Talk:Hahndorf, South Australia

Australia: Places / South Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Hahndorf, South Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian places (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

From Prussia or Germany?

I have two conflicting sources, the first saying that the settlers are from Prussia and the second, more trustworthy, stating Germany. In either case they agree that they were Lutherans. For now I will leave it as Prussia as it is possible that they confused borders as Prussia is now a part of Germany after WWII afaik. Either way, be sure to mention this in the articles if this is the case. Avochelm 13:31, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have confirmed this is Prussia, because Altona, Hamburg was a Part of Prussia when this article is relevent. By reading the article on Prussia, it appears Prussia somehow merged into Germany. Avochelm 05:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have further confirmed this with a quote from Captain Hahn's narrative of the voyage saying that "they had to emigrate from Prussia because of their faith". But I am still unclear about the whole of Hamburg being a part of Prussia. See the Groß-Hamburg-Gesetz. --Avochelm 07:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a German. May be I can help. Hamburg was part of Prussia. And Prussia was part of Germany BEFORE WWII. Today Prussia is not existing. So both is right, the settlers were comming from Prussia / Germany. As I know they were comming from Schlesien (in englisch Silesia). Silesia was also part of Prussia / Germany. Today Silesia is part of Poland. The houses in Hahndorf are typical Silesian.

I think it's best to keep it historically accurate. The Hahdorf settlers were fleeing what they called "religious persecution" at the hands of the King Frederick William III of Prussia. I have written about this in an article Prussian Union (Evangelical Christian Church). Because the people were specifically fleeing a Prussian leader, NOT a German leader, I think it is significant to use the reference Prussian as opposed to German to their heritage. As for the town itself, in current usage the town is refered to as a German town, and its heritage as German, as opposed to Prussian town or Prussian heritage.SauliH 15:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at The Hahnwiki where extensive information is available re the history and heritage of Hahndorf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.250.113 (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburg was never part of Prussia (in 1838 it was an independent and sovereign country, just like Prussia, France, or the US), and Altona was only the departure port. But I don't think it's very important to differ the German heritage from Prussian heritage. Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Structure

As I read the article, it appears to be too chopped up. The heading Culture is not helpful to the content. Also stating that Hahndorf is very multicultural is pushing the definition of the word also. I lived in Hahndorf for 4 years, and multicultural would not have been in my first twenty adjectives to describe the town. Tourism would be more pertinant to the town.SauliH 16:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Venues section

Is the Venues section helpful? How do we determine NPOV criteria for making a "complete" list - should every shop be entitled to list their business name and URL? I don't think so, but have no idea how to limit it beyond removing the whole section. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not encyclopaedic. See policy at WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#LINK. -rwxrwxrwx 17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwxrwxrwx (talk • contribs)

in References

http://www.hansheysen.com.au/tours.asp is now http://www.hansheysen.com.au/tours.html i cant edit a reflist apparently — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paultz (talk • contribs) 14:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC) Fixed You need to edit the source of the reference, the list is updated automatically. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]