Talk:Germany/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Article size

Is there some general agreement that we should try to conform to Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style? Clearly not all of us do, but if there's a considerable majority, then good enough. We've been dancing around this for an age, and I'd really like to try and get some resolution. Alai 00:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

from my experience, the article will continue to dance around for a while before consolidating, so it is premature to try and aim for a "final" format. First and foremost, some standard of "notability threshold" must be established, i.e. a feeling for stuff that should be here, and for stuff that shouldn't. It would be easy to write a 1000kb article about Germany, and clearly we don't want that. The spectrum goes from 32kb to 70kb maybe, and it will be Summary Style anyway, even with 70kb. dab (ᛏ) 08:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't want a Germany page of 1000KB either. On the other hand, 32KB is clearly too short for a country which is, after all, the biggest country in western Europe by size of population and the third-largest economy in the world. I for my part think that a size limit around 60KB would be OK, but we're still far away from that. - Heimdal 11:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I would also suggest that we stop fussing about the length of the History section unless this article has not reached the 55KB. - Heimdal 12:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, I continue to think that the history section is too long. We should mention there only the absolutely essential. Yes, Germany's history is complicated, dramatic, full of ruptures and shaped Europe so it can be somewhat longer than the corresponding sections of e.g. France or India. Please help to weed out the non-essential. Andries 12:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

India is the second-most populous country in the world, one of the oldest and one with the most complicated story. Why should it deserve less "history space" than Germany? Luis rib 17:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Not to mention the incredibly rich and complex mix of languages, ethnic groups, competing religions, even geographies of a country that is vastly larger than Germany both physically and by population. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've never said that India should deserve less "history space" than Germany. Perhaps the people who edit India are not much interested in history, who knows. I don't edit that page. - Heimdal 19:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the non-essentials in the "Weimar Republic", the "Third Reich" and the "Division and Reunification", please note that these were written by User:Luis rib and User:Gidonb, not by me. The "Holy Roman Empire" was partly, and the "German Empire" almost completely written by me, before Gidonb and Luis rib have started to make their deletions and changes. Gidonb has also removed 3 images that I posted in History. I'm not so much against summarizing History, but I would like it to be done by a person who has shown to be neutral and to have a good knowledge of Germany. In my opinion this person can only be User:Doric Loon. - Heimdal 13:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem suggestion that Doric Loon should do it and I hope s/he is willing to do so. Btw, I do not think that you need to know have a good knowledge of the history of Germany of Germany to write the history section because you only have to summarize other Wikipedia articles. (I do not have good knowledge of German history btw). So I will not edit the section anymore for the time being. Andries 18:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What? The non-essentials were certainly not written by me!!! May I remind you, Heimdal, that all I did FROM THE VERY START was reduce your bloated version? When I added stuff, it was because your version was unbalanced. Luis rib 17:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether "my version" was unbalanced is a matter of POV. I for my part don't think that your version is any more balanced. What you did was basically to cut down the "Holy Roman Empire" and the "German Empire", but to bloat up the "Weimar Republic" and the "Third Reich". So much for your "balanced" version. - Heimdal 17:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Andries, don't take me wrong. I didn't say that you should stop editing History. Please continue to do so. - Heimdal 18:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

An Luis rib: Ich habe Fotokopien von "meiner Version" gemacht, und bei Gelegenheit können wir das mal gemeinsam auf dieser Seite durchgehen, und mit Deiner/Ihrer Version vergleichen. Dann werde ich auch gleich sagen was mir an Deiner/Ihrer Version nicht paßt. Aber jetzt muß ich wirklich gehen. Bis morgen. - Heimdal 18:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss this issue here or on my Talk page, if you prefer. Also, I don't remember bloating up the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, on the contrary. You kept including Admiral Tirpitz - a relatively minor figure on the global historical German scale. Luis rib 16:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The History section of the Japan article is also quite long.

This is starting to get ridiculous. Are we going to list all the countries? Well, let me start then: the history section of Ethiopia (a country of > 70 million, with a >2000 year history (more if we think abour pre-history), and the only African country never colonised (with a brief exception by Mussolini)) only has a very short history paragraph. Certainly, a point could be made that Germany's history should be shortened to Ethiopia-standard. Luis rib 16:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Admiral Tirpitz was not a minor figure. He was responsible for the German programme of warship construction, which led negotiations for an alliance between Germany and Britain to break down. Also, wasn't it you who added the detail about Ernst Röhm's "homosexual vices"? Just how relevant is that, I don't know. - Heimdal 16:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it was certainly not me who added that insignificant detail. I didn't even know about Röhm's "homosexual vices" before reading it on this page. Also, Tirpitz's warship program was irrelevant since in WWI there was only a single naval battle, and it had no importance on the general war. Germany never managed to equal Britain's naval superiority. In particular, why is Tirpitz more important than, say, Barbarossa? If we are going to list every single admiral or general of the German Empire, we'll never finish. Luis rib 16:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the detail about Röhm's sexual preferences was certainly not added by me. Also, Germany's navy may have been irrelevant in WWI. But Tirpitz' programme of warship construction increased the rivalry between Germany and Britain, and the rivalry between these two European powers was one of the main causes for the outbreak of WWI. - Heimdal 17:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't care who added Röhm's homosexuality but it was surely not me either. I remind you that there were other people contributing to this article apart from the both of us. Also, Tirpitz is still irrelevant because this history section is only supposed to give a brief overview about German history. Digressing about the reasons for German-British rivalry is besides the point here. Especially, I don't think that naval superiority was ever a major cause for WWI. Luis rib 17:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, wir setzen das Gespräch ein andermal fort, einverstanden? Ich habe jetzt wirklich keine Zeit mehr. Bis morgen. - Heimdal 17:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

PMA

Can i make as my last contribution for a while a firm request that 83.109.xxx.xx be banned from editing any Germany related articles - Although i had once mistaken 83.109.xxx.xx for User:Heimdal i now know that i was wrong and apologise to Heimdal. A check through this talk pages archives shows 83.109.xxx.xx bias and POV pushing - i have just had to fix the Infobox on the Karl Doenitz page that he had vandalised - he/she had removed both Adolf Hitler and Johannes Dieckmann to fit his/her bizzare POV. PMA 07:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've got it at last that 83.109.xxx.xx is not me! Holding a strong opinion does not seem reason enough for me to ban a person. However, I do think that if 83.109.xxx.xx wants to continue editing this page, he or she should at least log in, so that it would be easier to identify him or her, and to contact him or her on his or her talk page. It would also avoid future identity confusions, by the way.- Heimdal 09:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

PMA is constantly vandalizing Germany-related articles, pushing his bizzare POV and it is obvious that he has zero knowledge of German history and politics. I request he is banned if he do not stop vandalizing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an asylum. The list of German presidents should include the presidents and just them. Hitler was never President. And as for the succesor of Dönitz, the Federal Republic of Germany claims to be identical with the state Dönitz was president of, which the GDR never claimed to be. So it is correct according to German law (ruling by the German Constitutional Court) and NPOV that Karl Arnold was the sole and only successor of Dönitz. --83

strawpoll on points to be included

I don't know why I have to do this, but Heimdal seems to refuse, so here is a list of the points he apparently wants to include, and which have met opposition.

