fact; and what the death march is called, which may be something less melodramatic. If this were 1849, we would certainly use Brünn; if it were 1930, we would probably use Brno; 1968 would certainly be Brno. I would expect 1942 to be borderline, because most of our secondary sources would be discussing the Protectorate; I'm not sure of the answere here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A scholarly summation which I will take to mean that you favour the article being moved/renamed (or are neutral/undecided) unless you contradict my précis. (WP:NCGN is tangentially relevant since we are discussing the naming of an article dealing primarily with a march from a geographical place rather than geographical places themselves.) Alice^✉ 20:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it means that you haven't supplied sufficient reason to move (and WP:NCGN is intended to cover mentions of places, like Brno, in other articles). Please see the section on False Positives. Persuade me, and the closing admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I take your point about the dangers of relying on Google, but I am not convinced they apply in this case: "Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution."

The template I placed was as a courtesy and to attract exactly the sort of erudite input you are now providing but, of course, neither of us actually requires the assistance of an admin to complete the renaming/move.

Would you be kind enough to specify whether you think the proposed title is preferable to the current title and if you have an alternative preference or suggestion? Alice^✉ 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In considering what name should be used for an article on a historical event, I am not sure that our guidelines call for us to specifically consider what the English usage was at the time of the event - correct me and point out the relevant policy if I'm wrong. It calls for consideration just of English usage in general, over all the time since the event that it has been discussed in English. I still don't know what the best title for this article is; there exists a title seemingly more frequently used than that we currently use, but there may exist a yet more appropriate one. Knepflerle (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, although English of the time is often suggestive (I avoid contemporary, which should be used for this; hacks have rendered it uselessly ambiguous). It requires us to use the name which is used in modern English for the place (as it was then) and for the event. Evidence, if you please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Google searches I referred to at the top of the page are some evidence that "Brno death march" is used more often in modern English writing than "Brünn death march", which seems to have next-to-no currency at all. What the most common use name for this event is I couldn't say, however I think the current title probably isn't it. If we gather some further evidence on how English refers to this event then we can make an informed decision. Knepflerle (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because this is Wikipedia, nothing is chiselled in stone, so changing to an imperfect "B" from an obviously unsatisfactory "A" is not necessarily an obstruction to a more perfect "C" (and "D" and "E" etc, if this historical event suddenly becomes newsworthy - for example). I think we're agreed that the "Brno" ingredient in the title is better than the current "Brünn", but there may be some argument as to whether "death" should be included (there was a recent contribution on this theme that was withdrawn by its author, if you examine the history of this talk page). Alice^✉ 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Bearing in mind the comments below, I think the move to "B" would improve matters for now; I just hope that the search for the perfect "C" continues! Knepflerle (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Support move. I go to Google, and the results are not ust websites, but what I would call 'reliable' sources. The Prague Post is a weekly newspaper published in the Czech Republic and they write an article using "Brno"[1]. Next link is to an article by Centre Natiponal De La Recherche Scientific[2]. A journal about it called 'National Mythologies and Ethnic Cleansing: The Expulsion of Czechoslovak Germans in 1945' says that it was the name that "survivors came to call it", so we must remember that it was called nothing when it happened in 1945 and the name came later. So if it definitely wold be called Brno in 1968 and borderline in 1945 like Septentrionalis suggests, what about 1950-1960 since this will be when name begins to become famous? Callmederek (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support My thoughts parallel Callmederek comments regarding use of "Brno death march" in publications --Lox (t,c) 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sudeten Germans vs. Germans

All ethnic Germans were expelled, not only sudeten Germans, it includes also those who came from Germany during the war. So using sudeten Germans only is not historically accurate. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Should this article be named

• Brno "death march"?

Compare to "Polish death camp" controversy. 3 people dying is tragic, but it does not make a death march. I would like some opinions on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brno death march. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070724041522/http://www.bruenn.org/de/ende.php to http://www.bruenn.org/de/ende.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009035004/http://todesmarsch.bruenn.org/PDF/btm-doku-avt.pdf to http://todesmarsch.bruenn.org/PDF/btm-doku-avt.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)