Talk:Strasbourg/Archive 1

old talk

STRASBOURG EST L UNIQUE CAPITAL DE L EUROPE CONSULTE ET VISITE WWW.STRASBOURG.FR OU WWW.COE.INT. STRASBURG UNIC CAPITAL OF EUROPE STRASSBURG CAPITAL DER EUROPA ESTRASBURG L UNIQUE CAPITAL DE EURPOA ESTRASBURGO LA UNICA CAPITAL DE EUROPA STRASBURGO LA UNICA CAPITAL DE EUROPA

The roman name of Strasbourg is Argentoratum = Town of Silver. The German word Strass or Straß means cheap Silver. So, if u want to translate, call it Silver Town or Silver Castle. It has nothing to do with the german word Straße = road. I'm living in Strasbourg Region and people told me that.

As ist seems, Argentoratum is just a latinisation of the celtic Argentorate - meaning something like "place in the swamps" - which is a much better description than anything linked to silver. The name Strassburg already came up during the roman period and is said to come from "strateburgum", a latin form saying nothing else than the german word: street - fort. That´s what "my guide book" says! But please check the details - I don´t have it with me! The region is "crawling" with false information - or "omissions" - when it comes to history! The only silver I ever heard of in the region is that of the "Silver Valley" (Val d´Argent, Sainte Marie aux Mines) about 50 km south west in the Vosges. I do not think it could have been the origin of the name of a place on the river at that time... Strasbourg is not only called "Capitale de l´Europe" but also "Carrefour (crossroads) de l´Europe". This is still very close to the "obvious" meaning of "Strass(e)-" "Bourgh". I only know "Strass" (with a short "A") as the false jewelry sewed on decorated dresses (also in French) - Never heard of it as silver...(?) but maybe this is the origin. In Summer time the municipality regularly organizes a public summer event called the "Nuits de Strass" (Nights in strass) playing with the double meaning. - I am living in the city (part time).Stephele

Strasbourg is the Parliamentary capital of the EU, and Brussels the Administrative capital. Thus Strasbourg calls itself, rightly IMO, the democratic capital of the EU. Strasbourg is also the capital of Europe as a whole, being the site of the Council of Europe. --Pgreenfinch 22:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid that I must agree with Alba on this one. Brussels, Belgium is much more likely to be considered the capital of the European Union rather than Strasbourg. Both cities are clearly contesting each other for the title "Capital of the EU." Housing the European Commission and the European Council (amongst other EU institutions), Brussels houses the most powerful of the 3 decision-making institutions. Most of the Parliament's work is also conducted in Brussels; Strasbourg being only used for the large plenaries which arguably only sign off on the work already done in Brussels. Many in the EU would say that the only reason why Strasbourg is maintained as seat of the EU Parliament is because certain Member States have a vested interest in keeping some activities in Strasbourg. This is evident by the recurring discussions to move all EU Parliament facilities to Brussels rather than maintain a continued and costly transfer of activities between Brussels and Strasbourg once per month. I believe this phrase in this article should acccordingly be removed, revised or at least a disclaimer should be added to make it clear that this isn't a view shared by all EU citizens. (see Brainbridge T. (2002) The Penguin Companion to European Union, p. 32)- Kimmetje

Alba> There is no such thing as one european capital, as everything isn't located in an unique town regarding the EU (neither Strasbourg nor Brussels). European Union had three capitals: Brussels (BE), Luxembourg (LU) and Strasbourg (FR) (Luxembourg for Justice Court. Also houses the administrative office of European Parliament). Page about European Parliament has a clear explanation about that (see Location paragraph). There won't be a consensus for a few decades and there are countless things that aren't "shared by all EU citizens" (though countless others are shared). -Felipe[1]

this is so cool! you can comment on an online encyclopedia!!

Strasbourg Goat Tests

I am looking for information about the infamous "Strasbourg goat tests" where 600-some goats were supposedly shot with various calibers of ammunition to determine caliber lethality. It is believed by many to have never happened, but I was thinking that people who knew something about strasbourg might know something about these tests, alleged or otherwise. Any information would be great. Thanks! JudgeX 16:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New Infobox Template proposition

I'd like to bring your attention to a new - or other - version of the "Large French Cities" infobox presently at use in a few French cities pages. The present version is much too large, partly because it consecrates too much space to information having little importance to French demography and an only distant and indirect relevence to the city itself. Instead I propose to follow a less cumbersome model closer to that used by the New York City article - you can view the new version in the Paris talk page here. Please view and comment. THEPROMENADER 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A result of some discussion over the past weeks, there is an updated template available for perusal in its 'published ' form (filled with data) here - all comments welcome. -- THEPROMENADER 07:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Get with it

What the heck are you Europeans doing over there? Why does it take an American living in Japan to make these basic corrections? Stop goofing around and lets get some work done! The "show preview" button is an amazing tool. Use it some time, eh? Naerhu 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep it quiet Naerhu, you really haven't done such a great job that day. RCS 11:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, you know my corrections were essential for a tight page. Admit it, you love my corrections. And it should be "you really didn't do such a great job that day." Love, Naerhu 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why, anyway, i've done a better job than you on this page. Cheers, RCS 15:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sometimes regarded as the capital of Europe"

The section Strasbourg#European role needs to be cleaned up a bit:

1. It partially duplicates the final paragraph of Strasbourg#History. In fact there's a fair bit of duplication all-around. For example, the article states no less than four times that the European Court of Human Rights is in Strasbourg.
2. The statement "Strasbourg is sometimes regarded as the capital of Europe as a whole" is unsourced and in any event not really accurate. At most, it would be fair to say that Strasbourg is sometimes regarded as one of the capitals of Europe along with Brussels, Frankfurt, and perhaps Vienna (HQ of the OSCE). The paragraph talking about "the democratic capital of the European Union" should be deleted; it's just a long-winded way of saying that the EU Parliament meets there.
3. The reference to France and Germany "discussing" creation of a Eurodistrict should cite a source and give some indication of what it would mean to get Eurodistrict status.

--Mathew5000 01:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

eatrasburgo

estrasburgo cuenta con 280 000 habitantes la comunidad urbana de estrasburgo cuenta con 465 000 habitantes y l eurodistrict de strasbourg-ortenau con aerea metro son 1 060 000 habitantes el eurodistrict es cus+area metro franco alemana. es la unica capital de europa (el continente no solo la ue).

estrasburgo ......strasbourg.

estrasburgo cuenta con 280 000 habitantes la comunidad urbana de estrasburgo cuenta con 465 000 habitantes y l eurodistrict de strasbourg-ortenau con aerea metro son 1 060 000 habitantes el eurodistrict es cus+area metro franco alemana. es la unica capital de europa (el continente no solo la ue).

Weasel tag for European role

"Sometimes Strassbourg is regarded as" definitely needs a weasel tag. In normal English sometimes is used as 'Formerly; sometime. [Obs.]' or ' At times; at intervals; now and then;occasionally'. When? On Saturdays? Every second Friday of the month? What the author wanted to write is 'Some people', but since that is a weasel clause', he couldn't. I definitely want to know either:

- On which occasion it is regarded as.. - OR: By whom it is regarded as..

