Talk:German orthography reform of 1996/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Usage of ß in Wikipedia

There is a proposal for a standard for usage of "ß" in Wikipedia articles being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#ß_proposal. Please contribute your opinion. --Tysto 15:06, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

Confusion over dates

While updating what links here (after I moved the page) I realise that the reform is sometimes dated 1998 rather than 1996. The law was passed in 1996, so I will keep that as the title (which is what the German Wikipedia does as well). It would be good to have a timeline of this reform. Meanwhile, I will rename the reform to 1996 and update links. Thore 08:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Point of view

This entire article is quite biased, being as it is a rough translation of the German one. I removed the following sentence, which was too strong for me: "Despite criticism, the proponents of the reform are unwilling to budge, expressing only their disappointment that their proposal to change the capitalization system was not included in the reform." Maybe somebody else can re-insert a similar paragraph with more careful wording.

I am tempted to dispute the neutrality of the entire article. On the other hand there is nothing wrong with summarizing the viewpoints of the reform's opponents under this headline. Maybe some wordsmithing is all it takes.

Reversions by 84.188.205.193 and 84.188.199.72

I have twice today reverted changes by the above anonymous users to this page. From both, this was the first contribution on Wikipedia, and both reverted passages that were agreed on in Talk without further comments.

This is not to say that I am completely opposed to their edits. Here is what I wrote on 84.188.199.72's talk page after my first reversion:

I reverted your recent changes to the German Spelling Reform Article, because you are removing some things that were established quite laboriously on the talk page during the recent history of this article. (Also, your edits seemed to be slightly biased, which is never a good message to send with your first edit. ) That is not to say your changes are bad -- they make the article shorter and more readable, which is a good thing. I would be happy to put some of your changes back in (especially, the capitalisation of "keiser" and "bot" in the 1988 proposal), but please let us discuss the other things on the talk page to establish some kind of consensus. Arbor 07:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said, some of the changes are very good, others seem to be strongly biased, and would benefit from re-wording. I am sure we can work with both users to improve the article, but I suggest we talk things through first. As it looks now, we have two unexplained edits by anonymous first-time users who are close to POV-pushing. That reflects poorly on their side of the argument. Arbor 11:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it biased to remove wrong or outdated information? I don't think so. I thought Wikipedia was about improving texts rather than defending old versions. I've learned my lesson: I won't bother you any longer.

I've re-inserted some of the recent changes, which I think, are correct. I also deleted the mentioning of the initiative in Bavaria, as at that time there were so many initiatives in all parts of Germany, there seems no reason for emphasising this particular one. Linguini 16:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good call, Linguini. Those were basically the changes that I would have kept myself. Two exceptions: (1) the anschluss example tries to explain that the German spelling of "anschluss" (namely, "Anschluss") is now closer to the English spelling. Maybe that needs to be explained better, but the English word still isn't capitalised. (2) I'm not happy about the Switzerland section. It's (a) unclear how the reform was received, (b) it's imprecise to say that it is hardly visible (there are lots of very visible changes for compounds and capitalisation), and (c) saying that some paper reverted to the "old" spelling is confusing, since it certainly isn't the "old" spelling that the Welt returned to. We need some Swiss people to fix this.

I hadn't realised that "anschluss" was used as an English word. I altered the "old" spelling to "traditional" and slightly changed the bit about Switzerland. See what you think. Linguini

Society for German spelling and language cultivation

Good evening,

I am board member of the Verein für deutsche Rechtschreibung und Sprachpflege e.V. (VRS) - Initiative gegen die Rechtschreibreform (Society for German spelling and language cultivation - initiative against the spelling reform). My article about the VRS is also existing in the German Wikipedia, but worsened.

The VRS was founded in May 1997 in opposition to the German spelling reform. Therefore in January 2002 the VRS set up its website: http://www.vrs-ev.de/ . At the end of (the month of) March 2005 the Wikipedia-Thread in the VRS-Forum http://www.vrs-ev.de/forum/ was suddenly deleted by a hacker and also my German user page was blocked 'for life'. Many pieces of evidence were deleted. Since the fifth of april 2005 the VRS-Forum has been closed for a short time ... Therefore I started a user page to inform about the German spelling reform in the English Wikipedia.

Today all new and important articles about the German WIKIPEDIA were deleted from the VRS-Forum once again. I think, my articles are more protected from hackers in my English user page than in Germany.

