Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany

Otto Von Bismark is it really necessary to have "Prussian-German"?

Prussians are Germans both by nationality and ethnicity, it seems a bit pointless.--Vincentnufcr1 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I think it's important. Bismarck was born in a Prussia that existed after the Napoleonic Wars after the fall of the HRE in 1806 and was not part of a unified Germany - which didn't exist until 1872 - and hence, a formally independent state. Besides, there were huge differences between the German regions, which even continue to exist today. For example, a Bavarian wouldn't usually consider himself Prussian and vice versa - there are really different mindsets, which could be attributed at least in part to the different confessions - the north is largely Protestant, whereas the south mostly remained Catholic. Apart from that, Bismarck unified Germany under the rule of the Prussian King, who was also German Emperor in personal union, a move which angered many Southern Germans. The animosity between Bavarians and Prussians still exists today, though not as harsh as it may have been 100 or 200 years ago. I think it's at least partly comparable to the situation in the UK and the relationship between England and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So yes, I think the fact that Bismarck was Prussian-German instead of just German is hugely important. --Schanzer (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rail accident investigation

Hi! I found an English page documenting rail accident investigation: http://www.eba.bund.de/cln_031/nn_249968/EN/EBA/Organigram/AccidentInvestigation/accidentinvestigation__node.html?__nnn=true (EBA) And a website in German from what may be the investigating agency: http://www.eisenbahn-unfalluntersuchung.de (Central Office for Accident Investigation, EUB)

• And here is the EBA organigram: http://www.eba.bund.de/cln_031/nn_249968/EN/EBA/Organigram/organigram__node.html?__nnn=true

So is it that the EBA has responsibility for accident investigation, but the EUB actually does it? I'm not certain who does what... WhisperToMe (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

German Visa Affair 2005 -- NPOV?

Hello, I skimmed through the article; I was going to remove the NPOV tag as outdated, but I'd appreciate a second / third opinion on any issues. - RoyBoy 00:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire article is made from uncited sentences. (Well, one sentence has a citation, to the effect that some regulation was canceled.) Hence, no sentence can be easily verified. The general citations at the bottom are akin to adding a citation of every article saying "A book from the US Library of Congress"; which is, in effect, saying go do the verification research yourself. This article is about as trustworthy as a website on GeoCities IMO. Int21h (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's quite that bad. More like saying "Read these 5 articles and create your own footnotes." We should remember that the article was mainly created in 2005 and was probably originally translated from German Wikipedia, which was then not really into footnotes. So someone at least went to the trouble of finding some English references. I have fixed the outdated links (I hope). If I get time, I may get round to matching the statements in the article with the 5 articles and putting citation-needed tags on the remainder, but I will not be disappointed if someone beats me to it. --Boson (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Germany will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Germany's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship or nationality for German Empire-era biographies

At Talk:Emmy Noether#Nationality a dispute arose whether we should mention her Bavarian citizenship in the infobox and in the lede, or the less precise German nationality. There are precedents for both, with Albert Einstein having citizenship and David Hilbert or Theodor Fontane having nationality in the infobox. Opinions? Huon (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Willy Brandt School of Public Policy

Hey, I am new to English Wikipedia, but would like to contribute. Since I am not familiar with the policies of translating articles from German to English, I wanted to ask if it's okay, to just translate an already existing, German wikipedia article (e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy_Brandt_School_of_Public_Policy) to English, creating a new article? Or do I need to find all the sources in English and/or cite them appropriately as done in the German article?

Appreciate any comments or help. Jakenite (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The edit summary should note that it is a translation and link to the original (e.g de:Willy Brandt School of Public Policy).

The template {{Translated page}} with appropriate parameters should be added to the talk page.

Inline citations should be given, preferably using the appropriate templates (e.g. {{Cite web}},{{Cite book}}). It would be ideal if you could provide English sources, but German sources are acceptable. They should be marked as German by using the 'language=' parameter of the citation template or adding the template {{De icon}}. If you don't use the citation templates, that's OK; someone will probably add them for you. Feel free to contact me if you have any problems.

To avoid what is sometimes known as "citation plagiarism", I would say that you should personally access and confirm any sources you retain, or at least indicate that they come from the German article and have not been verified directly.

--Boson (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you do not create the article in one go, you should make sure that the first version at least contains sufficient references to establish notability and links to the German article, to avoid any problems with new page patrollers. --Boson (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC).

Thanks a lot for the advice! Recently I did not find the time to work on it, but will start translating the article in the next weeks, trying to consider as much of your advice as possible.

Jakenite (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

New template on German literature

I've started this template because I think it would be useful to have a navbox for German literature. Please feel free to add authors to the list. A couple notes:

• This template is about literature written in German, not literature written by German citizens or literature written in Germany, so it includes Austrian, Swiss, German-Jewish, migrant literature, exile literature, etc. Simple nation-state distinctions don't really work well as organizing principles for the history of literature.
• Authors should be notable, with a reasonable chance of being included in an undergraduate or graduate syllabus in a German studies course.
• The periodization (like any periodization) is provisional rather than absolute. If a section gets too large, we should think about breaking it down to smaller ones.