Otherwise, this is a weasel sentence.

First seat

"First seat" is ambigious. Is it the primary seat of the EP or the place where they first met? If it is the former, it is open to discussion, if it is the latter, it should be clarified.

It is the only seat of the European Parliament, no "first seat" or anything. The EP in addition has two other working places, in Luxembourg and in Brussels. No different than millions of other organisations who have a seat in location X, and working locations in many other places. I dont understand why people constantly try to confuse this very simple issue. I personally think, and many people agree, that it would be very dangerous for the European Union to further centralize and TRANSFER the seat of Strasbourg to Brussels. Logically, to save money, Parliament should get out of Brussels and only be in Strasbourg (and Luxembourg if necessary but that is not a big problem).

Everybody, including anti-Strasbourg people, agrees the main problem of the EU is its democratic deficit. How will further centralisation in a city constantly critiqued as the city of "Eurocrats" (unfairly so, I agree, but it is not our fault and that wont change) will help Europe be closer to its citizens??? In addition, I cannot understand how it is possible that the greatest opponents of centralisation in general and of a centralised Europe in particular, or of a European Super State (the British, the Scandinavians, the Liberals, the Greens) are also the ones who want to centralise Europe by transfering the seat of Strasbourg to Brussels? It is completely contradictory and it is a major blow to their credibility and political honesty. At the very least, they have some major explaining to do, but they never address that contradiction. Frankly, I am not surprised ;-). My opinion is that they are more concerned with short-term issues of personal comfort, than of the building of a strong Europe for decades to come, much beyond their own personal mandates.

Final point, Strasbourg is a well known symbol of political reconciliation between peoples, which is still a very needed concept in today's conflict-ridden world. Whereas a majority of Flemish-speaking Belgians want to secede from Belgium, thus making Belgium the most probable member of the EU for a future breakup. How ironic then to want to transfer the European Parliament from the city most symbolic of political reconciliation to the one most symbolic of political disunity?

And if people dont believe me that Strasbourg is STILL a relevant symbol of reconciliation today, then maybe they will believe John Hume, who won the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize for his contribution to the peace process in Northern Ireland http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1998/hume-lecture.html

"In my own work for peace, I was very strongly inspired by my European experience. I always tell this story, and I do so because it is so simple yet so profound and so applicable to conflict resolution anywhere in the world. On my first visit to Strasbourg in 1979 as a member of the European Parliament. I went for a walk across the bridge from Strasbourg to Kehl. Strasbourg is in France. Kehl is in Germany. They are very close. I stopped in the middle of the bridge and I meditated. There is Germany. There is France. If I had stood on this bridge 30 years ago after the end of the second world war when 25 million people lay dead across our continent for the second time in this century and if I had said: "Don't worry. In 30 years' time we will all be together in a new Europe, our conflicts and wars will be ended and we will be working together in our common interests", I would have been sent to a psychiatrist. But it has happened and it is now clear that the European Union is the best example in the history of the world of conflict resolution and it is the duty of everyone, particularly those who live in areas of conflict to study how it was done and to apply its principles to their own conflict resolution."

Now do you think he ever could have felt this way if the EP had been in Brussels??? Think now of the "good" example which Belgian politics might give to our Balkan friends as they enter the EU, instead of the incredibly inspiring example that Strasbourg gives. Just for that reason, to inspire people to reconciliation rather than strife, it would be worth to keep the EP in Strasbourg.

And if money is an issue, then the best is to transfer all Brussels EP activities to Strasbourg, that will save the European taxpayer billions of Euros probably (the cost of buildings in Stbg is one third that of the Bx buildings, and Bx had to destroy historical districts, was sued by a local city council etc. etc., an incredible tale of waste and probably major corruption, as shown by the German magazine Stern)

Strasbourg is the supranational capital of democracy, human rights and reconciliation. To transfer the European Parliament to the bureaucratic capital that Brussels is, surely would rank as one of the most short-sighted political decisions ever taken, and would probably fatally weaken the ability of Europe to promote democracy and human rights in the world at large, hence unnecessarily condemning millions of people to lives of misery. democracyengineer 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I have now provided sources for the Eurodistrict (its official website, actually, with all facts and figures) and the churchillian origin of the Council of Europe. RCS 10:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the English version of Churchill's 1946 speech: [2]. It does not mention Strasbourg at all, so it does not belong in this article. --Mathew5000 21:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Language

What language or languages are spoken by the residents of Strasbourg? Give the city's history, shouldn't this be included in the article?

Sca 20:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --193.170.62.26 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Saint-Pierre-le-Jeune fresco

Maybe somebody has an images of famous Saint-Pierre-le-Jeune fresco, which represents Europe`s states "march towards the cross"? M.K. 09:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

map placement of Strasbourg

On the map, the red circle indicating Strasbourg's position is slightly too far north.

Cleanup

I added that tag because 1) too many pictures throws off spacing. 2) we don't need to bold places. I will try to fix some but I want someone else to look at it before I remove the cleanup template gren グレン 16:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The German / French name dispute

Could the involved parties please take a deep breach, leave the nationalist retoric and name calling at the door and please discuss the issue calmly and rationaly here before this little spat over how prominent the German name of the town should be gets rely out of hand. I'd hate to have to protect the article over this. --Sherool (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I never though that following the rules would make classify me to the category of aryanist/nazi! I don't know whats wrong here , supposedly, i am being very nationalist and should not included the Alsatian, or German names because "its changing history." But for some background for everyone to examine here are some disscusions: on my talk page and here,and here, on RCS's talk page. -- Hrödberäht 18:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, aryanization was an excessive term, of course. I apologize. But obviously He of several names has been reverted quite often and by quite a lot of people on this kind of pan-germanic matter. Professing an admiration for Otto von Bismarck - a great man, for sure, but not for Strasbourg, which the prussian armies utterly bombed in 1871 - does make him very suspicious when emphasizing the german name and de-emphasizing the french. RCS 19:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I was born in North Dakota, Bismarck, to be precise(Guess who it's named after). Today, German is the second most spoken language in two states: North Dakota and South Dakota. And Many people around here speak it, which might be a factor for something, but i don't see what is so wrong with following the guidlines of wikipedia? And tell me how im "de-emphasizing" French relations with Strasbourg? -- Hrödberäht 20:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