• Jewish demographics (fastest growing Jewish population etc.), Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland

include

do not include

• linguistic relationship of West Germanic languages (German, Dutch and English)

include

do not include

---

is this it? I mean, we went through all that fuss because of these two points? I do hope I am missing something here, because that would be too lame. dab (ᛏ) 12:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI: The reference to the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland was originally posted by User:Doric Loon, before Gidonb deleted it, for whatever reason. I think it's good to have a reference to the ZJD on this page, why not. And there are *lots* of other things which Gidonb deleted and which I would like to restore here, apart from what you mentioned above. No, I don't know why you have to do this either. - Heimdal 12:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind including either issue, as long as it is kept short. The Jewish issue in particular could be interesting, as it would show the evolution of the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in Germany since the Holocaust. The fact that Germany has the fastest-growing Jewish population is particularly interesting and should dispell beliefs that Germans are still Nazis. Luis rib 15:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

NB the History section of the Japan article is also quite long. I'd be glad if we could manage to have something similar here. - Heimdal 15:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop bringing up unrelated articles; focus on this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Missing references

We are still missing references for the detailed articles. Please provide them in the detailed articles, preferrably English but German is okay too. Andries 17:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Constitution picture

I don't know whether that should be a problem, but in the box of the constitution picture, the text in the picture (German) and the text given beneath (English) are not the same. Str1977 23:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I know they are not the same. But I found the text of article 1, paragraph 1 more relevant than the preamble. - Heimdal 09:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

PS The full text of the Basic Law in English can be found here. This is also the source that I've quoted from. - Heimdal 09:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Heimdall. I just wanted to point it out - I have no problem with it either. Str1977 09:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Grundgesetz has been removed, and while I agree with the thought to remove ONE picture from the article, I don't think it should be that one (although a photo of the original should be found). I think the Bundeswehr or Kreuznach should go, and if this were a vote, I would cut the soldiers. To be honest, I don't think random Bundeswehr soldiers are that important, and I don't think it's POV to erase it. Perhaps a better photo of Kreuznach would be needed to validate (it looks just like every other German city street I've seen, although maybe this is the point of the photo). Stratton 00:44, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

FYI: it's Kreuzberg, not Kreuznach. I absolutely don't see the point of removing images. Pictures make an article much more entertaining. I also don't agree with cutting down the size of the article. The page is not really as long, yet, as to justify that. I for my part will put back into place everything which has been deleted. And if that means reverting the page once a day, so be it. One revert per day doesn't make an edit war. - Heimdal 10:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since I disagree with the removal of images and the deletions (see my post above), I've reverted the page. I'm quite sure that someone else will revert again, but I for my part won't turn the page back once more today. To User:Directorstratton: Actually, the CDU is not the only critic of Schröder's defence and foreign policy in Germany. This is why I didn't save your edit. Have to leave now. Keep discussing. Bis morgen. - Heimdal 11:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about Kreuznach, I can be absent-minded about names, especially when I write on the talk page. I know the CDU isn't the only critic, however the sentence currently implies that all critics of the government are in favor of increased spending, although there are groups who (at least a few years ago) argued for decreased spending, like the Greens and PDS, which is why I added a distinction. I will make a better change by just adding "many", which is more correct. DirectorStratton 22:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a picture of the original Grundgesetz? That would at least be a historical document. The current picture, apparently scanned from some book, is not particularly relevant. Luis rib 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to the second-last edit by User:Rednaxela, and continued to restore deleted parts. But I've saved all edits by User:Bluemask and 199.85.228.1. I've also created a new section entitled "Society", with "Demographics", "Religion", "Education", "Social issues" and "Culture" as subsections (an idea which I've copied from the Japan article). Someone else may revert my edits if they want to. I for my part am off until Monday. Tschüß. - Heimdal 12:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Structure

I have no problem with religion being its own section; religion is a rather major topic in Germany, and it has a powerful history there. However, I don't understand why Foreign Relations was made its own section. It (and Legal System but this is specifically on foreign relatons) is a short section and, well, without politics, there are no foreign relations, so why revert that? --Golbez 12:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why Foreign relations should not have an independent section. If you add Foreign relations to Politics, you should also add Education and the Military, because these are controlled by the German government as well. - Heimdal 13:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Education can occur independent of politics; foreign policy is irrevocably intertwined with it. And if Religion is an important enough topic to be separate, so is military, and military sections, based on what I've seen in other articles, have traditionally been separate. Again, however - this question is solely on Foreign Relations, not Military. --Golbez 13:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The military is not really so important in today's Germany, Golbez. Unlike the US, Germany has a relatively small defence budget. This is a pacifist country. Regarding the Politics section. I really would like it to be about the German political system and nothing else, so please keep the other issues away from it - Heimdal 14:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Please indent your comments for readability reasons. Okay, though in that case foreign relations belongs lower, with the military. (And perhaps military should be a subhed of foreign relations? Eh, probably not.) Internal divisions are more important than foreign relations, aren't they? Either way, I won't make these changes at the moment, they're minor quibbles. --Golbez 14:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, good edits Golbez. You've cut out a lot of peripheral material and made the rest of the material clearer. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Just for a change, Jayjg, could you please contribute anything to this article, apart from making comments about its size? - Heimdal 16:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I have contributed a great deal, actually. The most critical contribution has been to get you to finally work collaboratively on the article, rather than (as you have been doing for the past few months) insisting on ownership of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes Jayjg, I'm quite sure that it's much easier to delete or to applaud the deletion of edits made by others rather than to contribute anything yourself. - Heimdal 16:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, you've just used a strawman argument. Read my words and try again. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Mozart

Mozart was added though somebody had removed him and explained that this was because he was generally considered Austrian. I request that people who re-add motivated deletions write down their reason here befor re-adding. Otherwise the article will never become in good shape. Thanks. Andries 13:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It was me. Let me explain. Mozart is often considered to be Austrian, for two reasons:

1) he was born in Salzburg, which now belongs to Austria

2) he had his greatest success at the Imperial court in Vienna, captital of Austria, and also died there

Objections:

1) Salzburg did not belong to Austria in Mozart's lifetime - he died 1791, Salzburg fell to Austria only in 1814/15 - in Mozart's day it was an independent state under the Prince-Archsbishop, within the framework of the Holy Roman Empire.

2) Vienna was always part of Austria, but it also was part of the Holy Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Emperor had his court there.

The Holy Roman Empire, though no national state, was the political home of the German nation. However, I am not arguing against Mozart being called Austrian - he is validly called Austrian, because of his career in the Austrian capital.

My point is that he is both Austrian and German.

His native tongue and culture was German and he lived both in German and Austrian political entities. To distinguish between Austrian and German is not really feasible before 1866 - and even after that there are people crossing the border.

It must be possible to grant him this double recognition. Otherwise Goethe, Schiller, Heine, Bach too are not German but rather Frankfortian/Weimarian, Württembergian/Weimarian, Westphalian/Prussian, Saxonian, respectively.

Ah yes, I forgot: the Archbishop of Salzburg actually holds the honorary title of "Primas Germaniae".

Str1977 17:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason why the Holy Roman Emperor lived in Vienna was because he was from the Habsburg family, a family so much associated with Austria that both's histories are totally intertwined. Salzburg, though an independent archbishopric, was certainly under the influence of the Habsburg family as it was surrounded by Habsburg lands (indeed, you say yourself that Salzburg fell to Austria soon after Mozart's death). The language issue is irrelevant, since Switzerland also speaks Germans (and was part, long time ago, of the HRE) yet no-one thinks of famous Swiss as being German too. Also, the notion of Germanhood only surfaced after Mozart's death, so Mozart very probably did NOT feel like a German, but rather as a Salzburgian and Viennese. All this would encourage me to consider him only an Austrian, and not a German. A further reason is that Germany has so many excellent composers - Bach and Beethoven, Wagner, etc.... - that it doesn't need Mozart in its list. Luis rib 18:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes Habsburg and Austria are intertwined. In fact, in Mozart's time (and the greater part of the family's history) the family was called "House of Austria", not "House of Habsburg" (see Don Juan d'Austria).

Salzburg was not under the Emperor's influence any more than Bavaria was, the later annexation is due to the unpheavel of the Napoleonic wars.

The language is relevant, especially in connection with the "political entity" he lived in. Switzerland however had left the HRE already in 1648 (at the latest), culture had parted with the "mainland" Germany for a long time - that's not the case with either Salzburg or Austria. There was some German identity in Mozart's time ("Reichspatriotismus"), though it had not yet moved into the age of nationalism or became ethnic

This also is the reason why there's no need to put Mozart either in this or in that box (It's the same pointless debate as whether Copernicus was German or Polish (or Russian)). He belongs to both nation's history, as much as the Emperors do.

And sorry, I cannot accept your offer: Bach - great!, Beethoven - well, had his moments! - Wagner - the John Williams of his day! But why should I deny myself the greatest? And it's not taking Mozart away from Austria, on the Austria entry I'd argue the other way around: that he is also Austrian and not just German.