Sindinero (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

German Party

I have entered a few remarks on the "German Party" talk page that you may want to consider. Best, Khnassmacher (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Estlandia

(See Talk:German Wikipedia for details): This user (formerly User:Miacek, see de:User:Miacek) is known to vigorously promote right-wing POV at the German Wikipedia. Most of his “translated” articles here are highly selective collections of claims that mostly feature viewpoints of the German far right or even right-wing extremists and that do not include the current state of the public and scientific debate in germany although it is well known to this user. See for example Hans-Helmuth Knütter before my revert and compare it with the German article − even Google translate should be sufficient to see the differences.

His latest edits in the German Wikipedia article (and elsewhere) follow a well-known pattern: debates that have finally been resolved (usually not to his contentment) at the German edition are carried over to the English edition. Since en: does not have the manpower nor the necessary sources and informations to control these edits, political POV (and in this case even worse: ultra right-wing and right-wing extremist POV) widely goes unnoticed. I do not have the time, let alone the nerves, to put up with this kind of bold POV pushing here. My considerations are simple: the damage is greater if he acts like this at the German site so I am playing the watchdog there. English articles are not the first adress for German-speaking readers when they are seeking information, so it is not giving me sleepless nights. However, I consider this user's behaviour highly harmful to the English Wikipedia. All in all, he is making Wikipedia's section on German politics worse by adding articles and information, so you really should consider putting an end to this if you are interested in a half-decent account in these topics. I have also posted this on the talk page of the German Wikipedia article. If you would like to have additional information on this user's history and behavior, feel free to contact me on my talk page on de: or ask de:User:Hozro oder de:User:KarlV.--Toter Alter Mann (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Accusations that my articles are highly selective collections of claims that mostly feature viewpoints of the German far right or even right-wing extremists is simply slander and should best be removed. WikiProject pages are not meant for encouraging stalking or personal vendetta. It's of course no surprise 'Toter Alter Mann' would come to attack me - his and his pals' manipulations in German Wiki have been documented in detail in a newspaper article that I dared to refer to in the article on German wiki. Estlandia (dialogue) 13:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone needs additional information about the background of this marginal dispute – he will be welcome to read my documentation about this conflict of interests on de:WP. Regards--KarlV 15:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

German Empire

Would anyone else like to look at what's happening to the first paragraph of German Empire? --Boson (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Law for the Maintenance of State Authority"

This is mentioned in the rise of the Nazi party as a law passed by Paul von Hindenburg, but it is unreferenced and I can't find anything else about it anywhere. If nobody can source it, it ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.198.25 (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

According to http://www.bwbs.de/biografie/Verbot_von_SA_und_SS_B1067.html (in German, published by the "Bundeskanzler-Willy-Brandt-Stiftung") SA and SS were banned at 13. April 1932 based on the (emergency) law called "Notverordnung zur Sicherung der Staatsautorität". That ban was repelled later by Papen. I don't have the correct English translation for this law, but the fact seems correct. GermanJoe (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added references to Adolf Hitler's rise to power‎ and changed the translation to "Emergency Decree for the Preservation of State Authority". --Boson (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Vimy Ridge Main page tomorrow

For tomorrow the Battle of Vimy Ridge article has been chosen to be featured on the main page. I recommend giving the article a look over before it runs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Fritz Weitzel

This is a bit of a mess now if anyone cares to work on it. Partially content, partially formatting. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The irregular deletion of articles relating to both Germany and Norway

I am questioning if the article about Marcel Gleffe is the next in line of articles to be deleted, without being nominated for deletion (in the regular manner).

It has already happende to the article about Hans Bovim/Hans Bovim. (The article was about the activist of the Resistance Movement, proponent of independent schools in Norway and prisoner of Sachsenhausen concentration camp (and there he and Norway's later prime minister (Trygve Bratteli) became aquainted with each other).

The Gleffe-article was created by a convicted sockpuppet. And the Bovim-article was deleted for being created by a sockpuppet: "09:29, 14 April 2012 Geschichte (talk | contribs) deleted page Hans Bovim (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban)"

(The article has interwiki to Norwegian, [1]. And the English text read: " Hans Bovim (May 31, 1915 – April 4, 2010) was a proponent of independent schools, activist of the Resistance Movement against Nazi occupation of Norway during World War 2, and headmaster of Kristelig Gymnasium during the years of 1955-1985.

He was imprisoned in Sachsenhausen concentration camp during World War 2.")

Can someone please request the above article to be re-published?

(The Bovim-article had already been deemed to be a notable topic, according to >Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

—a judgement that he made in the discussion that was linked to from the very first edit remark of the (now deleted) article. )

Is there anything that can be done to stop the same editor from deleting the Gleffe-article ( for being created by a sockpuppe)? When I see the how the article was deleted, then I wonder—is everyone (who deletes articles without going through AfD, are they) here to build an encyclopedia? --Flowerwall (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note - this is most probably the same sockpuppet... Mentoz86 (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have questioned your sockpuppet accusations on your talk page. This is my last edit there. --Flowerwall (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)