And tell me how im "de-emphasizing" French relations with Strasbourg? By replacing "french language" with "phonetic alphabet" while boldening "german language". Der Teufel steckt im Detail. RCS 21:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The name is already mentioned in French, in fact, it's the first word of the article, so why put what it is in French again after its already been said once, hopefully everyone knows that Strasbourg is in France? -- Hrödberäht 22:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In 1997, before the UEFA cup soccer game Racing Club de Strasbourg vs. Liverpool FC, Liverppols goalkeeper David James answered to the question of what he did know about Strasbourg : "That it begins with an S. I thought it was in Germany !". Liverpool then actually lost 2:3 agg. Today, James is still goalkeeping, but also a regular columnist for The Guardian... RCS 07:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that User:R9tgokunks (aka Hrödberäht) has also "germanized" the names in the articles Alsace and Mulhouse, where he replaced the English names "Alsace" and "Mulhouse" with the German names "Elsaß" and "Mülhausen". I have de-germanized the names in these articles, but R9tgokunks may germanize them again, so please keep an eye on them. R9tgokunks has also germanized many other Alsace and Lorainne related articles, such as Neuf-Brisach, Wissembourg, Guebwiller, Marmoutier, etc., where he put the German names on top of the infoboxes, as if German was still an official language in Alsace, which is not the case (only French is official). The same user also made several POV edits, such as in the history section of the Metz article where he described the liberation of Metz by the French and US armies in 1944 as (I quote) "Metz was annexed in November 1944 by the France after a military take-over." Can someone do something about this user's misbehavior? Thanks. Godefroy 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true - German is no "official language" in Alsace, as anywhere else in France. Just as there isn´t any other language apart from French (no Corsican, no Catalan, no Basque, no Occitan, no Brittannic (?) ...)! - But it (they) should be!! It is not so much because these places once were German (or ruled by (some kind of) Germany) but because that Alsace and big stretches of Moselle are German(+French)-speaking that the German names - and especially the local dialect-forms - should be (and are - no?) mentioned in the articles. In fact France (the effective majority or the "undynamic" system) does recognize - officialy - that there are other (native - "autochtones") languages on its territory - but is extremely reluctant to give them an official status. German is officially recognized as the "langue régionale" of Haut Rhin, Bas Rhin and Moselle - in its two expressions: "Hochdeutsch" as the written form and the local alsatian and lorrain dialects as (mainly) the spoken form. The "Académie de Strasbourg", as representing local body of the ministry of education, has to treat German as such - and organise ("précoce" = early) bilingual education for a growing number of pupils. But thanks to their passivity they did not yet even reach ten% of each year´s pupils. The regional authorities in Corsica and (French) Basque Country are somewhat more dynamic (- but the number of pupils is lower...). There are a few more things to say about "not being official" in France. Civil servants in Alsace and Moselle get higher pay (until today as far as I know) if they speak German. - Not because they are better qualified but in order to give them recompensation for being potentially obliged to deal with citizens who do not speak proper French but only German (which are of cause quite rare these days)! This is an idea from 1919, when the re-take-over was quiet difficult of course, after nearly fifty years "of Germany" and there was a big need for "fonctionnaires" loyal to the "République" in order to replace the German (or German-educated) civil servants. It was brought back after WWII. In France election candidates have to provide a text presenting them and their program (called the "profession de foi" - like an oath of belief at the church) which is distributed to the voters in their constituency. In Alsace (and Moselle?) this text should be in French and German! Whereas everywhere else in France any other language is forbidden on official publications (and sometimes the "préfets" crack down on such papers!) the authorities in Alsace check if the versions cope - i.e. the German has to be an accurate translation of the French version (or vice versa if you really like), but only about contents - not when it comes to style. The former French secretary of education "Jack" Lang (PS) once said on a trip to Alsace:"German is a very beautyful French language." Unluckily most French (and especially Alsatian) politicians are much more "frileux" (afraid) to approach the matter that way. I won´t tell you how to approach the matter. I come from `Germany´. I am author in the German and Alemanic Wikipedia (sometimes also the French and exceptionally others) and the problem (in the German one - in Alsatian we do not have this kind of problem!) is working in another way there. - The Wiki is in the language of one version of the cities names! So we have to choose - either the "official" way - or "our" (should-be-official-too) language. There is nothing to choose here. I think, that even if Alsace had a correct satus - as South Tyrol f.i. - given the (French-Alsatian) situation, the French name should be the first one (internationally official). And it does no harm, if it is explained. But maybe you can find (consensual) ways of giving the "langue régional" some (near-equal) status. Like putting both names (if there are two) in the infoboxes (like it probably should be now in the case of Brittany where biligual name plates for towns are normal now as far as I know). That is just a suggestion. Quarreling about Nations does not help people in Alsace. But they don´t even know that bilinguality (like in Ireland or in Finland, in parts of Canada and Louisiana (?), in Biel/Bienne (Switzerland) or in Brussels) is possible. This is not just a matter of politics - but of information! Knowing about, and being conscious of bilingualitiy is an aim of education - and should have its place in Wikipedia!

And - without wanting to hurt Bismarckians - Bismarck was a great asshole! He made the damned guy who personnally spoiled (drowned in blood actually) our first chances of having democracy (of some kind) installed in "Germany" emperor and he is the culprit responsible of the first separation of Germany, which is still valid - and will of course remain so...!! :-((  ;-) --134.176.67.104 13:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Stephele from Deutschland - and Elsass

Didn´t sign...? Und was ist das bitte????: Stephele

German is NOT a regional language in Strasbourg, if you think so, then you are completely clueless and clearly haven't been there. All native Strasbourgeois speak french as their first language, some learn German as a second language. Once again, German is NOT a regional language, Alsatian is the regional language and is indeed a Germanic dialect. But hardly anyone in Strasbourg speaks it (it's more common in the countryside). You can't compare Alsace to Canada or Switzerland. Whether you like it or not, people in Alsace feel French and speak French whereas they do not feel German or for the most part speak German. There's no denying that we have Germanic names and all that, but that doesn't really mean anything. It's not because there are lots 0f Italian-Americans in New York with Italian names that Italian is a regional language over there.

Bravo! Encore un bel exemple de surnationalisme alsacien profrançais! Je me permettrais de vous citer à toutes les occasions données comme archetype de l'alsacien niant de toute force sa "vraie nature"! Dans ce sens là: puisque vous êtes si convaincu de ce que vous écrivéz, pourquoi ne le signez-vous pas au moins??? Short translation: This is a very nice exemple of another very "German" side of the "Alsatian nature": even french nationalism (and of the most primitive kind) is done with utmost German perfectionism! You think I haven't been there? - I live there!!! (...and I signed my text so you could easily have looked that up!) And - I`m sorry but - it rather seems to be you who is clueless. It is no idea of mine that German (Deutsch = (official) Hochdeutsch + dialect) is the regional language in Alsace but it is the Académie de Strasbourg which says so - and everybody there who really has a clue (i.e. local writers, teachers, professors and the people active defending the Alsatian biliguality (French/regional languange))! One thing is certain: I have been in Alsace often enough to know about people of your kind, so I know you really might be Alsatian! Luckily not everybody there is like that - and quite some really do speak Alsatian (even in the city) - as I do speaking to them after learning it (by hearing and "doing") which I found quite easy because: it is German! Which means I really had to learn it because I come from 400 km downstream from Strasbourg. If I was German from just across the river I would not have needed to learn it - I would have spoken "Alsatian" (or something very similar) as own regional dialect!!! The local dialects of Baden are nearly exactly the same... In fact I think you did not even read me - you do not answer to any of the examples of appearance of the regional language in its non-dialect form I gave! La prochaine fois essayez de discuter un peu "to the point"!!--87.178.141.109 22:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Stephele