Ah yes, and Bach: is he allowed to be considered German, despite all points brought forward against Mozart being German, which also hit Bach, only because no one else has claimed him. Str1977 19:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but will leave the decision-making to other contributors to this page. Also, personally, I don't like the Baroque classical music very much. I don't have a favourite composer, but like works by Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Dvorak, among ohers. Luis rib 19:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't take my "the greatest" in a too absolute way. I was never good in saying what my most favourtie XYZ was, at least as far as arts, music, books, paintings and the like are concerned. Str1977 20:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977: If you consider Mozart a German you have to consider ALL, and I mean every Austrian before 1806 a German. That is certainly not how it works with nationalities. If there was a some kind of federation of a couple of states in the past (for instance UK and USA) and those two countries fall apart, nationals in both countries should be considered apart as well. Besides: the Holy Roman Empire was NOT Germany and is by historians not considered to be the legal predessor of Germany. Therefore in fact nationals of Germany born before 1871 can only be considered Germans as far as they are born within the borders of the Germany of 1871. The same thing applies for Austria-Hungary, Austria cannot claim people to be Austrians just because they were born within Austrian-Hungarian borders if they do not have a connection with the Austria of today. Themanwithoutapast 22:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this a completely unhistorical approach. Mozart is part of the cultural history of Germany as well as of Austria. Str1977 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"Cultural history" is no argument for nationality. Otherwise nearly ever historical person would be claimed by several countries. Besides I go with the general understanding in society and the common use of nationality of a person. For instance Maria Theresia, empress of Austria would be considered German by nobody. What's the difference between her and Mozart? I do not see any in terms of nationality. Both lived during the same time frame and within in a member state of a "loose federation of countries" called Holy Roman Empire. Why should one of them considered German and the other one not? Themanwithoutapast 22:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree; Mozart is typically thought of as Austrian. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Some brief thoughts about the Holy Roman Empire:

The entry gives the year 800 as its beginning, i.e. Charlemagne crowned Emperor.

Then the Frankish kingdom was divided - one of the kingdoms that developed was the Eastern Frankish kingdom, whose main feature was that the inhabitant spoke Germanic dialects >> Early German (vs. the Western which spoke a Romanized language >> Early French).

In the early years the name of that Eastern kingdom is not entirely clear, but later it was considered the "regnum teutonicum" (11th century). Since the Salian kings/Emperors the Empire was considered to be a monarchy consisting of three kingdoms: 1) regnum teutonicum, 2) regnum burgundiae, 3) regnum italicum. (And note Germania bringing presents to Otto III in the famous images)

A fourth kingdom, within the regnum teutonicum was the kingdom of Bohemia - the only King in the Empire apart from the Emperor.

Though the Holy Roman Empire was not a national state, "of the German Nation" has been added to the name since the 15th century, when the HRE had lost most of its non-German territories. Though not a national state, the HRE was the home of the German nation back then - and in a way the predecessor of Germany.

After 1648 the HRE de facto was a "loose federation", but not de jure.

As for all Austrians prior to 1806 being considered Germans?

- Yes, of course they should be (Austria in the sense of the Austrian 'Erblande'), including Maria Theresia - do you really think nobody considers her German?

And Empress of Austria she most definetely was not. She was Empress of the Romans, Queen of Hungary (though the Hungarians insisted on her being King), Queen of Bohemia, Archduchess of Austria etc.

No difference to Mozart. If famous rulers of Germany would be a category, she and her relatives would belong in there. The same for Mozart in regard to Culture, Music etc.

Again, I am not taking him away from Austria - he belongs there too.

And that doesn't stop in 1806 (only the HRE was declared defunct then) - Germany as a cultural nation also included Austria and Austria was part of the German Confederation and of the National Assembly of 1848. Only after 1866, when a German national state was founded based on Prussian hegemony and the exclusion of Austria, can you really clearly distinguish the two.

George Washington is a bad example. He never was part of the UK, was he? He was a citizen of a British colony, but that's not quite the same thing as being a Briton.

Str1977 23:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Maria Theresia certainly was German. Before 1866/1871, the word "German" referred to all German-speaking people. It is anachronistic to say Mozart was not German. He would certainly had considered himself German, as much as he was Salzburgian. --83

Interesting. Well, in the English world he's considered an Austrian composer. That how Encarta describes him:[1], as does Britannica:[2], and just about everyone else. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, in fact that's my point: he is an Austrian composer (though not born in what was then Austria), but he is also a German composer.

Unfortunately there are some historical figures that are subject to such disputes, e.g.

Copernicus - between Germany and Poland

Charlemagne - between Germany and France

(Hadrian VI - between Germany and the Netherlands, at least here on Wiki, some weeks back)

Both sides have their merit and a fair view would be to

• either restrict German and Austrian to the current entities, but that would really be ahistorical, as it would result in starting Germany with 1871 (or 1867) and Austria with 1918. (Stupid as this approach may seem, but some consider this to be the right thing to do.)

• or admit that some historical figures transcend the lines of (current) nationality. That's my approach.

Str1977 23:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Austrian doesn't exclude German. Culturally it is rather a subset, just like Bavarian or Prussian. --83

Dear 83,

before someone complains. Nowadays Austria is considered a distinct nation from Germany with a distinct nationality.

But granted, that's a development which started only after 1866 and until 1945 was not universally accepted in Austria itself.

But now, it is. Str1977 23:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Politically today a separate state (although the same people), yes, but this makes no sense at all when we are discussing Mozart, who died in 1791. --83

Of course, I was just trying to preempt any "outcries". Str1977 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The official name of Austria 1919-1920 was even Republic of German Austria (Republik Deutschösterreich). -83

I see. Well, it sounds like you're doing some original research. Authoritative English language sources consider him to be Austrian; can you bring any authoritative sources which consider him to be a German composer? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not original research. It isn't research at all. It is just plain common sense. Does that need to be referenced?

Anyway, Mozart was in the running for the "Greatest German" competition last year and made number 20.

from the zdf tv channel: http://www.zdf-jahrbuch.de/2003/programmarbeit/arens.htm

or from the German wiki: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsere_Besten

or the German wiki entry on Mozart http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

(relevant section: Herkunft)

I know, these are all in German. Str1977 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

(Mozart's nationality has frequently been in dispute in the German-speaking version of Wikipedia as well. [3] Arguments mentioned there might help this discussion)NightBeAsT 23:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977: Just to sum up the position of nearly everyone in this world once again: If we would consider everyone that had lived during their lifetime within the borders of the Holy Roman Empire as German we would get a hell of a lot people in the list of Germans who are not regarded German by anyone including: all Austrians until 1806 (I mean really all of them without exceptions), all Swiss who were born within the borders when parts of Switzerland belonged to the Holy Roman Empire, Italy for its time under the Holy Roman Empiie, France etc. etc. In the same line of thinking we would need to have all Austrians living between 1938 and 1945 to be considered German and be listed as Germans (what they are obviously not or do you want to start to claim Schrödinger or Pauli or Schönberg Germans?).

The following points should be regarded in the case of Mozart:

1. Where was he born, where did he live and what country is the legal succesor to this territory?

Mozart was born in Salzburg and predominatly lived in Vienna. Salzburg seized to exist as an independent nation at the beginning of the 19th century, its direct legal successor was Austria and not Germany. As of now Salzburg is not part of Germany but Austria.

2. Does the fact that a country was member of the Holy Roman Empire make all its citizens Germans?

This is the ultimate question, isn't it? And the answer is clearly no. There is a big number of examples, just two additional ones to those I gave before: Wilhelm Tell (regardless of him being just a legend or a real person), Metternich (born 1773) listet as an Austrian statesman and politician in every encyclopedia. The wiki-article on the Holy Roman Empire states It was never a nation state. Despite the German ethnicity of most of its rulers and subjects, from the very beginning many ethnicities constituted the Holy Roman Empire - and that is right, the Holy Roman Empire WAS NEVER a nation state and it has NO successor. Thus Germany cannot claim any person to be a German that has not a specific relationship to it (lived predominantly within the borders of 1871-Germany or was born within these borders).

Another thing: you always are saying it is "historically correct" to speak of Mozart as a German. In fact you are entirely wrong here - the only historically correct thing to call Mozart would be a citizen of Salzburg and a citizen of the Holy Roman Empire, so therefore neither an Austrian nor a German. However nations today (and this article is about the Germany THAT EXISTS TODAY) are proud of people that are associated with their country and therefore want to call them Austrians, Germans, British etc. And with this regard Mozart can only be considered Austrian.

