This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
The English term Imperial Chancellor is ambigious because it could be The Empire's Chancellor (Reichskanzler) and The Emporer's Chancellor (Kaiserlicher Kanzler) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.41.37 ( talk) 14:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It is good to notice that you record Goebbels and Von Krosigk as successors to Hitler. However I have found one other person who occupied a position as head of government in Germany prior to the founding of the Federal Republic: Hermann Pünder(CDU)Overall Director of the Administrative Council for Bizonia (U.S. and British Zones) 2 March 1948 - 20 September 1949
Noel Ellis, Wellington NZ 28 March 2004
Hermann Pünder never was Chancellor of Germany. He was the head of a provisional government. He maybe should be included in the list, but not as chancellor. --Lothar 84.155.91.165 20:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Please have a look at Talk:Helmut Kohl, where User:Hajduk and me are discussing if one should count all chancellors or starts with the federal republic anew? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 08:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you really want to count, than count Reichskanzler and Bundeskanzler seperatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.212.87 ( talk) 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Does teh Germany chancellor do "chancellor's questions" like the British PM has question time? Answer: Nein.-- Benson.by]] from de:wikipedia
I think we need a rewording at "this procedure was abused by parties of both political extremes in order to oppose chancellors and undermine the democratic process." This use of "abused" seems dubious editoralising with some agenda. Using language that suggests small or extreme parties opposing chancellors brings down "democracy" seems an unacceptably loaded statement of fact. Think we need a change to something more NPOV. Alci12
Prime Minister in Britain, Germany has a President with limited Powers who is also Head of State Nevfennas 15:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
If Angela Merkal is elected what will her title be? What is the female form of Bundeskanzler? ( Alphaboi867 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC))
Bundeskanzlerin? john k 14:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I would imagine that she would be addressed as Madam Chancellor in English. sebmol 18:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war going on. Incidentally, I tend to agree with the changes made by Riveraz which restart numbering of chancellors from 1949 on (like it is done in the German article and in common German usage). Likewise, translating "Reichskanzler" as "federal chancellor" is inappropriate and the term "imperial chancellor" is more accurate. The title of "Reichskanzler" didn't change from before 1918 (when Germany was run by an emperor) to afterwards (commonly known as the "Weimar Republic"). Therefore, it's not appropriate to change the English translation of the title either. sebmol 01:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this a joke? I edited the Helmut Schmidt article to label him as Chancellor of West Germany, but then I noticed this article and the apparent concensus on Wikipedia to refer to the post-WWII (through reunification) chancellors as "Chancellor of Germany." Is this some kind of wishful thinking on the part of some, I don't know, Germanophile equivalent to the Cuban community in Miami? It's not a matter of opinion; it's just plain inaccurate. If you were to ask Helmut Schmidt, for example, he would tell you he was not Chancellor of Germany.
I notice in the discussion above that the chancellors are "numbered" in an uninterrupted sequence, West German chancellors included, because it's "easier," and most readers only have "a general interest in the office" anyway. What? I'm inclined to slap an NPOV tag on the article, but will wait. -- Muffuletta 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Chancellor of West Germany better reflects reality and avoids BrD POV. PMA 04:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be interesting if the page ever said what that means (in English, seeing as this is the English Wikipedia). The best I can figure, it means "caretaker" or "guard". I would edit that in myself, if I knew what I was doing (with the language). -- Vystrix Nexoth 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a difference between East and West Germans! Werter is mainly a style of adress of East Germans, as the current Chancelloress comes from Mecklenburg and has lived in the former GDR.