Désolé, mais vous êtes un peu à côté de la plaque mon cher. To give you an example: try talking to someone in Alsatian in the tram in Strasbourg. Some people might be able to answer you, but everyone will look at you with wide eyes. A few old people still speak Alsatian, but it is (unfortunately, in my opinion) disappearing. The bilinguality programs have not really succeeded in reviving it. I agree that German is a HISTORICAL language of Alsace and that ALsace is culturally Germanic. Even a "supranationalist pro-French Alsatian" like me recognizes that. But today, whether we like it or not, Germanic culture is fading. And young Alsatians don't really care to revive it. FYI the names of streets in historical Strassburg are given in Alsatian (not German) as well as French. So while there's no denying that Alsace is Germanic in some respects, I think emphasizing bilinguality is pointless because local people (at least young people) don't really care and feel fully French (and for the most part speak fairly mediocre German and no Alsatian). Also, I'm not a "surnationaliste" or anti-German or anything of the sort. I fully understand that Alsace has a strong Germanic heritage and I believe that discussions on what Alsace "really" is are absurd. Alsace will be both French and Germanic at least for several more decades. But today, the trend is definitely towards being French and keeping Germany as a part of the region's history and an influence on its culture, which is why I feel emphasizing the German side of ALsace makes little sense.

PS: don't say that Alsatian is German. While I partly agree with you, I know that it would be insulting to some people who pride themselves on their regional identity;

AxelW 02:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)AxelW

"...à côté de la plaque"?? - Ah! Restez poli quand même, Monsieur!! :-))) OK, all right! - You are not French enough to keep polite - and you don´t want to discuss a bit more "to the point"... In fact I do not even understand what you want from me with your teachings about "German feelings" and "French feelings"! Did I write anything about such things? - Oh, I was trying to calm down the "pro-German" activities of some American wikipedian - but did I say anything about "feelings" in that context?. So I am not sure who is at the side of the "plaque" and who`s on - and what kind of "plaque" you are talking about. But if you are on it, then I am glad, I´m not!!

Some more things made me wonder if you really know what you are talking about! Like: "But hardly anyone in Strasbourg speaks it (it's more common in the countryside)"... We are still speaking about Alsace here, aren´t we? Are you sure you don´t mean Brittany (and Breton) or Provence (and Occitan)?? Whatever - I cannot leave all this rubbish unanswered, starting with the central piece-of-nonsense: "don't say that Alsatian is German - it would be insulting to some people"! - Well... that's sad! But: truth hurts, sometimes!

It is "Germanic", you say? - A "Germanic" Dialect? - You mean "Germanic" like Faröisk... or old Icelandic?? "FYI": I do speak French! - And I know the word "germanique" and its meaning helping to differentiate among things nationally and culturally "German" (deutsch). I of course learnt it after the first (natural) misunderstandings because (as in French when it comes to things described by the word "français") there is no such differentiation about the word "deutsch" in the German language. But I must remind you of one thing: we are talking English here, not French! "Germanic" in English does not have this same connotation, the same meaning altogether as "germanique" (French)! And your strange attempt to import the French meaning of this word into English makes obvious the difficulty of this way of speaking even in French: it establishes the idea that there is a division between Alsatian and German, that there is another distinction between the two than the "national" one. I, as a native speaker of German (Hochdeutsch), and still a person used to a number of German dialects from in- and outside Germany, or - as you prefer - "Germanic" dialects, or to say it really clearly: dialects of the German language, can tell you that there is... none!! It seems you have absolutely no idea what this is: a dialect. It is a form of - mainly oral - language, in most cases spoken in geographically limited areas, that is part of a group of similars most commonly linked to a more widespread form which is often normalised (by rules) and officialised - as the German language and its regional "Mundarten" ("mouth kinds").

There is no linguistic division between Alsatian and the neighbouring dialects of German - if they are from Germany or Switzerland or France (Moselle) or Luxembourg (apart from the distinction of the Upper Alemanic, Lower Alemanic and Franconian groups)!! Anybody who says different does this for political (I´d suggest nationalist) reasons! And the feelings of some people - feelings that have nothing to do with the facts! - cannot keep me from saying the truth! (Anyway I prefer to think of the feelings of those Alsatians who are fed up with the lies!)

OK, you are Alsatian - and I am "German" (Deutscher)... So you got to know...- many will probably think. But do you speak German? - A little bit from school, I suppose? And do you speak Alsatian? No (it seems...)? - Well, I do! As I already said above I learnt it, and I know that if I was coming from (originaire de) directly east of Strasbourg (which means of course in Germany) my own regional (German AND "Germanic") dialect would be, for you, not distinguishable from Alsatian! - Once again a clear statement that did not keep you from writing down more aberrations without finding a single direct argument against me. And with whom do I speak Alsatian (I am not speaking it in monologues!)? - It is funny, you mention the tram! One out of, let's say, five times I take the Strasbourg-tram (or buses) I hear people speaking Alsatian (mostly "Strosburjerditsch" - the local version, so they are not from the countryside... Ah, and yes! It is called "Strossburjerditsch" - Strassburgerdeutsch (!!) - Strasbourg German )!

But why would I speak to them? Why should I just walk up to someone and start "babble"? Whenever I go to shops though, I often try to speak Alsatian to the shop assistants (because I find it absolutely boring to speak French all the time - and thus use only one of the options and anyway it is quite unnatural that people of a (the same) "germanique" mothertongue would chose another language in order to communicate, n'est-ce pas? Especially as I have learned the regional version! - There are sometimes strange reactions but... no "bewildered looks"! It gets even better! A few weeks ago the city opened up the new and extended tram lines. There was a kind of huge festival on wheels when the population tried out the new lines for free. On five consecutive trams I took I could hear (different) people speak Alsatian! I did not even expect it to be like that - I am not always that "lucky"! In the sixth tram there were two old ladies sitting down opposite of me and I heard them complain (in Alsatian, if I still need to stress) that they preferred sitting in driving direction. So I offered them my seat (in Alsatian...). No "wide eyes", neither from them nor from "everyone looking at me"! Just the expression of pleased surprise that I did not only speak "their tongue" but that I had even got their conversation. Well they were old... some of the "few old people" who "still speak Alsatian"... A few you say?? - Well, if you call about 90% (of the elderly) "a few"... (even in the city!). You say that it is disappearing - "unfortunately in your opinion" - If you regret this, then why do you yourself make it disappear in your mind? Why do you pretend it´s a kind of "natural" development and why do you declare any attempt of "resisting" the process useless? - You say: "the bilinguality programs have not really succeeded in reviving it"?? - What "bilinguality programs"? What are you talking about? I can only try to guess what you mean - but that is not made to succeed, it´s not meant to succeed! There are no "bilinguality programs" in France! - There are only some exceptions of the huge national(ist) "monolinguality program"!!!

Do you mean the street signs? You think you are giving me "nouvelles" by this:

FYI the names of streets in historical Strassburg are given in Alsatian (not German) as well as French.

Yes - and why is that? Because there are some people with influence around, who think like you: "Alsatian is not German"! - So street signs cannot be in the "official form" of Alsatian... But I am absolutely "pro"! I like street signs in the local form of German! - That´s "closer to the roots". Would be nice though if these street signs were as official as they look! - And not only the French(speaking) ones!!