Very interesting: English orthography. English spelling (or English orthography). If you can say and write: „English orthography”, then also: „German orthography” and also "German orthographic reform" ... don't you?

„It is never too late to stop the destruction of language, culture, democracy and the environment, and to combat corruption and the squandering of taxpayers' money.” (VRS)

--Manfred Riebe 20:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New Links

Here you can integrate a few Links, if it is permitted:

Out of the German Wikipedia:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Denk [later worsened]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Ickler [later worsened]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_Wir_Lehrer_gegen_die_Rechtschreibreform [later worsened]

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verein_f%C3%BCr_deutsche_Rechtschreibung_und_Sprachpflege [later worsened]

From the English Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Friedrich_Denk [My original Article]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Theodor_Ickler [My original Article]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Hans_Krieger [My original Article]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Manfred_Riebe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Initiative_%84Wir_Lehrer_gegen_die_Rechtschreibreform%93 [My original Article]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manfred_Riebe/Verein_f%FCr_deutsche_Rechtschreibung_und_Sprachpflege [My original Article]

Manfred Riebe 16:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Gutes-deutsch.de"???

Sorry, but are you sure there should be a link to "gutes-deutsch.de"? This seems to be the site of a small far-left group with some serious problems. Quote (translated):

With spelling reforms and clothing restrictions, Devil tests how easily the people can be broken in for the preparation of bigger (world-wide) nonsense. After the spelling reform of 1901, Devil lead the submissive German people under the blessing of the State Churches into two successive "righteous" - but ending in death and destruction - world wars. I therefore digress to the basis of all the human actions, which can be found in the Lord's Prayer:

Thy Kingdom come! Thy Will be done! ... And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil!

--End Quote--

So, to put it bluntly: These guys obviously have a very loose wire. They actually justify their critic of a spelling reform with a Bible excerpt and the two world wars... --84.137.30.109 15:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right in pointing out that the credibility of that site may be compromised by their obvious partiality. If you have another source with the same information (or with conflicting information) then please let us know. I have tried over some time to give credence to the many claims on the internet about German newspapers and periodicals to have abandoned or ignored the reform. So when we found that site I was overjoyed. In any case the claims on the list about individual papers should be easy enough to falsify, and lacking such information I see no reason to disbelieve their figures. Arbor 16:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lists of affected words

Does anybody know of any sites which contain a list of the rules affected by the reform? We should link to at least one from this article. — Hippietrail 01:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hippietrail, I tried to give an overview of that under the New Rules headline in the article. I am happy to expand it, but the question is really how to make it relevant to an English speaker, and what level of prior familiarity with the pre-1996 spelling we are to assume. (German Wikipedia has some more detailed articles about the topic.) A "list of affected words" would number in the thousands, and not be very informative. (The new rules are pretty neat and consistent; it's better to explain the rules than to show the multitude of minute consequences. For example, every German word with ß after short vowel now as ss, so that would account for thousands of words. Pretty boring list.) If you care, the 1996 Duden has all the changed words highlighted in red (Theoretically, that list would even be infinitely long, because of closed noun compounds.) Arbor 05:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Spelling rules

Burying the actual spelling rules at the bottom of the article seems like a bad idea. Couldn't they be moved to a more prominent position? Rmhermen 18:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Go ahead. It would be nice indeed if this article was more about the rules and less about the controversy. Arbor 19:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Some NPOV botherings

I removed "“quality”" from the section that read "Still, some "quality" newspapers, such as Die Zeit..." because it seems biased. "...felt the need to create their own in-house orthographies..." Also seems kind of biased; I changed "felt the need to create" into simply "created". But is there a source for that? Matsu 02:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good changes. There are many other places where this article could need some attention, so please continue. Arbor 08:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Experience from other reforms that affect the behavior of large groups of people ([...], Sweden's change from driving on the left to driving on the right, etc.) suggests that such reforms may be more effective the shorter the transitional period is." - this sounds rather stupid to me, as I really cannot imagine a transitional period where people drive on the left _and_ on the right. Can anyone find a better formulation on that? 134.83.1.225 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Belgium

Isn't German an official language of Belgium? So, why isn't Belgium mentioned in the introduction?Marco Neves 01:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, also in Denmark I think.Cameron Nedland 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's position on the German spelling reform