Until you come up with some serious authority (the German wikipedia is not a reliable source and it is nowhere stated there that Mozart was German, nor is it stated that he was Austrian-German) I will keep on deleting Mozart from the article here. Themanwithoutapast 00:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

and another thing, I don't like this sentence either: Many historical figures, though not citizens of Germany in the modern sense, were nevertheless seen as "Germans" in the sense that they were immersed in the German culture, for example Franz Kafka and Stefan Zweig. This implies that there is no such thing as an Austrian culture or that Austrian culture is some kind of a subordinate thing and German culture should be the umbrella term - I seriously doubt that. Themanwithoutapast 01:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

May be I am mistaken but I learnt at school that Kafka could be considered German. Andries 05:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Austrian is a subset of German. Prior to 1871 "German" is only an umbrella term covering the entire German Nation, which includes Austrians, Prussians, Bavarians etc. There was no "Austrian culture" which was different from "German". The Austrian culture may have been different from, say, East Prussian or Schleswigian, but they were all equally German. There were much greater differences between Bavarian culture and Prussian culture, than it was between Bavarian and Austrian culture (which was and is pretty much the same). --83

Also note that many parts of the modern state of Germany have been for periods part of the Austrian state.

To view "Austrian" as somehow distinct and mutually exclusive from "German" before 1866 is simply wrong - up until that point every German-speaking Austrian can most certainly be described as a German, just as much as any Bavarian or any Württemberger or any Hessian, and more so than German-speaking inhabitants of East Prussia, which was never part of the Germanic Confederation or the Holy Roman Empire. As to other points - yes, Alsatians before 1648 would be (and generally are) considered to be Germans. So are Swiss Germans before the 14th century or so, and so forth. The Czechs are obviously a special case, because not only were they not German-speaking, but the Kingdom of Bohemia was in some sense a specifically Czech political unit within a larger German political unit. So things get complicated there. A place like the Duchy of Lorraine would also be complicated. It is not complicated at all for Italian lands in the Holy Roman Empire, or the Kingdom of Arles, because these areas were never considered part of Germany. The Holy Roman Empire had three parts - the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Italy, and the Kingdom of Arles/Burgundy. The latter two would never have been considered German. At any rate, of course Mozart was German, although he was Austrian too (although I, too, would hesitate to call him Austrian based on his birth in Salzburg, not then a Habsburg possession). Let me add that many figures originally from areas not in modern Austria made their lives in Vienna prior to 1866. Among others, Metternich was a Rhineland prince. Beethoven was from Bonn. The Habsburgs themselves came originally from Switzerland. But, so, yes, anyone from the modern country of Austria (except the Burgenland, which was part of Hungary) who lived before 1866 can most definitely be called a German, and in many contexts probably should. To act as though "Austria" was a distinct nation before 1866, or that the boundaries of the modern Republic of Austria mean anything before 1918, is a complete anachronism. john k 05:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Let us also remember that as late as 1848 the Frankfurt Parliament, considered to be the beginning of German democracy, included representatives from those parts of Austria which were in the German Confederation, and that it elected as Vicar of the new German Reich Archduke John of Austria, the Emperor's uncle. (Later, of course, it took a Kleindeutsch position, but, again, we cannot simply assume the Kleindeutsch position as inevitable). Mozart was certainly German, and Metternich was even more German. The Habsburgs were not only German, they were the monarchs of Germany until 1806. Again, Czechs are a special case, and groups like Lorrainers and Sorbs and Belgians are somewhat special cases, but German-speakers living within the Holy Roman Empire simply have to be considered as Germans. john k 05:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we can do without the Austrians and the Swiss here. Anyway it wasn't me who added Mozart. Germany has produced its own great composers, such as Bach and Beethoven. - Heimdal 09:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

83.109.xxx.xx writes above: "Austrian is a subset of German." Perhaps. But this article is about Germany, and I think we can do without the subsets.

No, actually we cannot do without the subsets. Every element of a set is part of some subsets... With regard to the concrete case, Mozart is very much part of the German culture. One of his major accomplishments is writing Italian-style operas to German language librettos. I agree that before 1866, it makes no sense to separate German and Austrian. Arguably, the split only occured in 1945. --Stephan Schulz 12:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, 83.109.xxx.xx. - I think you should log in if you want to continue editing this page. Creating an account doesn't cost you a cent. Should you refuse to log in, I for my part intend to remove your edits without further notice. I hope you understand. - Heimdal 09:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be vandalism, and I hope you understand that I would have to revert. I have worked on this page a lot longer than you, and don't feel any need for an account just because you say so. If you have something to tell me, you may do so right here. --83

Don't be an asshole. Yes, it is more convenient if a regular contributor logs in. But an anonymous edit still requires a reasonable amount of scrutiny.--Stephan Schulz 12:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

What I demand is only fair. 83.109.xxx.xx. uses a wide range of IP addresses, which makes it very difficult to identify or even to contact this person on his or her talk page. If 83.109.xxx.xx wants to continue editing this page, he or she should log in. That's not asked too much, I think. - Heimdal 12:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that logging in, especially when editing a somewhat controversial article, would be good. But summary revert/deletion is not the answer. One of the core ideas of Wikipedia is than anybody can contribute. --Stephan Schulz 13:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm still not convinced that Mozart should belong here at all. To me Mozart is as Austrian as a Sachertorte. - Heimdal 14:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody denies that Mozart is Austrian as well. It's not an either-or, its a both. --Stephan Schulz 18:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a few remarks from the one who caused this: Please don't just exclude 83, just because he isn't logged in. (Though it'd be more convenient.) No one is denying that Mozart is Austrian, Heimdalll and if I really had to make a choice, he'd rather be Austrian than anything else (with the exception of Salzburgian), but we don't have to make that choice. To impose that choice would be wrong. In fact he's both Austrian and German (and Salzburgian). But we're not actually writing: "Mozart, German composer", but only including one single name into the culture paragraph here. Why all this fuss about one single word. Str1977 16:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Again this comes down to a matter of definition, and scope. This article isn't about Germany culture in the broad, or about the German (proto-)state as it was constituted, but about the modern German state and matters that historically directly pertain to that. Given that definition, it's not at all unreasonable to exclude persons on grounds that would have been anachronistic, had the focus of the article been "the Germany of Mozart's day". Alai 01:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Alai, where's the damage in including one single word into this entry? And yes, this is about Germany today and Mozart certainly belongs to the cultural heritage of Germany today (taking nothin away from Austria). Str1977 17:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The damage is that once you let this one in, the floodgates open to appropriating all sorts of other stuff to the modern State of Germany, which is not only historically incorrect, but then forces the article to again balloon up to an unmanageable size. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is not "historically incorrect" in Mozart's case and the potential for balooning is quite limited. We don't want to included any composer, painter etc, but only the most important. And Mozart is up in that rank along with Bach and Beehoven. Str1977 19:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It is historically incorrect to claim Mozart was a German. He was a citizen of the HRE. If we look at the successor states to the parts he mostly lived in - Salzburg and Vienna - both are in today's Austria. If we look at Bach, he was born in Eisenach and lived in Mühlhausen, Leipzig and Weimar, among othe places (according to the Bach wikipage). Except Mühlhausen, all are locted in today's Germany. Beethoven was born in Bonn and lived in Vienna for a long time. Admittedly, only he could claim double citizenship. Luis rib 19:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not historically incorrect. Read the above posts. If you read German, please read the German wikipedia, where Mozart is quoted referring to himself as a 'Teutscher'. But anyway, this is not about whether Mozart was German or not (and certainly not about "double citzenships"), but about whether to include him into the "culture section" of Germany. He certainly belongs there. Str1977 19:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC) Str1977 19:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Why does he "certainly" belong there? I've still not seen any convincing argument for that. Again, as Heimdall was saying (I'm mystified that I'm agreeing with him for once) there are a lot of less controversial (in the geographic sense) German composers that could be added. German classical music is monumental even without Mozart. Adding Austrians but not mentioning Carl Orff is ridiculous. Totally unrelated to this, the list of literary works is really short. German literature didn't start with Goethe, but rather with the Nibelungenlied, Walter von der Vogelweide, Wolfram von Eschenbach, etc. Before adding Austrians to the musicians list, we should at least complete the literary list. Luis rib 19:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you add other German composers and writers, then? The absence of other things is never an argument against including something else. As to why he was German - because before 1866 Austria simply cannot be reasonably separated from the rest of Germany. This only partially has to do with the Holy Roman Empire. Czechs, Lorrainers, Sorbs, Belgians, and so forth, in the Holy Roman Empire would not be considered Germans. But German-speaking Austrians most certainly would be. To exclude them is to backdate Kleindeutsch ideology into the 18th century. By the way, would we consider someone born in Freiburg im Breisgau or Konstanz in the same year as Mozart to be a German? Those cities are in modern Germany, but were then Habsburg territories. Mozart, on the other hand, was not even born in a Habsburg territory, and Salzburg was not part of the Austrian Circle of the HRE - it was in the Bavarian circle. I agree that Mozart's years in Vienna make him an Austrian, but a) he was originally from an area which was not at the time considered to be part of "Austria," and b) at the time of his birth, Austria was definitely considered to be equivalent to Bavaria or Saxony, not to Germany or France - that is, as a part of Germany, not as a separate country. On two counts, then, it is anachronistic to say that Mozart was "an Austrian" and not a German.