But the main reason for the decline of France´s langues régionales is not even the policy of "Madame la République". - It is the attitude of the people, it is your attitude, your strange kind of total ignorance (concerning your own home place!) that is making the damage!!! Because that is the point: the "wide eyes" - or whatever strange reactions there might be, when someone speaks Alsatian in public - is not because people think you are from space - or Germany. It is because they have been trained (mostly) for all of their life that it - their very own beloved (mother-)"tongue" - is not worthy being heard by other people, that it is "unofficial"! - That it is a "patois". So speaking one´s own language gets a matter of trust or confidence. Never heard of the Occitans who never speak their language but to their closest relatives? (And maybe one or two of their Boule-companions...)

I agree that German is a HISTORICAL language of Alsace

As long as Alsatian is the language of Alsatians, German is NOT historical.

and that ALsace is culturally Germanic.

Germanic?? Asgard, Midgard and Utgard are Germanic, Denmark, Norway and Iceland are, maybe - but Alsace?! It is culturally "deutsch"! It is of that funny - but extremely common - cultural mix of Germanic, Latin, Celtic and even Slavic elements which is so typical for West-Central Europe. Which made up the whole of Germany, Austria and a part of Switzerland. And which, apart from Alsace, you can find in it´s own characteristic form - and with this same strong influence from France - in Luxembourg, and partly in Switzerland and parts of Belgium too!

Even a "supranationalist pro-French Alsatian" like me recognizes that.

I know! That´s why I just could not help placing you in that corner at first! - Not to insult you...

But today, whether we like it or not, Germanic culture is fading.

- Alsatian culture is fading! The "Germanic" part cannot simply be replaced by translations into French! What could it do but "fade" - as it is not even called by its real name... But one thing is certain: it is fading because "some people" like that!

And young Alsatians don't really care to revive it.

...or don´t care, c´est ça! Depends who, though! There are for instance the "Junge fers Elsassische"...

So while there's no denying that Alsace is Germanic in some respects, I think emphasizing bilinguality is pointless because local people (at least young people) don't really care...

They rather care about their "feelings" it seems! "Am I still feeling quite French? Am I feeling French enough?" - They don´t really care about being jobless, though! As more and more of them are as they do not speak enough of the language of the (whole) region: the upper Rhine Valley. They cannot work with Germans and (German(speaking )) Swiss - and they cannot work there, over the border! Ask the CCI Alsace (Chambre de Commerce et Industrie)!

...and feel fully French (and for the most part speak fairly mediocre German and no Alsatian).

Hah! Now there we´ve got an interesting point! So this (speaking a "germanique" dialect - or German as a regional language- and feeling fully French) is opposed?? According to you it is impossible to speak a German - or Germanic - language and feel "fully French" at the same time?

Also, I'm not a "surnationaliste" or anti-German or anything of the sort.

Are you sure?? - After your "coming out" on the incompatibility of speaking a "germanique" language, being (partly) "culturally deutsch" and "feeling fully French"? As far as I see it - especially in a multilingual (multiethnic) nation as the French - only ethnocentrist nationalists can think like that! - Les Jacobins!

I fully understand that Alsace has a strong Germanic heritage and I believe that discussions on what Alsace "really" is are absurd.

That´s why you come up with all those absurd "arguments"...?

Alsace will be both French and Germanic at least for several more decades.

I´d say it will be "franco-allemand" or it won´t be Alsace! - But who am I to...

Alsatian is the regional language and is indeed a Germanic dialect.

And Hochdeutsch is its "koiné", its written or literary form - so it is a part of the regional language...

Once again, German is NOT a regional language,

It does not get "more true" if you keep repeating it! But as I am sure you will never believe me, I´ll reveal one of my sources here to you. - One of the references for the three examples for "official" German in Alsace I started with: In 1985 the "Recteur de l´Académie de Strasbourg", Pierre Deyon, the head of the regional school authority and representative of the "Éducation nationale" (the ministry of education), said:

"Il n´existe en effet qu´une seule définition scientifiquement correcte de la langue régionale en Alsace, ce sont les dialectes alsaciens dont l´expression écrite est l´allemand. L´allemand est donc une des langues régionales de France." - Transl.:

"There is in fact but one scientifically correct definition of the "langue régionale" of Alsace, this is: the Alsatian dialects - of which the written expression is German. So German is one of the regional languages of France."

More quotes and citations here soon...

You can't compare Alsace to Canada or Switzerland.

Ah! - And why not??? Oh yes! "You just can´t" - that´s all! It´s France´s "éxception culturelle"...

Whether you like it or not, people in Alsace feel French and speak French whereas they do not feel German or for the most part speak German.

What has this to do with my likes? Did I say anything about my personal preferences for Alsatian´s national feelings??? What has one thing to do with the other? Do you believe that "feeling German" is a kind of disease that comes with the language? Is it for that reason that you call the Alsatian species of that bacillus "some vague kind of germ" ("Germanic" - "bacterial")??

There's no denying that we have Germanic names and all that,

Odin? Thor? Frigg? Wotan? Pippin? Sigismund?

...but that doesn't really mean anything.

...that you might have some kind of German ancestry though?

It's not because there are lots 0f Italian-Americans in New York with Italian names that Italian is a regional language over there.

No! - But because there are lots of French-Americans ("Cajuns") in New Orleans ("La Nouvelle-Orléans"), and the swamps around it, that French is a regional language over there...

Listen, this is just getting too stupid! I saw that you made lots of other "smart" contributions on the talk page "Alsace". We´ll carry on there...--134.176.67.100 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Stephele

Dear Stephele, I've read, twice, a few months ago and today, your comments from 2007 on both the Alsace and Strasbourg talk pages. I am sorry to get to this conclusion, but it seems that, as other Germans, you take great pleasure to insist on the fact that elderly Alsatian people speak, along with French, the Alsatian dialect, which is an Alemanic dialect similar to the Swiss-German, etc., and with that you consider that the whole part of the inhabitants of Alsace still speak German today, which is not true. Only senior people are able - today - to speak fluently in German (because of WW2). But they do not. They speak the dialect. What for the young people? Only about 25% are able to speak the dialect. Those who speak dialect cannot speak fluent German. The majority of the young people cannot speak the dialect, and could only speak bad school-learnt German. These are facts. You wonder why the Alsatians insist on saying they speak the dialect, not German? Well, you might agree that if what became the Reichsland had not been annexed to Germany (in 1871, 25% of the Alsatian people understood French, thanks to school and to the military service), the fate of Alsace would have been similar to the one of the other French regions - where progressively everybody became able to speak French. As a consequence, while in 1919 less than 1/4 of the Alsatian people could speak French, the situation would have been quite different (without the annexation), with 100% of the Alsatian inhabitants speaking French in 1919. Once again, these are facts. You probably know that, when the Alsatian people were 'evacuated' to South-western France in Sept. 1939, they were regarded as German people by their fellow French citizens from there... Nicknamed "ya-yas" (Ja ja!), etc... because only a few of them could speak French? Not quite funny at all. You wonder why the Alsatian 'elite' and most of the inhabitants (the big majority of the Alsatians) don't want to deal with the German languange anymore? You don't have any clue? Maybe the name of Robert Backfisch, and his fellow dignitaries' dictatorship, murders, damages, could help...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.115.158 (talk) 04:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Irish Monks in Strasbourg's history

