Diskussion:Edith Cavell

Edith Cavell keine Spionin

Wie kommt man auf die unbegründete Behauptung, sie sei eine Spionin gewesen? Ist das noch ein Echo der deutschen Kriegspropaganda? Ich habe die Worte gestrichen. --Pawebster 19:24, 12. Okt. 2007 (CEST)

wiederhergestellt, Q genannt. Statt Löschung künftig bitte immer den " fehlende Quelle"-Baustein setzen -- 12:21, 6. Dez. 2007 (CET)

Inquiry of Friedrichheinz, from = meduban

M/Mme/Mlle Friedrichheinz:

I will not take the time to translate the following discussion into German, because you have indicated that you write articles in English as well as German.

I added very rapid edits on 22 April 2008 to the Edith Cavell article in <<de.wikipedia.org>>, based in largest part on the corresponding article in <<en.wikipedia.org>>.

I did so because it did not make sense that the historical representation of this individual should be different on the two sites, simply based on the language of the site.

One site <<en.*>> emphasizes a great deal about the circumstances of the execution of this British nurse, the other <<de.*>> simply emphasizes the charge against her and omits any suggestion of irregularity. More importantly, the <<de.*>> site omits evidence from the historical record of the consequences of the decision -- for Germany and for the historical participants of the decision -- for German occupation authorities to pursue this decision (citations from NYT).

Because my edits were performed in haste, I did not take the time to translate them. I was not aware that lack of translation alone was due cause to eliminate edits. Was I violating editing rules by offering my text edits in English? It is a language *which could be understood by most of the readers of <<de.wikipedia.org>>, and by most other authors of this wiki organization.* (That is, my edits could have been evaluated and incorporated/translated, to the extent that they are a fair representation of the facts. To facilitate their incorporation, citations were included in wiki format.)

How should I interpret your hard edit? Is it aimed at removing all trace of the expanded material? Is it an attempt to maintain a perception of this historical character, which rejects the expanded information that appears in the English wikipedia?

Please reply -- or, better evaluate the material I had incorporated. Note, I will also take up the general issue of disparities for corresponding entries with senior wiki administrators, as will I the the question of the required language of edits. Prof Dr M-ED

Disclaimer: This author is not of English extraction. [Rather, I am the child of German immigrants.]