As to slipper slope arguments, I am dubious. I don't think anybody here has said that anybody from the Holy Roman Empire should be called a German. This is, obviously, absurd - the Holy Roman Empire was never equivalent to Germany, and there were always many non-Germans within it. That said, throughout its history, a German-speaker from within the Holy Roman Empire would have been considered a German, and it does not open any floodgates for us to acknowledge this. john k 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it does. By your logic, Austrian geography, politics, etc all needs to be discussed here, because it's a German-speaking former part of the HRE, and thus within the scope of the article as you're implicitly (or indeed pretty much explicitly) defining it in order to include Mozart. But that's not the intended scope of this article, which is the modern FRG. Maybe we should reverse the redirect and the article name just to make this that bit clearer... Alai 05:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

No, that is nonsense. Austrian stuff only should be discucssed in historical contexts, not in contemporary ones. As to this article being only about the FRG, that seems wrong. Obviously it is mostly about that, but it is absurd to decide that Germany consists only of the current territory of the FRG in historical contexts. By this argument, Kant was a Russian philosopher. As to reversing the redirect, that is absurd - Germany is more than the Federal Republic, which has only existed since 1949. The history section shows pretty clearly that this article is not just about the Federal Republic. I'd be interested to see an argument which explains why it's okay to call Kant a German, but not Mozart. Both spoke German; Both were from areas outside present-day Germany; neither was from an area ruled at the time by the Habsburgs; Mozart was from inside the Holy Roman Empire, Kant from outside it. It is simply Prussian/Kleindeutsch bigotry and anachronism that would make Mozart somehow not a German. john k 16:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Either that, John, or it's an Austrian fear of losing one of their greatest to the "Piefkes". But I stated time and again, it's not about denying Austria the heritage of Mozart. It's only including him one both sides of the border, since he belongs on both sides of the border.

Str1977 16:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, those can hardly be the only "PoVs" for not including Mozart as FRGish, since I'm neither an Austrian nor a Prussian. John, your argument above is certainly consistent: given that definition of "Germany" (i.e. a Grossdeutschland/pan-German one), I'd be insisting that Mozart be included too. However, this is not that article, as the first six words are: The Federal Republic of Germany is...; why else do you think Federal Republic of Germany does redirect here? If you want to change this, I'm pretty open to doing so, but let's be explicit that's what we're doing, and not just let it drift, piecemeal.

The history section discusses a) more than it should for any reasonable brevity, but necessarily b) the FRG's predecessor states (or meta-states) as that's the only possible way to say anything about the modern state's history. That does not mean that everything in the history of those is within the scope of this article by some sort of runaway transitive closure operation. Kant's case is completely different: East Prussia has no successor states in any meaningful sense (just other powers occupying its former territory), the HRE has two (for our purposes, obviously actually many more), of which it's pretty clear that Mozart falls on the "Austrian" side, not the "FRG" side. Alai 18:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The history is quite all right in its scope (though not necessary in giving details)

For the purpose of the paragraph in question, Mozart falls on both sides.

Str1977 17:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I assumed you were not Austrian, which is why I did not suggest that as a possibility. But I think that considering Austria as a separate country in the 18th century is clearly a product of the fact that what we got was Kleindeutschland, and that there's a strong tendency on the part of just about everybody, not just "Prussians," to read back Kleindeutschland into a period when the distinction doesn't make any sense. As to what this article is about - obviously, it is about the Federal Republic, but it is also about Germany as a larger entity. Since the two are, at present, generally considered identical, it makes sense to have Federal Republic of Germany redirect here. Beyond that, I'm not certain - it is a bit tricky. It might make sense to have separate articles for Germany and Federal Republic of Germany, as we already do for, say, Ireland and Republic of Ireland, and China and People's Republic of China (and Republic of China). This would also be useful because of the FRG/GDR issues between 1949 and 1990, and allow us to redirect West Germany to Federal Republic of Germany. john k 13:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Well surely "we're all Kleindeutschlanders now" in that sense, as we're indeed writing with the hindsight that that's how things panned out, and of course I agree that the contempoary perspective would have been very, very different. I think the current article is not in fact about both things, it's only about the FRG, but that's not a situation I'm indelibly wedded to: a "split", or "rescoping" would be feasible, and if there's a consensus for it, then fair enough. In the short term, this would pretty much amount to, move this article to FRG, and write a stubby/disambiguatory new one at "Germany" over the redirect, pointing people at the FRG article, vs. the broader historical articles, with some text around this. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? (It'd be overkill just to address Mozart, but there may be something to be said for it more generally. Or not, as the case may be.) Alai 17:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think such a split feasible - it would result in mostly identical pages, maybe on the FRG page with more focus on politico-socio-economical issues. Or your "stubby" example.

However, even if this page is about the FRG, Mozart is a part of the culture of the FRG - today. (Not as much as of the culture of Salzburg of course, but nonetheless a part.)

Str1977 17:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be feasible enough. I'd advise looking at how we deal with the China and Ireland articles before making a determination. The Germany article could focus on changing definitions of Germany and on the whole course of its history (and also on cultural subjects), while the Federal Republic of Germany article could focus more specifically on the Federal Republic, and only discuss the history of the Federal Republic (to the exclusion not only of earlier history, but of that of the GDR) in the History section. It would be the only one to discuss political issues, except that the Germany article would obviously mention that Germany is now considered equivalent to the Federal Republic, and link to that. (I wrote a longer response before, which I accidentally lost due to stupidity, but I do remember noting that there are some significant differences between the other examples and that of Germany, most notably that today Germany is considered to be equivalent to the Federal Republic, which is not the case of China or Ireland, but I think that this is only something which we must take into account, not something which damns the whole project. Let me also add that, yes, there would obviously be a fair amount of overlap, but that this is not necessarily harmful - there is frequent overlap among wikipedia articles. So long as we are clear on why there is overlap, this is fine. There are obviously some instances when overlap is a result of two different people working on basically the same subject under different titles - for a while, and possibly still, this was true of Prussia and Kingdom of Prussia, for instance - but that would not be the case here.) john k 01:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I may well be wrong, but wasn't the Holy Roman Empire called "Holy Roman Empire of German nations" at that time?NightBeAsT 20:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right Nightnbeast, from approx. the 15th century onwards the HRE received the tag "of the German nation" (no plural s), since it had lost most of its Italian and Burgundian territories. May I add again that the Archbishop of Salzburg bears the honorary title of "Primas Germaniae"?

Luis, Mozart certainly belongs there, because all of the above, because he's (one of the) greatest and because of his influence on subsequent German classical music (Beethoven, "reform" of the opera, German-language libretto) Str1977 20:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

As I stated above, this issue is that much disputed that I am only willing to accept Mozart here, if somebody offers a serious authority for him being German or Austrian-German. The point is that every lexikon, encyclopedia or other serious source (like MSN encarta, ...) cites him as Austrian and not German nor Austrian-German. Themanwithoutapast 19:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Again this is not the Mozart entry, so we don't have to solve that problem as you suggest. This is the Germany entry, with a culture section and into that he belongs.

Unfortunately, he didn't give any sources, but someone at the German wiki talk page on Mozart said the called himself "teutsch".

Str1977 19:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't get your argument. This is an article on Germany, why should we include everyone without needing to prove that he or she is German? And besides, it does not matter what Mozart called himself. If he called himself British or Rumanian it would not matter as long as he really should be considered British or Rumanian. And you have not cited any encyclopedia or other source that cites him as German -> however I and others HAVE cited sources that he can only be considered Austrian. And once again by including Austrians in an article on Germany you are insulting Austrians, I hope you know that (like you would insult an American if you count George Washington (who was a member of the British Army) as British or Wilhelm Tell a German instead of a Swiss) Themanwithoutapast 19:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

So I'll try again.