Further notice: It is common for reasons of courtesy to adress former bearers of a constitutional offices (state president, head of government, president of parliament) in case of oral adress with the former title. (In the written form there will be an annex added refering to the end of teniture like in German a. D. = out of service / out of duty) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.41.37 ( talk) 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we have an image of Angela Merkel at the top of the article, perhaps above the "Germany" box? -- Ddxc 13:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Image:German Chancellors1.png for deletion because of possible copyright infringement and no fair-use rationale. -- Ddxc ( talk) 00:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
it's a bit strange that Schröder's picture is very small, and that Scheel's pic is about 4 times as big —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.224.207 ( talk) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Erhard.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
is this chancellor even German? she is a strong leader and so are many of the other past chancellors of Germany. But is it neccecery, given the very fact that she is Justin timberlakes sister in law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.50.28 ( talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone with an account please request a lock? Someone is vandalizing with "pokemon" lol. 67.180.237.81 ( talk) 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, Papen can't be registered as an independent, since he did belong to the Centre Party, and only left the party after being Chancellor, later joing the Nazis till the end of the war. lususromulus Correction: he left it little before becoming Chancellor for avoiding expelling due to being more of a monarchist than of a Catholic Christian Democrat lususromulus —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC).
First of all:
I suggest separating the chancellors before and after WWII into two articles. In Germany, the word Kanzler is almost never used alone, they always say Reichskanzler (Imperial Chancellor of Germany, before WWII) or Bundeskanzler (Federal Chancellor of Germany, after WWII), and they're always "counted" separately (see discussions above). Politically, there is no or very little continuity, just a similarity in the name.
I'm not quite sure how to best name the two articles, here are some considerations:
Federal Chancellor seems to be the official translation for Bundeskanzler, see: http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/Homepage/home.html
For Reichskanzler, there are different translations according to http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed§Hdr=on&spellToler=on&chinese=both&pinyin=diacritic&search=Reichskanzler&relink=on:
See also at the existing Redirects pages!!
-- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been updating some of the links to reflect the split but someone who understands the automated tools available on-wiki might do a better job. I don't have much of a normative view on the split itself. I liked the old omnibus article but do understand that the topics are rather distinct and easily presented seperately. Eluchil404 ( talk) 03:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This is utterly inappropriate and I have undone it. There is no such thing as "Imperial Chancellors" - the Weimar Republic was hardly an empire, and the office has always been known as Chancellor of Germany in English. Secondly, the office of Chancellor of Germany was established in 1867 under the title Bundeskanzler. The history of the office goes back to 1867, not 1871 and absolutely not 1949. There is a clear continuity – it is historically the same office - and no need for a split. Furthermore, there is a clear precedent at Wikipedia that one does not split articles like this. There are not separate articles for prime ministers in other states, even if it's quite common that the formal title of the head of government has changed one or more times, the constitution has been replaced or the role of the head of government modified. UweBayern ( talk) 15:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
If one would create articles on the office in different eras (I'm not convinced of the necessity of this), the article Chancellor of Germany should in any case be a main article, providing an overview, not a disambiguation page. The list of Chancellors should be included in the main article. And most links should still point to the main article. UweBayern ( talk) 16:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
As I stated before: In Germany, the word Kanzler is almost never used alone, they always say Reichskanzler (Imperial Chancellor of Germany, before WWII) or Bundeskanzler (Federal Chancellor of Germany, after WWII), and they're always "counted" separately. Politically, there is very little continuity, just a similarity in the name.
The majority (public opinion, science, media, politics) in Germany considers Reichskanzler and Bundeskanzler two different things. The official site of the Bundeskanzlerin for instance doesn't mention the Reichkanzlers, beneath the text "Historic pictures of former German chancellors:" for instance only the post war chancellors are listed (which would be what every German would expect): http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/Office-and-constitution/office-and-constitution.html
There are a lot of users in the German Wikipedia who want to give the impression of a strong continuity in German history (meaning they want to it negate the significant breaks in German history). Hope they don't win. -- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to make several points:
There is no consensus to split the article, the original discussion consisted of only two people, it seems. Furthermore, let me remind you that this is not the German Wikipedia. Which words are used in German are irrelevant to an English-language encyclopedia. In English, the German head of government has been known exclusively as the Chancellor of Germany since 1871. The Weimar Republic was not known as the "German Empire" in English, the English word empire implies monarchy (the word "Reich" does not have an exact equivalent in English). Germany in the Weimar Republic period was mostly known as Germany in English.