The bird and myself were in Strasbourg for Christmas, and it definitely is the best kept secret of European cities. A very romantic place indeed, additionally blessed by ignorance of the place's beauty among English speakers (unlike Heidelberg which was swarming with the latter). However, on the boat trip there were two parts of the city's history which escaped me (due to an elderly man next to me unpluging my headphone by mistake). The first and most interesting for me is the story about the Irish monks. Where can I find out more about the Irish monks and school which were based in the city along the Lille? The second is the story about 20 or so people who perished because some fat guy got stuck in a window during an escape and nobody could get passed him. That building is a large one next to where the above monks lived. Does anybody know more about any of these two? Thanks a million. 89.100.195.42 14:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange article

I have recently read that

• many Germans were expelled from the city after WWI
• Kehl was part of the city during and shortly after WWII. A number of Germans were expelled from St. and Kehl after WWII, the ones of Kehl returned later.

Is my source unreliable or authors of this article rewrite history? Xx236 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

* This is - in short - correct. And it´s not only true for Strasbourg but for the whole region - Elsass/Alsace and "Lothringen"/Moselle. Of course one has to be careful about the label "Germans". In 1919 about all inhabitants of the region were German citizens. After nearly 50 years as a part of the German Empire most of them were born Germans. The French authorities expelled mostly those, who had only ancestors from other parts of Germany or had immigrated themselves after 1870. Many were allowed back to Alsace later, if they wanted. In fact the whole population was classified in a "A-B-C-D"-system according to their ancestry. Quite frightening! But I don´t know more details.

* Kehl was occupied by the french military after WWII and, as far as I know, depopulated. But I would have to look this up as well. In Strasbourg there were not many (then)Germans left at that time I think...--134.176.66.210 Stephele 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So such informations should be included into Strasbourg, Kehl, Elsass and Lothringen. Xx236 11:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

The Manual of Style says, "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." Although France is not an English-speaking country, I have observed in other articles the usage of British spelling for articles concerning Europe. For non-clear-cut cases, the MOS also says, "If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone". A glance through several versions of the article indicates that British spelling has been used for the most part. Olessi 21:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? We're all aware of the differences.201.21.96.49 15:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits by R9tgokunks

I am a little bit concerned by the state of the history [3] ; perhaps it would be better if User:R9tgokunks could state his concerns regarding the article so that differences could be discussed on the talk page rather than in edit comments. Also, it would be nice if User:RCS could use a softer tone. Thank you to everybody in advance. Rama 08:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Almost half of them are to sites written in French. Why? Are we planning to export the whole article to fr.wikipedia at some point? - Dudesleeper · Talk 18:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Football clubs

Shouldn't RC Strasbourg and Vauban Strasbourg get a mention in the article (along with any other sports teams)? - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold, mate ! --RCS 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Took longer than I thought it would for you to add it. - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought you'd do it ! I'm not into sports at all, in spite of my pseudonym. RCS 20:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency with 1349 pogrom

On this page it states: 1349 by one of the first and worst pogroms in pre-modern history: several hundred Jews were publicly burnt to death and the rest of them expelled of the city.

On the 1349 page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1349) it states: 16000 Jews are killed in Strasbourg during the year

I understand it say "during the year", but it does not make it very clear.

PyrE

16000 is just impossible. There have never been so many Jews in the city, hardly even today. The highest figure i have ever comme across is 3000. The article de:Judenpogrom in Straßburg 1349 is quite good, maybe someone should try to translate it ? --RCS 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gutenberg 1540?!

(Fact checkers please:) Wasn't Gutenberg's invention of the printing press around 1440, not 1540? So, is the assertion about the newspaper date wrong here too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.12.52.15 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. I've corrrected that typo.Thanks. RCS 08:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits made by an IP

Note by RCS (talk · contribs) --> : Additions that cannot be kept in the article (no sources, possible copyvio, unencyclopedic style) but that i copy and paste below :

1552. After the occupation of the "Three Bishoprics" Metz, Toul and Verdun, the French king Henri II advances up to the gates of Strassburg. But then the city was still able to defend itself and determined to do it. The burghers brought their artillery in position onto the ramparts - the gun named "Gro@e Meise" (great titmouse) gave the Strassburgrs their nickname of "Meiselocker" (titmouse enticers) - and refuse the demands of the French army for food supplies. The invading troups have to retreat, they have no support in the country. The city state can still defend itself against a territorial state. This was not the first incursion by the French. They began in 1365 led by a knight, then came the one of 1444 led by the futur LouisXI , who too was forced back, and even then asking the Strassburgers if they did not want to come under French.protection The stinging answer of the city was: "Never! As they (the French) have no character and truthfulness, make many promises, document and seal a lot, but never keep their word."