You seem to suggest that we have to put M either in the German box or in the Austrian box or into some mish-mash box. But we don't have to. We might have to in a M entry, but not in the Germany entry or in the Austria entry.

Now you claim it doesn't matter what he thought himself to be?

Well, if he claimed to be Chinese while being from Salzburg, he'd be wrong and no one would argue about it. But in reality, his self-perception and the facts do match.

Sorry I can't cite a source (for a thing that IMHO is really so obvious), but you did not cite sources "that he can only be considered Austrian", only that he can be considered Austrian, that it is common to consider him Austrian, that it is right to consider him Austrian. And no one disputes this. But now you claim that he only can be considered Austrian - but your sources don't provide that.

So now we have come down to the real issue. You, and I suppose your from Austria, consider it an insult when M is included on the Germany page? It is neither an insult (and if it were facts are still facts) nor is anyone here trying to take him away from Austrians.

Again, the Washington example does not hold the parallel (Virginia never was part of Britain), and yes, if Tell is a real historical person, he should be considered both German and Swiss - that he is the national hero of Switzerland and not of Germany is clear.

BTW, is Rudolf I a German, an Austrian, or Swiss?

Str1977 19:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

And I'll try again too. There are 3 different countries today that share a common past but are now distinct from each other. These countries are Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Neither of these countries is the successor of the "country" we are now imprecicly calling "Germany" that existed up to the 19th century, all 3 are just sub-sets of this conglomerate country. The fact that the Germany of today kept the name "Germany" does not change this reality - I think this discussion would not be necessary if in 1871 Prussia would have pressed for the name "Prussion federation" or some other name, but apparently it did not - however it was clear that the German Empire of 1871 was not the successor of the HRE. The point remains, after one huge conglomerate falls apart, national heros or other national figures should be divided among the now separate countries - the same goes for situations in the aftermath of Austria-Hungary or the Soviet Union.

Some sources that state him solely as Austrian:

• MSN encarta
• the literacy encyclopedia
• Catholic Encyclopedia
• Encyclopedia.com
• Encyclopedia Britannica citing him as "Austrian composer"

P.S.: yes Virginia was part of the GB, it was a colony of the UK when Washington was born there in 1732. He had british citizenship and served in the British army. Nevertheless he is not cited as American-British freedom fighter or British freedom fighter. P.S.S.:If Mozart should be labeled "German" solely because he was part and had influence on German culture, should we include Bach, Kant, Goethe and Schiller as "Austrians" because they had a large influence on Austrian culture? So, once again, I demand to see some serious authority that Mozart can be labelled a "German". Themanwithoutapast 20:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Man. None of your sources claim (if they did, they'd be wrong, but they don't) that M can only be called Austrian. Most of them just call him an "Austrian composer" and I have no objection. But this is not the M entry, it is the Germany entry. We don't have to pigeonhole him exclusively on either side. As for Washington: Virginia was not part of Britain, it was a British colony. And even if Washington were British by these circumstances, his participation in the rebellion would have "removed the Britishness from him". He could not be labelled a "British freedom-fighter", but from the Brit POV only a "British traitor". But, if you want to draw that parallel, when did M rebel against Germany. And in his time, Austria was part of Germany, hence your proposal on Bach etc doesn't work. But bach was both Saxon and German, Kant both Prussian and German, Goethe both Frankfortian (and Weimarian) and German, Schiller both Württembergian (and Weimarian) and German. And M was both Salzburgian, and Austrian, and German. Str1977 20:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

They need not state that he was only an Austrian composer, because in all those articles it is not even mentioned that he could be labelled a "German". Once again I demand that you come up with a serious source that labelles Mozart a German OR that all Austrians during the time of the HRE should be labelled Germans (this is what you in fact suggest). And once more the Germany of the past is not Germany of the present (Why do you never respond to this - it is true by the way...). And even more, have you even read the sentence you are inserting "Mozart" all the time: it reads: "Germany was the birthplace of... Mozart" - that even you should realize to be wrong, his birthplace would have to be either HRE or Salzburg, but definitely not "Germany". Themanwithoutapast 20:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

http://www.artsjournal.com/letters/20030808-7143.shtml http://douweosinga.com/blog/0308/2003Aug09_1

They need not do this, because they are not interested in this "possession" game. But neither do they support your claim that M is only Austrian.

No, I don't advocate calling them all German, I'm not advocating calling M German on his page. But all these Austrian (of that period in question) you talk about are by implication Germans as well, just like all Bavarians of that period, or all Saxons of that period, or (for a shorter time) all Swiss.

No I haven't noticed someone changed the opening sentence. It wasn't there when this all started and should be changed back. But in M's time Salzburg was in fact in Germany, despite your ahistorical protestations, and definitely not in Austria.

If you can demand, I can do that too: What about Rudolf I?

Str1977 20:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add a compromise, although it will probably please no one. Stratton 21:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)--

Made a minute change on Stratton's version. If it stays that way and opposition ceases, I am content. Str1977 21:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I accept the compromise, can live with that. However one last remark about your two "serious authorities" Str1977, you were just joking, were you? Themanwithoutapast 23:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I mean you don't think this "joke" has some validity? The Austrians have no right to complain about the Germans claiming Mozart as one of their own. I'm in Austria right now. Two days ago I heard a prominent Austrian claim that Hitler was German and Beethoven was Austrian. Whatever makes you sleep well at night, right? Your first "serious source"

Should we really start to discuss if Beethoven, who lived nearly all his "creative life" in Austria, is an Austrian-German (that noone asserts in contrast to the "Austrian-German Mozart"-allegations) or that Hitler was not Austrian (what noone asserts either), although he gave up his Austrian citizenship in 1925 and lived nearly all his "creative life" (<- this is meant ironically) in Germany? Well as I said, I can live with the compromise, but I am starting to think whether I should add Beethoven to the article on Austria, what do you think? Themanwithoutapast 23:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be perfectly appropriate to mention Beethoven in the articles on Austria and Vienna, just as it would be appropriate to mention Goethe and Schiller in the articles about Saxe-Weimar, Thuringia, and the city of Weimar. john k 01:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anon edits, and History (again)

I've reverted the recent edits by our resident anon, as they seem to be entirely concerned with (re-)establishing a POV. I also gave serious consideration to removing the somewhat-less-recent addition of a whole new subsection in the ever-expanding History section, "Restoration and liberal opposing forces". This strikes me as vastly over-detailed for a general overview of history (we're back up to over 2200 words), but I'm open to other views on this. Alai 16:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Please could you stop with your obsession with the length of the History section? This discussion is getting really boring, and it is disrupting the article to boot. The History section is quite long, yes, but the article itself is not. As long as this page does not reach the 55KB, I would stop fussing about History. The section "Restoration and liberal opposing forces" (which was *not* added by me, btw) may be too detailed for your personal obsession, but it's a very good piece, well written and well informed. I wish you would make similar contributions, Alai, instead of just discussing about what to delete next. - Heimdal 16:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you apply your words to yourself, and stop fussing about the History section; let others have a chance to keep it at a reasonable length. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, I'm perfectly well aware of who added that section -- why do you assume I'm making any accusations about you? In fact until this point, I thought you were due some credit for your restraint in not reverting to the yet-longer-still version of the History section. I'm sorry you find my attempts to get this article to a reasonable length and stylistic conformance "obsessive", "tedious" and "boring", but aside from your personal preferences I've seen no arguments against their validity. For my part, I'd be very glad if you'd desist with the incivility, and threats to resume your revert-warring. Alai 19:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If this tedious discussion about shortening History/the article/whatever continues, I'm ready to do my piece of civil disobedience here, and to revert the page once a day. Don't say you haven't been warned. - Heimdal 17:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning; others, of course, may be forced to adopt the same tactic, so I suggest simply working things out in Talk: instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The "Restoration and liberal opposing forces" covers a large part of the history of Germany in the 19th century which is very important to understand German history. It is really not a good idea to jump from the HRR to the German Empire of 1871. Why does Alai insist on deleting relevant material? What is his aims? Why does he edit this article? He seems only obsessed with deleting things and destroying other people's work. --83

It is very disturbing that Alai again removes the reference to the at least 7 million Germans killed in the war, including at least 3 million civilians murdered by the Allies. This article is about Germany, and should thus concentrate on Germany and the Germans. It is outrageous to delete this information while keeping a lot of information (completely out of proportions when compared to the US, UK, Belgium, France or Israel) of alleged wrongdoings by the Germans which really doesn't have much with Germany of today or the political-cultural history of Germany which the history section concentrates on to do. I am so tired of the constant vandalism of this page and have reverted to my version, and I will continue to do so until the vandalism stop. --83

I also repeat for the 5th time or something that state politics of Saxony belongs in the Saxony article. When the NPD are elected at national level they may be included in the national article. And the election results of the NPD does not belong under "social issues" in any case, that is POV. --83

It seems pointless leaving messages for 83.109.* on his ever-changing anon talk page, so I'll comment here: his characterisation of my edits as "vandalism" is extremely obnoxious and uncalled-for (and likewise the description of others' as such). Note for one thing that I wasn't the first to try to remove those particular POV-insertions (it'd be pleasant to imagine I'd be the last to have to do it).