What is the German Wikipedia's position on the 1996 spelling reform ? Has the new orthography been adopted yet on the Wikipedia ? 200.177.23.57 01:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Dewiki policy is to use the new spelling. Angr (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How come the title of the article on Geographie is not spelled Geografie then ? Is the use of 'f' replacing 'ph' in foreign loanwoards optional ? Thanks for the information. Mbruno 13:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is, and it depends a lot on the individual word. For example, Telefon is greatly preferred to Telephon, but Fonologie is pretty much unheard-of. Angr (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Transitional Period - A Suggestion

From the article:

Even if the spelling of private individuals could be legislated, there are still millions of books in libraries using the older spelling.

A traditional solution suggests itself. ;-) Ralphbk 12:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

State of the implementation

I have recurring problems with the "300" periodicals and newspapers that have ostensibly switched back, and never found a way to verify that information. The latest edit of User:Linguini indicates that all of these have indeed implemented the switch, but as far as I can see Der Spiegel (who was on the original list) still hasn't done so. Linguini, could you help me with a reference? Thore 17:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the Spiegel finally decided not to revert to the old rules, so this would no longer be an issue. As far as I know, the Spiegel is the only magazine which announced to switch back to the old system but then didn't. Hence, removing the bit about the Spiegel would hardly change the overall meaning of the sentence. However, it doesn't bother me if it stays in. There are, however, a large number of newspapers and magazines (including rather small ones), which never converted to new spelling in the first place. Here's a German website:

http://www.gutes-deutsch.de/Kaufempfehlungen.htm#Tageszeitungen

Great, that was just the kind of information I was looking for! Thanks a lot. The problem I have with the article is the phrase "However, more than 300 newspapers and periodicals continue to use the old spelling or have switched back to the old spelling". That number was based on a list that included the Spiegel, so the claim may be wrong, and the actual number of papers could be far smaller (I simply don't know). Quickly counting the newspapers listed on the site you refer to, I get to 25+13= 38, a bit more than a 10th of what the article claims (but maybe I am not reading the list correctly). Edit to add: Ah! Now I get it. Periodicals are in section 2. 300 seems to be a good estimate. Based on that, the Spiegel example can go the way of the Dodo. What would also be interesting is to compare "300" to the total number of publications. Thore 09:34, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Got it! The Verband Deutscher Zeitschriftenverleger represents some 3000 periodicals. There are also several hundred German newspapers. So the publications that use the traditional spelling seem to account for 1/10 of the total number of publications. Correct? If we can agree on that, we can use that formulation instead, drop the Spiegel, and leave the (very notable) Bild and FAZ examples in. Thore 09:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not quite sure about the 10 per cent. The guy who has set up the list of publications in traditional spelling is unlikely to have access to all German periodicals. In fact, he updates this list quite regularly to include any new findings, so, I suppose, we do not have any reliable sources on the exact percentage at this point in time. Linguini 15:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Let me see if I can reword the passage in light of these observations. Thore 08:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few bits. I think it's worth mentioning that the Bild-Zeitung, despite its ambiguous reputation, is still the most widely read newspaper. Also, I've tried to emphasize the fact that despite all efforts we do not know the proportions of old/new spelling in German publications.

Linguini 04:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good. I think the whole paragraph has become more informative, better researched, and more readable; to a large extend thanks to your efforts. I think we can leave it at that for the moment. Thore 08:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Der Spiegel, after a heroically worded editorial, actually did switch back to the unreformed spelling, only to switch again in the very next issue. The current state is basically in-house rules with some variation among authors. One will see, for instance, "hier zu Lande" and "hierzulande" in the same issue. Otherwise, their general editorial stance toward the reform is rather critical. --Janko 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Janko

"As of 2004"

The "As of 2004" link in the section on implementation really needs to be changed; it makes the article look three years out of date. (I'd change it, but I don't know if the information in the section is still accurate.) Funnyhat 06:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are criticism and opposition forbidden?

User:84.165.121.19: "Banned from German WP because of crusade against the spelling reform"? The "crusade" of User:84.165.121.19: He deletes all books about the German spelling reform. This is censorship. This remember me George Orwell, his Big Brother (Nineteen Eighty-Four) and his Animal Farm.