The end of the free city,1681

"Es verbleibet Alles im alten Stande" [Everything remains as it was] wrote the Ammeister Franziskus Reissessen into his diary or "Memorial", at the end of his short account of the capitulation of Strassburg. That was the illusion the negotiators gave themselves up to. But nothing remained as it was, Louis XIV and his minister Louvois did not have the intention, to keep the promisses made. It did not last ten years and almost nothing remained from the promissed liberty. The emasculation of the city regime's power As a free city, Strassburg did not have a foreign garrison in its walls. Now the military governor, M. de Chamilly, with the support of a garrison of many thousand men, could give every wish of the king the necessary emphasis. It was of equal importance that the intendant, Jacques de la Grange, transferred at once his seat of office to Strassburg. Not six weeks after the capitulation, on the 9th. of November 1681, these two representatives of the king appeared at the meeting of the "Herren Rät und Einundzwanzig" [the honorable councillors and Twenty-one], followed by the city-sollicitor Johann Güntzer, who had already played a role during the capitulation negotiations. They let it be known that a royal edict made this Güntzer a "royal Syndic" [this was a reward for his treason]. Although he did not have a seat and vote in the council, he, as chief of the city's chancellory, had knowledge of all happenings and negotations and could report to his masters in detail. Less than four years later, the jurist Ulrich Obrecht, who had just converted to catholicism, was promoted to "Royal praetor" and was thus "Stettmeister" for life. With the word "praetor" the French designated the Stettmeisters who, together with the Ammmeister governed the city. He had a seat and vote in the council and against his will no decision could be made. He was the eye and ear of the king in the city, although the old city constitution still existed up to the revolution. The councillors were elected and the Oath read in front of the cathedral, but the true head of the city was the praetor. Almost nothing remained of the guaranteed autonomous administration. Here too, the comparison with the way the autonomous administration of Alsace-Lorraine was dismantled step by step after 1918 cannot be rejected out of hand. Even the election, as irrelevant they had become, were not free anymore. 1687 the praetor Obrecht brought a new demand of the king: the composition of the coucil should reflect the confessional composition of the population. As pretext served an article of the treaty of Westphalia which ruled a mixed filling of positions in certain administrations. Obrecht, however, made the "Alternative" out of the proportionality, that is, that for each leaving protestant councillor a catholic would have to be elected and vice versa, so that in a short time the council had parity, thus having an equal number of both confessions. The restriction of the religious freedom This hit the citizen even harder than the restriction of the political freedom [today the language has taken the place of religion]. 1681 one counted only two catholic families among the 20 000 odd inhabitants. 16 years later there were already almost 750 families. The conservation of the protestant character of the city had been the main concern of the negotiators of 1681, in this too they did not succeed. The re-catholisation, which had made so great advances out in the countryside, began at once in the city. Jesuits and capuchin monks could work without hindrance, conversely it was forbidden to the protestant pastors, to baptize mixed marriage children or to receive again in their congregation a citizen who had converted to catholicism. To this came sizeable material incentives, who converted was freed from billeting of soldiers and free of taxes for three years and sometimes got a gift of money, a pension of 100 or 200 Livres. The abrogation of the edict of Nantes 1685 which had as consequence the mass-emigration of the French Huguenots, was not applied in Alsace, but the catholic propaganda increased. Whole villages like Illwickersheim (Ostwald today) or Herrlisheim converted, the pastors were chased out or imprisonned. Who wanted to be well thought of "above", had to convert. French and catholic was more or less equated. The most important converted in Strassburg was the praetor Obrecht. During a stay in Paris in 1684 no one less than Bossuet instructed and baptized him. Reissessen remarks to this in his diary:"Es hat derselbige, pro dolor, die Religion changiert" [The same one has, pro dolor, changed his religion]. A few months later Güntzer, the royal syndic, followed in his footsteps. How Obrecht was rewarded was already stated. Their wives, however, remarkably did not follow suit, which was not liked "above". What it cost to resist the king's order, the Ammeister Dominikus Dietrich had to learn the hard way. The king wanted to force the conversion of this man by all means, for he was the most respected man in the whole city, as he hoped that his example would produce many more conversions. He was ordered to Versailles in 1685 and held there for five months; as he steadfastly stuck to his religion, he was banned to Gueeeret, divested of all his official positions and was "to be kept for dead", as Louvois expressed it. Only in 1689 was he allowed back to his city, under the condition not to leave his house and only to receive visits from his family. He died five years later. The alternative made it possible for newly converted to have at once access to city administrative positions; 1688 there are already one catholic Stettmeister and two councillors, although, as Reissessen writes, there were not 30 citizens of this confession. 1694 15 catholics sit in the Magistrate. Who wanted to hold court for the new masters had to convert. The characterlessness imputed, often not without reason, to the Alsatians had its start then; the families Turncoat are always more numerous than the families Steadfast. Does Louis XIV renounce Strassburg? Suddenly everything is put into question again. The situation in Europe had changed. The Turks had been beaten decisively before Vienna (1683). Under the generals Karl of Lorraine and Eugene of Savoy the Austrians conquered Hungary from the Turks; in England the "glorious revolution" had chased the Stuarts away and with William of Orange brought the greatest and most competent enemy of Louis XIV on the throne. The war of succession of the Palatinate (in the French history-books it is called the war of the Augsburg Ligue) brought at first the laying waste of the Palatinate and the destruction of the castle at Heidelberg [among others], then a serie of French defeats, so that the French king had to condescend to negotiations. 1696 he offered even the return of either Luxemburg or Strassburg. If the imperial negotiators had acted fast, they could have received Strassburg, but they demanded both and drew out the negotiations. In the meanwhile the French negotiators succeeded to make separate peace-treaties with England, Holland and Spain, so that the emperor had to be satisfied with lesser conditions. The peace treaty of Ryswick (1687) laid down for the first time the Rhine as frontier of Alsace. France renounced all its conquests on the right side of the river, among them Kehl. The emperor recognized all French annexations since he treaty of Nymwegen: "His sacred imperial majesty cedes to the sacred very christian majesty (The king of France) the city of Strassburg and everything that belongs to it on the left side of the Rhine, with all rights, property and sovereignty..." it says in article 16 of the treaty. "The city of Strassburg was ceded to the crown of France, writes Reissessen, and without some reservations". The Colmar chronicler notes for his part: "It is hard for us, that we, who had been a free imperial estate, are now slaves of a foreign power. We have publiquely sung the "Te Deum" for the peace, but at home we sang "On the waters of Babylon" (The mourning song of the jews in exile there). The big powers had decided over the whole of Alsace without asking its inhabitants [as was to happen repeatedly later on]. The emigration The article 17 of the peace of Ryswick, which follows the cessions paragraph 16, contains the remarkable rule: "Nevertheless all and sundry inhabitants of the said city, of which condition they ever are, who would like to withdraw, transfer their domicile somewhere else, with all their movables, without any hindrance nor deduction whatsoever, , will be free to do so within one year". This article points out the emigration which had already begun in 1681 after the capitulation of Strassburg, and which, now that hope for a return of the former situation had dwindled, began anew. There had already been secret protests against the new regime. As Louis XIV violated omce more the capitulation and took away from the city the right to coin money in 1693, a number of gold-guilders was coined in the Strassburg mint with the picture of the king but instead of the inscription "LUD"(ovicus) REX" "IUD (as) REX" was used, king Judas, the traitor. Such coins are sought after by collectors today. Who did not want to bend before the new rulers, had only emigration left. This emigration of the Strassburgers and Alsatians has drawn little attention up to now. It is difficult to get details of it. Reissessen remarked: "The most notable families make mien to leave from here". The emigration had already begun in 1681, as mentioned, and mainly after 1685 (the abrogation of the Edict of Nantes). Then there was talk of mass-running-away and how one could stop it. The praetor Obrecht, washed with all waters, found here too an illegal way out. Following his suggestion, Louvois wrote to the Council that all would-be emigrants were to be taxed with an extraordinary levy of 10% on their holdings . This was illegal, the citizens had the right to leave freely. Obrecht's argument was that the city had a large debt and, if one let the emigrant go freely, those who remained had to pay the more, that it was not a tax but a contribution to the service of the debt. The Council resisted for a long time, but had to give in in 1687. The same year it had to accept the "Alternative". It just was not independent in its decisions anymore. Despite the clear wording of the peace of Ryswick, the contribution went on to be levied on the demand of Louvois and Obrecht. Their main aim was to stop the emigration. How big it was cannot be known. The registers of the "Stallherren" [stable masters], as the Strassburg tax office was known then and in which the names of the emigrants had been noted, have disappeared. Some names are mentioned in the protocols of the Council, others can be found in the citizen-books of the cities which received them; there were mainly the southern German imperial free cities of Frankfurt, Heilbronn, Esslingen, Ulm, Nürnberg, also Stuttgart, which was not a free city. The handed down history sets the number at 300 families. This was not quite 10% of the city's population. From the records of Frankfurt and other cities it can be surmissed that there were rather more. Two waves can be distinctly discerned, one after 1685 the other after 1697. While before single persons, mostly tradesmen, gave up their citizenship, there are now whole families with women and children. Among the immigrants all ways of life are represented, not only the "notable families". Some are very wealthy, the merchant Johann Daniel Franck, who absconds 1686 already, declares a fortune of 51 300 Guilders, his son, who follows him in 1698, declares 46 000 Guilders. In the same year also, Josias Städel moves "with sack and pack to Frankfurt"; one of his descendants funded the famous Städel Art-Institute in Frankfurt. The city-advocate went 1682 already to Vienna where he achieved a high position, and the law-consultant Dr.Stoesser left in 1686 for Brandenburg. According to a calculation from the year 1699 the paid or still owed contributions amounted to 34 614 Guilders, which corresponds to a capital of 350 000 Guilders, an enormous sum for the time which is certainly distributed over many hundred families. The emigration was not only quantitatively important, but also qualitatively. It is a known fact that the emigrants belong to the most competent and energetic people. The distinguished positions which they attained in their new homelands, like also the Huguenots driven out at the same time, attest to the truth of this rule. Besides the Strassburg emigrants, one finds others from the protestant territories in the files, the territory of Lützelstein, for example. This emigration is the first big bloodletting which followed a change of rule in Alsace, it was repeated many times: 1793, less in 1870; 1918, 1945. If the emigrants in their new homes gave a reason, it was always the religion, the maintenance of the evangelical belief. This secured them tax-advantages and an easier acquisition of citizenship in the protestant free imperial cities. However, it would be wrong to conclude that this was only a pretext. We have seen that the religious pressure was felt especially hard; the freedom of religion had been the decisive point in the capitulation. National sentiment in todays sense cannot be imputed to the exiles, there was neither a German nor a French "Nation" as we understand them today [This was to become an invention of the French revolution]. On the other hand the religious and political motives cannot be separated. Catholic and French, better royal, were for many synonymous. The emigration was also certainly a protest against the loss of the imperial city's freedoms and against the submission to a foreign arbitrary rule. This is reflected in the remark of the Colmar chronicler: we are now slaves of a foreign power. In Alsace one is today only too much inclined to project opinions and emotions of today into the past, to equate the state of then with the one of today. One thus falls into anachronism, the sin against the spirit of history. Jubilees are especially strong temptations for this sin. But they should be the incentive to remember the past, how it had been, and the values which it is necessary to retain. [In this context it would be interesting to compare the actions of the French in the Saar-Territory after 1918 and 1945 with their actions in Strassburg 300 years ago - There are many parallels]