On the content: the issue isn't the information about number of deaths, it's about the shamelessly POV tone and context they're being put in. Alai 05:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, can someone at least fix the spelling errors that "83" keeps adding, and reverting back in? Alai

I currently don't have the time to edit Wikipedia (I've got guests). But on Wednesday I intend to continue with my work of restoring deleted parts. My piece of civil disobedience would amount to a max of 1 revert/24 hours, if necessary, which would hardly qualify as an edit war. Also when reverting I'd make sure to save other edits. But since I'm not autistic I will continue to discuss here regardless of what happens.

Heimdal, I have no idea what your current beef is. My comments in this section were directed to 83.109.*, and to Nightbeast. Are you now declaring that you're going to revert to their versions now, as well as/instead of your own? Please note that I did not edit the latter's text (tempted though I was), and you've made more complaints about the former than anyone else, so it's extremely unclear what you're objecting to. Alai 15:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

PS to 83.109.xxx.xx.: but you have to admit that your stubborn refusal to log in is a bit odd. Do you have something to hide, 83.109.xxx.xx.? - Heimdal 09:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

As 83.109 continues to revert to his own version of the article without consideration for other's inputs or even proper spelling, it might be time to move for an IP ban, as this is essentially vandalism. Stratton 10:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)--

I have repaired the article while considering other's inputs between vandalism and my edits 40-50 times over the last years. I'm tired of the vandalism and I'm tired of putting exactly the same things in again and again, and have no obligation to continue to spend my time on this when other people continue to vandalize. People should not edit a vandalized version in the first place. Anyway, it's rather time to ban you I believe. --83

I'm aware that it's frustrating to have to incorporate other's edits rather than a blanket revert. However, because of the continuing edit wars on this article, it looks like scheiß. Therefore, I ask you to only edit the sentences and sections you have a problem with, so this article can make some progress in terms of grammar and style. I don't completely disagree with some of your content, but I very much disagree with your method. If we talk about agitators, we should probably also mention the Red Army Faction. The significant increase in neo-Nazi related crimes is important to mention, for, at the very least, every reader of the page is going to wonder about it. It may be worth mentioning that the current government considers the NDP to be a serious threat to the country. I'm divided on the question of including expulsion casualties (although your numbers are too high, see the actual article), however Poland's and the Soviet Union's annexations were not unilateral, it was agreed upon by the Allies, and the Germans had agreed to unconditional surrender. Stratton 20:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)--

Just to clarify: Annexing occupied territory is against the international laws of war, specifically the Hague conventions. The annexations were clearly unilateral as they were not accepted by Germany. The military surrender of the German army has nothing to do with this, the final peace treaty was first signed after the end of the cold war. And my numbers are absolutely correct. Between 2 and 3 million civilians died during the expulsion (the Federation of Expellees may offer some detailed casualities) and additionally did some hundreds of thousands die because of Allied bombing, especially in Dresden and Hamburg.

Also, the NPD is not officially a nazi party, and we should be careful about labelling them as such. Comparable parties, some even of much greater importance, exists in Austria, France, Britain and most other European countries. I also find it inappropriate to only mention right-wing extremism and not left-wing extremism. In Germany, left-wing extremism and violence has been a much larger problem for the last 60 years. --83

I have made some changes to the social issues section to give a more balanced view of political turmoil. The writing could defnitiely use some work. I don't know much about the expulsions in particular. It looks like the numbers on casualties are highly debated on the specific article page, which probably means we should keep the discussion of those numbers on that page, or use some vague word like "many". Stratton 22:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)--

I certainly agree they were "not accepted by Germany" (until much later, well after the fact), but that doesn't make them "unilateral", especially as it it was done in the broad context of the Allies "carving up Europe", as DS says, giving it at least a degree of multilateralism (which isn't to say, legitimacy as such). My main objection is to these edits is the insistence that the expulsions be characterised as "brutal", etc, which seems dsistinctly POV an excessive, in the context of WW2. I don't disagree that the Red Army Faction etc should be mentioned, I just thinking that parallel formulae mentioning "right-wing and left-wing extremism" and such like are misleading in that they give an undue impression of some sort of equivalence or symmetry. Alai 17:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

Though the expulsions certainly were brutal, I agree that "brutal" shouldn't be included in a encyclopedia (except if one wanted to contrast with the words of the Potsdam conference with the facts, but that certainly exceeds the focus of this entry)

I agree that the carving up was "mulilateral" is correct (as well as your doubts about legitimacy)

As for the symmetry question: I don't think it's wrong to use "right-wing and left-wing extremism", depending on the context and subject of course. Right-wing extremism is more than just Nazis or Neo-Nazis. However, as regards the NPD specifically, Neo-Nazi is in place.

Str1977 17:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The point is that there were two legal subjects here: the occupied country and the occupiers. The occupiers annexed occupied territory which was not recognized by the occupied country. Thus the annexations were unilateral, because only recognized by one of the parties. The opinion of the occupiers allies etc. has no relevance. --83

If your edits keep being reverted again and again, perhaps you should consider that there is a problem with them. Why was it again that you continue to refuse to get yourself a userid? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

If we consider the legitimacy of the post-war border changes, then we should also mention and define the unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945. Halibutt 18:32, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The military (not political) surrender has nothing to do with this, and does not justify illegal and criminal actions like annexation of occupied territory. --83

Nope. It was an unconditional surrender of the German state, not only the Wehrmacht. And it was clear to all people involved, especially that the surrender of state of Germany was one of the aims of the war, frequently expressed by all Allied leaders during most of the wartime conferences. Halibutt 06:26, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

To my German friends

Dear German friends. Please see what do polish nazis on Talk:Disputed territories of Baltic States, Talk:Eastern Vilnius region, Talk:Vilnius region, Talk:Vilnius, Talk:Pomerania, Talk:Gdansk, Talk:Goldap, Podlasie -> history of the article, Talk:Podlasie Voivodship, Sarmatism -> history of the article. Friend of Germany from Lithuania. Zivinbudas 09:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Zivinbudas and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Zivinbudas and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zivinbudas. Halibutt 10:04, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Please see his user page (Halibutt) and you will see who is polish nazi. Once this immature polish nazi wrote: "I hate German names of polish cities". I think nothing to add. The best wishes to German people from Vilnius, Lithuania. Zivinbudas 11:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

WHAT?! Sources please. And apology for calling me a Nazi. Now. Halibutt 11:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

See User Talk:DeirYassin -> Sandomierz and other similar issues, you immature polish nazi. Zivinbudas 11:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice you've quoted the context as well.. As I see you're not willing to apologise. Your business, not mine. BTW, you have been unblocked, so you might as well finally log in and take part in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Zivinbudas. Unless of course you want to be permanently blocked by the "polish nazi administrators". Halibutt 12:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Go better to eat flaki, you polish joker. 85.206.192.187 12:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

can we have this idiot blocked, soon, please? dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sharap slavic monkey. Go better to read Semerenyi (1957) - the only book which you read in your life (and which you use as manual for your "administration"). 85.206.194.158 11:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now take your Prozac and cool down, OK? - Heimdal 13:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you exclusive distributor of that in Monkeyland, sorry poland? 85.206.192.221 13:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restoration ... section

Dear Nightbeast, some thoughts:

"the princes ..." - they are all princes, even the Kings, even the Emperor - monarchs is usually considered to be equivalent, thoug historically very few of the princes were monarchs.Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

To me a prince is usually the son of a royal family but NOT king. If I'm wrong here, and monarch really doesn't fit (better), revert the term please.NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Since I see from below that you are German, I can give you the German term: "Prince" in English means "Fürst", not just "Prinz" as in German. Princes are generally all rulers with a claim of their own (below are counts and barons). Of course Kings are higher than mere princes, but in the end they are princes too. Orginally, the King was the prince, before he delegated princely power to others.