Revert of edits by User:84.165.121.19 alias Nodutschke. Original German books about German spelling reform are appropriate in the English WP. That's all right! Nodutschke deletes also all German books about the German spelling reform in the German WP. Nodutschke is a notorious deleter and forger. He transforms the German Wikipedia into a rubbish tip.

User:84.165.121.19 alias Nodutschke deletes also:

Hanno Birken-Bertsch; Reinhard Markner: Rechtschreibreform und Nationalsozialismus. = Reform of German orthography and National Socialism, 2000. This book includes a comparison with the German spelling reform of Nazi Germany or Drittes Reich ("Third Reich") from 1944.

With Frederick Forsyth I say: I despise Nazism, Fascism and Communism. They are brutal and horrible confessions of faith. They are committed to Political Correctness and to punishment of everybody, who differs from the prescribed doctrine. This Political Correctness rules the thinking of the majority of the Germans, from whom nobody risks to differ from fearing the consequences. Political despotism begins, if criticism and opposition will be punished. Look: Frederick Forsyth as a Conservative--Manfred Riebe 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Unclear closing of lead

Can someone improve this sentence in the lead? It doesn't parse, and I'm not sure what it means:

The result is a general insecurity and a „Beliebigkeitsschreibung“, that is an autocratical spelling in the shape of variant spellings, misspellings respectively incorrect spellings, for example, the traditional Schloßstraße, and new Schlossstraße, but the wrong Schlossstrasse or Schloßstrasse.

Robert K S 11:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read the sentences before:

“The new orthography is only obligatory in schools. According to the decision of July 14, 1998, of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht, Urteil vom 14. Juli 1998, Az.: 1 BvR 1640/97 outside the schools everybody can write as before, because there is no law ruling orthography. The majority of people use the traditional German orthography. Therefore it is necessary to differ between the new and the traditional orthography.”

However nobody is able to differ between the new school-orthography and the traditional orthography. The result are many mistakes and variant spellings. See the examples with "Schloßstraße".--Manfred Riebe 21:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism notice

I just removed the NPOV note from user ScooterDe, who is a known vandal in the German Wikipedia who tries to suppress facts that are against his opinion. The current version conforms to the neutrality constraint without doubt. 87.161.225.226 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nodutschke here, Scooter there

Where Nodutschke is, there also is Scooter:

"23:48, 22 March 2007 ScooterDe m (NPOV - almost the entired article has been written by User:Manfred Riebe, who was banned from de-WP because of his fanatic struggle against the reform)"

This is wrong, because I generally wrote the bibliography, the external links and references and notes. Why? The reason is the "categories: Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements".

Correct is: "banned from de-WP because of his struggle against the reform", ... but outside the German Wikipedia. In the German Wikipedia criticism and opposition against the German spelling reform are not allowed.

Scooter is an example of the German Spelling reform: "The Germans do everything efficiently, even inefficiency!" --Manfred Riebe 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're so funny, Manni, old chap. Ever thought of joining a circus show? A nice idea, I think. By the way, your conspiracy theories are as strange and weird in English as they are in German. But let's be serious: This article is an efficient proof for your lack of ability of being a part of this encyclopedia. Please leave Wikipedia at last. --Scooter ^{(this one)} 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would classify your behaviour as bullying, Scooter. Bullies aren't particularly well liked here, just to let you know. 212.84.125.230 14:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ScooterDe, your personal dislike of Manfred Riebe does not justify the NPOV status of the page. I fully read the page and I see no point where the neutrality is violated. It is enough if you do your totalitarian censorship on the German Wikipedia. 87.161.212.83 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, I'm really scared. Two well-respected IP's insulting me... whhhooaaa. Got a message for you: Shut up. --Scooter ^{(this one)} 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An NPOV warning cannot be grounded on personal disputes. That's no reason, sorry. 212.84.125.230 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One message for you, Scooter: get lost. Your only contributions so far are unfounded accusations and hate. Maybe the right combination to work on Wikipedia in your eyes, but definitely not in mine and in most others'. 87.161.211.136 08:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Scooter: „26 March 2007 ScooterDe (reverted vandalism by some IP-comrade of User:Manfred Riebe, who is banned from German Wikipedia because of permanent POV-vandalism)” „banned because of permanent POV-vandalism”? This is a new story! Scooter is a storyteller. „The neutrality of this article is disputed“? No, „The neutrality of Scooters behavior is disputed.“ --Manfred Riebe 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh Manni, you should know this, you're the most important part of the story. Some people might even call you the hero of the story. One brave fighter against the forces of the darkness. Anyway, I'm not going to "discuss" with you und your loyal IP-folks anymore, because it makes no sense to talk to fanatics. It doesn't make sense anyway because the only ones that read this article here in en-WP, are you and your fine friends from the ~~Justice League~~ VRS. On the other side, it was a pleasure to talk to the "real Manfred" and not so some sockpuppet called in the way like "RudiP" or "N-ZF 1937". There is a certain lack of dignity when I'm forced to do this. Goodbye and all the best wishes to your family, --Scooter ^{(this one)} 21:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bavaria, North Rhine Westphalia