Chancellor of Germany and Chancellor of Germany are not different concepts. On the contrary, it's exactly the same concept. The differences in powers and the role of the Chancellor were far greater between Chancellors whose formal title were Reichskanzler (for instance between the Weimar Republic and the Nazi era, and perhaps even between the Chancellors of the German Empire and the Weimar Republic) than the difference of Chancellors of, say, the Weimar Republic and today's Germany. If one were to follow your argument, it doesn't make sense at all to cover Chancellors of the Empire, the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany in the same article - the differences in their powers and responsibilities being too great.
And how about some honesty? It's completely untrue that I didn't "[bother] to put a message on the talk page" - that it exactly what I did. UweBayern ( talk) 11:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
A lot of projects have one article for German Chancellors, including bs, ca, da, es, gl, hr, io, is, lv, ms, no, nn, pl, pt, scn, simple, sh, sv and possibly others. What matters most, however, is not which words are used in foreign languages, but usage in the English language, in which the German head of government is consistently referred to as the Chancellor of Germany. UweBayern ( talk) 12:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit of an outsider in this debate but here goes:
If the majority of the English speaking people considers Bismark, Hitler and Angela Merkel to have held the same office, one article would be appropriate. To me (and the current chancellor and - as I'm convinced - the majority of the German speaking people) they did not. -- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 14:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's generally frowned upon to ask people from other projects to join in and take side in discussions. I would very much welcome opinions from English Wikipedia contributors, especially native speakers, however.
On the question on whether Bismarck and Merkel hold the same office: It's not that simple. They hold the same office in the sense that the historical tradition of the office goes back to the office of Bismarck, which arguably had a lasting influence on the office, even if the office has evolved/changed under subsequent constitutions. They also hold the same office in the sense that they are the "prime ministers" of Germany, to other countries the differences between the offices are rather unsignificant (with a possible exception for the 12 years of Nazi rule when the office was merged with that of head of state). Furthermore, they hold the same office in the sense that they are heads of government in the very same state (as established by the Federal Constitutional Court) with a rather similar title (which in English is the same title, but differs slightly in German – both Reich- and Bundes- mean "federal", as opposed to state level, in this context). Also, the overall similarities of the office today and previously (especially, but not restricted to, the Weimar Republic era) are more significant than the differences.
I repeat that if the article should be split into more than one, based on whether the role of the office holder has changed, it would need to be split into several (at least 4) articles. And there is so far no precedent for this. I believe such a solution is not very helpful for the readers. There are not that many chancellors and the article is not that long. UweBayern ( talk) 17:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have not read most of the above, and I am not connected to the topic, but I'd like to give another opinion. I think that, although the Chancellor of modern Germany and the Chancellor of Weimar/Nazi Germany were technically different positions with the same name (as what I've seen of this makes it seem), they are closely related (the highest office in Germany). I probably would consider Bismark, Hitler, and Merkel to hold the same office, so I would prefer to see both Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic) and Chancellor of Germany (German Reich) merged to Chancellor of Germany. I am a mergist, and the list is not so excessively long that it is required to be separated. However, the German Wikipedia also has two separate articles, both of which are very good, so I can't really make a decision. If this federal article were like its featured German counterpart, then I would support a split. But at this short length and not as high quality I would currently support a merge. Basically, quit fighting and work on improving it! Reywas92 Talk 20:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
After WWII, the founding fathers of modern Germany wanted by all means avoid the tragedy to repeat, so they joined to invent a constitution that is a better foundation than the Weimar constitution was. A constitution with a inherent protection against take-over by anti-democratic (i.e. anti-constitutional) forces. So they designed a Grundgesetz that was different in many aspects, of which the most important aspect was the strengthening of the chancellor (who now indeed is the leader of the country) and the weakening of the president (who is now just a representative). So the label was adapted (not kept, since this constitution was no alteration of the one before, but a new one, and a different word was used), but the meaning was a different one (intentionally!).
I understand that some might want to depict the German history as a constant flow where every era is nothing but a modernized variant of the era before, where a set of (kind of Ur-German) motifs and institutions reappear ever and ever again. I understand the longing for a chain of successors that is as long and impressing as the line of American Presidents or the line of British kings and queens. But Wikipedia describes the reality and should therefore stick to the signified, not the signifier.
