Talk:Dithmarschen

The Dithmarschen is certainly an interesting topic, and I'm grateful to have found it covered here. However, without knowing the particular details about these particular years, I wonder if the wording isn't a left-over from the Nationalist history-writing of the 1850s:

Several times noblemen and their mercenaries tried to subdue the independent mini state, but without any success. In 1500 the greatest of these battles took place, the Battle of Hemmingstedt, where the largely outnumbering army of Denmark was defeated by the peasants. It was not until 1559, that the peasants had to surrender to Danish superiority.

Maybe "Denmark" here rather ought to be the Duchy of Holstein, which from the mid-15th century to great extent was in personal union with Denmark? I believe History of Schleswig-Holstein, with its faults, gives a fairly correct although sparse relation of the relations between Denmark and the twin-duchies. I suspect that the direction of power and influence in the year 1500 rather was from the German duchy of Holstein to Denmark, than the other way.
-- Ruhrjung 07:53 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Somewhat difficult now, as it was some months ago, that I wrote this article. There is one english language source at http://www.bauer-und-bonde.de/english/history.html, and I looked at the website of the Dithmarschen district (http://www.dithmarschen.de), where you can find a very comprehensive depiction of that event. According to these sources (which I trusted, since I am not a historian) the army was led by the Danish king John and his brother Friedrich of Holstein. I don't know for sure, where these soldiers came from (probably from what is now Denmark AND from Holstein). But I don't think, that the Dithmarschen district website writes anything from a nationalist point of view, and I have absolutely no intention to do so. When I write "Denmark", I mean Denmark in the borders of 1500, which included Holstein, Norway and Sweden (by personal union) - so I don't think, that we actually have a disagreement about the content, or do we? -- Cordyph 16:09 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

However, Denmark of year 1500 didn't include Schleswig or Holstein, nor Norway or Sweden. As you write, it was a personal union, not (yet) any attempted annexation. All were separate, signified by own sets of laws, separate Privy Councils (denoted "Councils of the Realms" for Denmark, Norway and Sweden), and Diets of their own.

See also: Talk:Battle of Hemmingstedt
Best regards!
-- Ruhrjung 10:01 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Requested move 25 July 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 04:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dithmarschen → Dithmarschen (district) – Even though we currently don't have an article on the eponymous geographical and historical region, this is merely an administrative district that is usually referred to as "Landkreis Dithmarschen" in German and as "District of Dithmarschen" or "Dithmarschen district" in English. The very least we should do is adding a disambiguator, pending further discussion on a new, consistent naming scheme. -- PanchoS (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The bulk of the article's text is about the geographical and historical region, not the administrative district. If two articles are needed (are they?), create a new article at Dithmarschen (district) and focus this article on the region. — AjaxSmack 02:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with AjaxSmack that a split is not necessary, unless the ancient region's borders differ significantly. And even then it would have to be shown that this is primary over the present day district. — Amakuru (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The rich history of this region has no relation to the exigencies of modern administrative practice. Belastro (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dithmarschen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Wieben died on 13 June 2019.[edit]

See Wiki's article on him.S. Valkemirer (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]