Thus as of August 1, 2005, the traditional spelling system is to be considered incorrect in the schools, except in two of the German states, Bavaria and North Rhine Westphalia, which have both officially rejected the reform. I've just had a look at http://www.km.bayern.de/km/lehrerinfo/infoboerse/fundgrube/meldung/03876/index.asp. It says that the modifactions of 2006 are obligatory at school now. In North Rhine-Westphalia it seems to be the same case [1]. The article says that NW uses the traditional orthography at school (2005) but the administration officially stated that the modifications of 2006 are obligatory at school now, see here [2]. --89.53.45.126 11:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

This newspaper now uses a house orthography basing on the new rules of 2006, see http://www.faz.net/s/Rub28FC768942F34C5B8297CC6E16FFC8B4/Doc~E6C5A00D3BAF34C0E96463BCB122BB7C8~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html. --89.53.45.126 18:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Outdated section removed

I have removed the section stating that Bild-Zeitung, Die Welt and some 300 newspapers are using the traditional spelling. This is wrong: Bild and Welt switched back to old spelling in 2004(?), but since 2006 they have been using the reformed spelling again. As for the 300 newspapers - the reference just quotes a dozen or so (and claims spelling reform is dictatorship and so on) Christoph Scholz (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Could use some editing

This page isn't in the best shape. There are punctuation errors and some of the language is incredibly unclear. Also, I just had to remove "shape or form" from the phrase "not a 'direct object' in any way, shape or form," for reasons that ought to be obvious - especially when the criticism at hand still stands, because the sentence goes on to say that Eis remains a modifier of the verb, and not a noun (in any way, shape, or form). I'd do some of this but unfortunately my German isn't the most fluent and I wouldn't want to risk the integrity of the article, which, as it stands, is still rather informative and encyclopedic. Dextrose (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here is that much of this language seems to be written by Germans, without a firm grasp on English technical writing and perhaps with an axe to grind with documentation of the reform. Much of the "information" in this article is this "he said," "she said" stuff about whether the reform was good or not and why, without any evidential citation linking it to the reality that actually exists. Dextrose (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity in introduction

I have changed

Those activists who had demanded the ruling of the court now complain about the
resulting general insecurity and the rise of Beliebigkeitsschreibung (arbitrary
spelling).

to

In the wake of this decision complaints about the
resulting general insecurity and the rise of Beliebigkeitsschreibung (arbitrary
spelling) have been raised.

As someone living in Germany, I can say that neither are these complaints made by just the "activists", nor do all of them make this complaint. The statement is, thus, a distortion of reality. In particular, it, in my eyes, leaves the impression that opponents of the reform are unreasonable naggers. Further, the word "activist" is dubious in it self, having connotations that are potentially too fargoing. (Obviously, my two last sentence are MY reaction; others may react diffe0ently.)

(Note: I keep getting time-outs when submitting. Unintentional double-posting may have occured.) 88.77.154.171 (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GRIN

In the streetsignpicturecaption, what does GRIN mean? —Tamfang (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ich bin eine man für die deutsch schrieben kann, ich wolte deutsch learen kann. wer ich learen kann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.103.64 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ich bin eine bangladeshi.ich möchte deutsch learnen,aber ich brauche eine lehrer isc möcshte —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.103.64 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarity of Introduction

(Caveat: newbie post)

I came to this page for a quick explanation of the topic and found the introduction quite uninformative.

The German orthography reform of 1996 (Rechtschreibreform) is based on an international agreement signed in Vienna in July 1996 by the governments of the German-speaking countries of Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Luxembourg, in which German is one of the three official languages, regarded itself "as a non-German-speaking country not to be a contributory determinant upon the German system of spelling" ...