Small edit

I removed a sentence about the city being ruled by 'fanatical Jacobins' like Elogius Schneider until Robespierre's execution. Reason being? Schneider was not affiliated with with Robespierre or his friends; in fact, a glance at his page will show you that they opposed him. It sounds as though Schneider would be better categorized as one of the Enragés. 76.84.130.190 (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

French: Strasbourg

Is there a special point in demonstrating that the French name is written identically to the English one? I understand that at some point this was "French pronunciation: [ipa]", which made sense, but why was it changed and kept this way? --Illythr (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Latin and Germanic culture.

C'mon.

I really don't want to start an edit war about this subject, but the sentence "Strasbourg has also been for a long time a bridge for Germanic and Latin culture,[...]" seems like nonsense to me. Of course there's no doubt that throughout its history Strasbourg was quite important to the mutual relationship of France and Germany in many aspects, but was it really a bridge for Latin and Germanic culture? That's just a terrible thing to say since these "cultures" never played a role in the franco-german relationship. France and Germany aren't parts of two essentially different cultural spheres, despite of all historical differences. They are both influenced by the Roman empire, they are both parts of the former Frankish Kingdom, they are both Western European countries and combine Latin with Germanic traits, and while French is a Romance and German is a Germanic language, it's just laughable to confuse this linguistic difference with a cultural one. Germany, presented as an representative of this ominous Germanic culture, has historically got much more in common with "Latin" France than with Norway, for example. Germanic and Latin Europe are nothing but two foggy, ahistorical concepts based solely on a linguistic difference, and aren't worthy to be used in this article, especially when one considers that Strasbourg is already characterised as a "bridge of unity between modern France and Germany" in the sentence before.

Greetings,141.35.186.133 (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

You forget that France is essentially a catholic country whereas Germany is essentially protestant. Roughly half of Strasbourg's christians are protestant, whereas less than one tenth of Lyon's, Marseille's or Bordeaux' are. Nowadays religion doesn't count any more, but an century ago, it still mattered. RCS (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, might be, but this doesn't touch my point. (Besides - Germany isn't essentially protestant, it's more like fifty-fifty.) I never said that Strasbourg wasn't important for cultural exchange - I only said that this whole rubbish about Germanic and Latin culture was not only based on a pretty daffy concept and unnecessary, but also redundant, as the importance for the franco-german relationship was already stressed before. 141.35.186.133 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it does touch your point because usually, when one says "latin culture", one thinks of catholicism (and of lazy macho men and fiery young women who turn into fat matrons - hahaha). Anyway, the intro as it stands now should satisfy everybody. RCS (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

wartime losses in 1947 ?

"An unrelated tragedy that added, however, to the wartime losses, was the 1947 fire that destroyed a valuable part of the collection of the new Museum of Fine Arts."

How can an unrelated tragedy add to wartime losses 2 years after the war ended ?

Surely the war and the fire are totally unrelated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.16.70 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

What is meant is that the city had barely started recovering from the destructions caused by war (among them the bombing, on August 11, 1944, of the Palais Rohan, which housed and now again houses the city art museum) when this fire broke out, so even if it was not a consequence of the bombings and the war, it added a loss to other, related losses. RCS (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Elevation?

What is the elevation (height above sea level) of Strasbourg? I would think that would be an important item of information about a city. Since there appears to be no standard info box entry item, possibly it could be included in the Geography and Climate section --TGC55 (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three entries for altitude in Template:French commune.-- Matthead  Discuß   17:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

People of the city?

The "Demographics" section of the article gives just numbers, nothing more, nothing on language or of the ethnic make. I find this disturbing, especially when i have this feeling that great many of the population are Germans and speak German and i really think this should be mentioned in the article. So please correct this issue, fill the void with FACTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But actually, your feeling is plain wrong. There are many Germans in Strasbourg, yes, but they are called "tourists", or "people who cross the border for shopping or going to restaurants". --RCS (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because people who live in Strasbourg are french and speak french and the german you see there are just tourist or "expat", you know. Signed: A french who is born in Strasbourg and lives in Strasbourg .12:22, 22 june 2009

Demographics

1) I have no presconceptions on the questions about to be asked.

2) Are there no Strasbourgians at all — none — who speak German or a dialect thereof (Alsatian) as their native language / mother tongue?

3) How long has French been the dominant or prevailing language of the residents of Strasbourg?

Sca (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Only few people and generally old people have german and alsatian as their native tongue . Like all regionals languages in France, there are on decline. Generally people in Strasbourg speak french, because it's their mother tongue, and they live in France, but many learn german to work in Germany. In same way, many german learn french to work in Strasbourg etc... So you can find people speaking both german and french, but the language is essentially french, because it's a french town , it's logic. Fol2choco (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)