Monarch in the early modern period orignally meant one ruler governing several countries, e.g. the Habsburg monarchy. But of course it can be used like you did as well. I only think "prince" is more common.

Str1977 23:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"... the liberals' demands ..." - I thougt that was enough (consider concise wording and brevity), also the princes yielding only to the liberals, not to more radical views.Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The general view was that of the liberals, which is not necessarily the case with revolutions. Without saying that the general demands were equal to the demands of the liberals allows the assumption that the revolutionaries had wanted different demands in general and the governments only supported liberal reforms to have the liberals, who might not have been involved in the revolution at all, back them so the governm would have a great percentage of the population side with it. What needs to be added for clarification is just one word ...NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"demise of the parliament and the revolution in general" - again, I think this is enough for this entry page, also "sanguinary" is quite odd.Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think mentioning the violent outcome of the revolution in one word is worth it under all circumstances. What should it be? "Violent", "bloody", "murderous"?NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Your "Yet the liberals' ideas were to remain rooted in people's consciousness." is not really true, given the course German history took after this. I'm just stating facts, not passing judgements. Your phrase would be true for the French people during that time, but not for the German people.Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The following conflict with the parliament was due to the parliament. It had mainly liberal views. Also, like I mentioned, the flag, anthem and motto of Germany in the Weimarer Republic and today are those of the liberals at that time. How you wrote it, it almost sounded as if the revolution hadn't changed anything.

"The revolution was despite its failure of great siginificance for the history of Germany.

1. Along with the draft for the fundamental right and constitution, a parliamentary tradition in Germany was founded, to which was always relied on in 1871, 1918/19 and after 1945.
2. A basis for a political spectrum of parties was founded, which was to develop in the following periods.
3. Through the failure of the revolution revolutionary forces broke through in Prussia and Austria, which were to determine the politics in the following decades.
4. The national foundation of the Empire came "from above" (<-on the part of the state, not common people)
5. The bourgeoisie retreated from political participation and developed economical interests, yet the liberal product of the mind remained alive "

Poorly translated, I know. From "Abi Geschichte pocket teacher".NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't just revert the changes on Bismarck. The previous text was not completely accurate.Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

So was the other but it made mention of the fact that Germany was a great nation at that time, which is almost an understatement. It was a (if not the?) leading economic power and Bismarck needed to assure very often that Germany didn't want any more annexions. The country's power destroyed the balance of powers in Europe. The wealth in the period was one reason why the people wanted a leader back, not the weimarer republic's poverty. You also removed "decades". I think it needs to be added, especially because a lot of other actions in this and particularly in the following sections only covered one or two years. I wouldn't say Germany's actions were unexpected but imperialism creates mistrust. Germany was seen as obnoxious (and threatening on account of its power), not unexpected.NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As for her - I'm not the first to use it, it's on the page further above too, and it is correct in English to refer to (most) countries as "she" or "her".Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that was me- he, she or it? In French and Spanish: 'she'. 'It' works too though. Just as I'm interested: is 'Deutschland' gendered or neuter in German? Rednaxela 19:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hestitate to answer this, since I'm sure I'm contender for worst German language skills on this page, but as it's not been answered: grammatically neuter, is my understanding, as are most countries (with a few exceptions either say). Poetically, isn't G. masculine, if anything, given Vaterland? (Though that word's neuter, too.) Then again there's (Die) Heimat... In any event, I'm in the "it" camp for English usage, as using "she" for countries, trains, etc, is far from standard, and could be seen as somewhat flowery, rather than encyclopaedic, language. Alai 03:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right. In German, Deutschland is of neutral gender, as can be exemplified by the sentence "Das vereingigte Deutschland (the unified Germany)". Often, the country calls itself die Bundesrepublik (the Federal Republic), which is feminine. But in general, and for our purposes, "it" should be used. Luis rib 10:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Luis is right. In German Deutschland is neuter and nowadays basically all countries are. But this is in the English language. (See below for that.)

Str1977 15:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm against personifications of countries. It is a rhetorical figure and sounds nationalistic, which I'm definitely not a supporter of.{I'm off for today and tomorrow}NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's (necessarily) nationalistic. It's common in English to use the female form for most countries and I support everything that retains grammatical gender in the English language. Str1977 23:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Every English-language encyclopaedia that I would know of (Britannica, Collier's), uses the word "it" for Germany and other countries. "She" is not necessarily nationalistic, but I think that it's more common to poetical language. Are you a poet, Str1977? - Heimdal 09:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I am a poet, but not now :-)

From my knowledge of English, the female form is common.

But I don't object to either "it" or "she"

Str1977 10:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nothing contemporary in America uses "she", except possibly in a poetic sense. Stratton 23:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)--

Well, America is not the center of the world. In England it is quite common to use she for a country (The Economist does it all the time), and "English" certainly refers to England, not to America. (Nevertheless, I am indifferent to the she/it question.) Luis rib 19:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

England is also not the centre of the world. The Economist tries very hard to be "poetical" and "intelligent" (don't get me wrong, it's a magazine I like very much), using unnecessary terms like "the middle kingdom" for China and such. As English isn't gendered anymore, it makes sense to use "it" to deal with objects. DirectorStratton 23:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Luis, I am coming from a more British English approach and generally write in that variety. If others are bothered, they are free to correct my spelling.

Just as you, I am basically indifferent to that question too, though in the end I like the "she" better (there's the poet lurking and also my "mourning" of the English language's loss of grammatic gender), but it doesn't bother me, if you put in "it".

Str1977 15:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Social issues

Hello there, I'm back. Regarding the contentious section about "Social issues", I'd like to say that it was originally added by User:Reboot, who also wrote the main article Social issues in Germany. The only things which I've added myself to the section were the reference to the NPD, plus one image of the German Constitution. Both the NPD reference and the image have repeatedly been removed by 83.109.xxx.xx. But I think that the NPD is a very relevant topic in Germany currently, so I think that it should be mentioned. I also intend to restore the image of the German Constitution. I hope the deletion squad will let it stay there this time. - Heimdal 09:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, why do you put the Grundgesetz under "Social Issues"? "Leagl System" makes considerably more sense. Neither the constitution nor constitutional reform are mentioned under social issues. Stratton 23:48, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)--

I was desperate to find a suitable image for the "Social issues" section. Unfortunately, the choice is very limited. So I copied the idea of the United States page to add an image of the Constitution. This also makes sense, in so far as many social issues are connected with the basic rights enshrined in the German Basic Law. - Heimdal 10:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS A good English version of the German Constitution can be found here. - Heimdal 10:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since Stratton has moved the GG image to the "Legal system", I've added a pic of Kreuzberg to "Social issues" (in the absence of something better). - Heimdal 13:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to give short shrift to the GG, I just wanted to move it to the appropriate section. I don't like the Social Issues section of the United States article. Some original author probably was talking about constitutional issues like gun control or a gay marriage amendment which has now been plowed over for the sake of brevity, while leaving the sacrosanct image intact (my very very vague guess). The social issues of the united states article covers entirely different points that the section of the United States article. Fixing the Social Issues section has been added to my "To Do List" although I hate to add more to an already full article. Stratton 00:35, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I hope I would be able to get through it in German, but thanks for the link. Stratton 00:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Talk page broken

Am I the only one who has a May 10 version of this page constantly as the "previous" version? This makes it 100% impossible to follow conversations. --Golbez 20:24, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's very annoying. I've been thinking of taking it to Village Pump, but the last time I did my issue was completely ignored. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've mentioned this hiccup some time ago, but nobody cared to do anything about it. Wilful manipulation? I don't know. But perhaps some knowledgeable person could fix it, thank you, because it is annoying (and it also looks very silly). - Heimdal 09:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the village pump several days ago, and seemingly it's an unresolved technical problem, and one that's also manifest elsewhere. Seeminglky no much to be done until it's fixed, generally. Alai

Looks like 1.5 fixed it. :) --Golbez July 4, 2005 10:30 (UTC)