A simplified restating would be, "An orthography reform was based on an agreement signed by Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. Luxembourg considers itself non-German-speaking." The second paragraph discusses an ensuing political fuss in Germany. End of introduction.

I simply wanted to know what the reform was, as in "Why". I guessed, having studied German years ago, that it was to make the language readable %^), but it would be good to see the reason explicitly stated in the introduction rather than discussing Luxembourg and German political problems. Instead, I had to go down to the "History" section, something that many people might not bother to do at that point.

Jimmy Hers (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal status - does the government use it?

The German orthography article says the reform spelling is only obligatory in schools. This article doesn't clarify further.

Is that true? Only in schools? Is the government not required to use it? Or broader, the governement and government agencies/entities?

It would be useful if someone could cite the specific part of the text, declarations or whatever about the scope of obligatory application. Gronky (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://muttersprache.at.tf
Triggered by \bat\.t[cf]\b on the global blacklist
http://muttersprache.at.tf/
Triggered by \bat\.t[cf]\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 15:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Usage Abroad

(Caveat: newbie post)

So I learned German in the U.S., and in Baviaria in the 1980's - and I have been away from Germany more or less since the fall of the wall.

And in looking at the examples, I find that I am disturbed by spelling changes like 'Keiser' .

I have to learn German again.

So it occurs to me to ask - have teachers of the German language 'abroad' adopted the spelling reforms? If I go to a local college, or university, or if my grandchild learns German in school - will we be learning the old, or the new? How about in the UK? France...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.108.61 (talk) 05:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the final 2006 spelling different to the 1996 spelling?

I can't understand what the article says about the 2006 compromises. There's too much ambiguous and contradictory information.

Could use of a dictionary from 2003 lead a modern writer to make what are now considered mistakes?

The "Later developments" section says the 2006 agreement just meant "making both the traditional and the new spellings acceptable" for certain words. But the article's intro says the 2006 agreement "remove[d] the most controversial changes". They're two very different things - which is correct?

Did this affect a dozen new-spelling words or nearly all the new-spelling words?

Some examples would be useful too. Gronky (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

POV! Very biased towards some fringe views.

The article is very biased. Maybe its too niche to get some sort of neutral overview, but it is as neutral as conspiracy wiki articles: Only one side is favored, no opposing view, a bunch of random people are called "leading writers and intellectuals", a bunch of small groups and self hosted websites are listed in the external links as if they were relevant. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me congratulate to the article, despite its (oldfashioned) bias vs. the reform. You should see the German equivalent: historical acceptance polls back to 1997, naturally anti-reform! As unimportant journalist I’ve written »new« since its beginning back in the early zeroes. Readers don’t know capitalization or composite writing changes in strange cases like zurecht (rightly) vs. zu recht or zu Recht, they don’t know if in the evening is am Abend and or abends etc. But they all got used to dass, replacing the old daß, just as by 1920 probably nobody would write Thüre (door) with th anymore. The spelling reform is no active subject of discussion any more, in my practical opinion. Look at books, not just magazines, all with dass. German spelling now tends towards exotic characters, e. g. Zircus (formerly Zirkus) or Cochlea (vs. Kochlea) etc., often pushed by marketeers who like to stand out (Cigaretten instead of Zigaretten). But that has nothing to do with the off. reform. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange Examples

ß and ss: the letter "ß" is to appear only after long vowels and diphthongs.

der Fluß → der Fluss (the river)

A short vowel is to be followed by "ss" or "s".

Ich möchte, daß du kommst. → …, dass du kommst (I want you to come)
but das Haus → das Haus (the house)

"das Haus" was never anything else, so I don't see what this illustrates. The reform only deals with the use of the ß ligature, which is written after long vowels and diphthongs. "Daß-das" is fine, but "der Fuß" or "der Gruß" and their plurals would be better contrasting examples. This rule really only represents a logical extension of a rule already in place for plurals.

--Janko 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Janko

This demonstrates that the ‘rule’ ‘After a short vowel always double s’, which is often cited in favour of the ‘new’ s/ss/ß rule, isn’t correct. (Note: I didn’t write this section, I just want to clarify.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.72.228.35 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

The rule is: "no ß after short vowels, if there is one replace it with ss". If there never was a ß in that word the first place it could be either ss or s. Judith Sunrise (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)