Talk:Zabern Affair

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zabern Affair article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Zabern Affair was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / German

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The sources for the main events, the existing citations concentrate on comments of literates and politicians, who were not involved in the affair
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
how was the relation between the population of Alsace and the German army / the German authorities prior to the events, were there reactions in France?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
the images do not improve the message of the article. Maison Katz, for excample, may be the most beautiful house in Saverne, but it had nothing to do with the events. Images of historical Saverne, contemporary caricatures about the event or photos of the participants would be helpful
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The excellence of an article in de:Wikipedia does not does not seem to be of high value.--Thw1309 (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your decision is acceptable (I myself do not consider the English version a good article, neither) but your conclusion about the excellence of German WP articles is surely not. The main problem here is the translation. The German article is written very well, whereas the English translation sounds very very "German". Also, this article needs to be "localized" and not only "translated". Questions like "relation between the population of Alsace and the German" need not to be discussed in the German version (everybody knows), but in the English version this would be helpful. "There are no references for the main events" is not a true statement (see bibliography); German criteria do not consider helpful the use of single references if there is enough literature available/mentioned. But of course, in the English version you have to mention English literature an not (at least not too much) German books! The "existing citations from literates and politicians, who were not involved in the affair" are very important, showing the reactions of well-known people at the time (though, of course you should tell English readers who these folks were!). Prince William's dictum (strongly related to the affair) even became proverbial in German. Of course, all this has to be explained to the English reader and/or adapted to the common practices in EN:WP. I share your wish to get some images of historical Saverne or contemporary caricatures (the remaining images in the article are good). Also, I do not think you shoud try to translate German poems into English, just omitting them would be a better idea. --80.139.167.187 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poem translations[edit]

Hello! I read through your poem translations, the second one seems very good to me, although I changed some sentences.

In the first poem translation, there are some misunderstandings. I tried to translate it again and incorporated some sentences of your translation.

Even though heaps of your kind
away from bayonets and sabre strokes –
March, march! Hupp, hupp! – run the gauntlet:
You are all fond of the lieutenant!

Only under the blows of a club

do you really feel at home in the fatherland.

Damned, those who expose themselves like that,

after they have unmanned themselves!

Further you will mercifully got hit

by the sabre on the brain!

You are the eunuchs of the German Empire!

Hurrah, you iron bride!

Kind regards, Tirkfl ^talk 09:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lieutenant Günter Freiherr von Forstner[edit]

What happened to Forstner? Lived happily ever after? Killed in the trenches of the World War? Survived the war and became a Freikorps member or politician for the DNVP? If would interesting if someone knew more about him. Poldy Bloom (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: The Deutsches Historische Museum notes that Forstner died in 1915. Any more information? http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/kaiserreich/innenpolitik/zabern/index.html Poldy Bloom (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the affair he was changed to another regiment (Infantry No. 67 in Metz). According to the regiment's chronicle he was killed in action on September 1st, 1914 at Dannevoux, very soon after beginning of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.112.18 (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Freiherr von Forstner. Günther Freiherr von Forstner was transferred to 3. Pommersches Inf.-Rgt. Nr. 14 in Bromberg and was killed in action at Kobrin, Russia on 29 August 1915. The Leutnant in IR 67 was Friedrich Wilhelm Ernst Freiherr von Forstner (born 8 September 1888). According to the Gothaische Genealogische Taschenbuch der Freiherrlichen Häuser, six Freiherrs von Forster were killed in action in World War I, so it is easy to mix them up. World War II U-boat commander Siegfried Freiherr von Forstner (comment below) was a second cousin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.247.35 (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume he was of the same family as Siegfried von Forstner? Drutt (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German Imperial Army[edit]

I doubt that there was such a thing. Only the navy was imperial. The rest was bavarian, prussian, saxonian and so on. In Zabern these were definitly Prussians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.208.206 (talk) 11:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Zabern Affair?[edit]

"Saverne Affair" never, ever appears in the RS. See this ngram. H. Humbert (talk) 10:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote of censure vs. no-confidence[edit]

I opted to change no-confidence to censure to describe the vote against Bethmann Hollweg because the two tend to have different meanings in English that are well laid out in the first 2 paragraphs of the Wikipedia article Motion of no confidence. What happened in the Zabern Affair is clearly closer to the second, especially given the constitution of the German Empire. In the German article Reichstag (Deutsches Kaiserreich), it says (translated) in the second paragraph of the section Kontrolle der Exekutive: "A minor reform of the Reichstag's rules of procedure in 1912 additionally introduced the right for each deputy to put a minor question to the Reich chancellor. This question was answered without subsequent debate. Furthermore, the right to interpellate [interrupt the order of the day by demanding an explanation from the minister concerned] was extended to the effect that the question under discussion could be put to the vote. This was the case ... in connection with the Zabern affair in 1913, when the Reichstag criticized Reich Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg by a large majority. This remained without consequences under constitutional law, however, because it was covered only by the rules of procedure but not by constitutional law."

If anyone disagrees with the change, please let me know. GHStPaulMN (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]