Putting Bundeskanzler and Reichskanzler into one article is to me as fanciful as putting Reichstag and Bundestag into one article (which - hopefully - noone would ever consider, for exactly the same reasons, i.e. they belong to significant different systems/constitutions).
-- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 22:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Are we not talking about two different offices belonging to two different countries in terms of ideology, governance and geography? Shall we include the Chancellors of the Holy Roman Empire in the Chancellor of Germany article as well? Gavin ( talk) 23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe that it is good to keep the old situation with BK and RK seperated. They belong to two different historical fields or eras, political systems and constitutions - and titles. And someone who wants to read about the BK might not be too interested in the RK. Furthermore, both articles are relatively long already and might become longer in future. Discussing about the continuity in German history helps us here, let us consider the needs of the readers. By the way, I do not believe that words like "nonsense" improve the quality of Wikipedia discussions.-- Ziko ( talk) 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is good to keep the old situuation with one article. If the article should be split, it needs to be split into four or possibly five articles (different political systems and constitutions). If we were to consider the needs of the readers, we need to keep one article, as is precedent, not making this ahistorical nonsense split into two. There were far bigger differences (monarchy, republican democracy, dictatorship which combined the office with that of head of state) between the offices covered by the RK article than between the current Chancellorship and that of the Weimar Republic. UweBayern ( talk) 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As there is, after a lengthy debate, no consensus to split the article, the stable situation (one article) should be restored. UweBayern ( talk) 23:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why this was added in the first place, but Chancellors (or most other Heads of Government elected by a parliament) do not have term limits, as there is no such thing as terms in the sense of the US-Presidency e.g. An elected chancellor remains chancellor until a successor is elected by parliament, the tenure is de facto independent from parliamentary elections as parliament can elect a new chancellor at any time it is in session. Even if a chancellors tenure was related to parliamentary elections (which are held every 4 years), the term length would still differ due to the time the general election is scheduled, the day the new parliament actually convenes and how fast involved parties choose a new candidate - unlike the US-President, whos term is exactly 4 years long (Jan. 20th to Jan. 20th 4 years later). -- 84.177.35.134 ( talk) 19:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The link at the second footnote is out of date. Bukovets ( talk) 13:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
see my user page for my question -- Luthermütze ( talk) 22:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The common name of the office is "Chancellor of Germany". The term "Federal Chancellor" is not used in English sources, except by Germans who are not fluent in English. The country is similarly, like all other countries, titled using its common name ( Germany) on Wikipedia, not "Federal Republic of Germany." As explained by WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." This doesn't just apply to the German chancellor, but offices in other countries as well ( Prime Minister of Italy, not "President of the Council of Ministers of the Italian Republic"). Tadeusz Nowak ( talk) 12:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Whatever your beef is with the Reich -- I didn't read it all -- just want to point out that Bund and Reich were/are used as shorthands for the State, just as the Crown is in UK (usually for its treasury, the really important part). The official name of Weimar Republic was still Deutsches Reich and Reich has a lot of meanings not only empire. I believe it was the Reich article where I already added some musings about that. Der Bund is often seen in constitution for the Federal state and I'm not aware of any regional chancellors, these we call Ministerpräsident of whatever. -- 88.74.134.48 ( talk) 09:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The lemma suggests a predestined end of the period where Germany has a chancellor, like it’s waiting to change it to Chancellor of Germany (1949–2016). While this may come true surprisingly, I suggest to move the article to Chancellor of Germany (since 1949) or something similiar. -- Gohnarch ░ 13:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chancellor of Germany (1949–). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved as it appears the nominator has changed their mind and there is no consensus regarding this move. Further discussions can be had regarding the purpose and future of this article, and another move proposed if necessary. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Brad v🍁 03:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Chancellor of Germany (1949–present) → Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany – Federal Republic of Germany was commonly known as " West Germany" between 1949 and 1990, and it is commonly known as "Germany" from German reunification in 1990, so this article's title should be changed to "Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany". 111.192.185.97 ( talk) 10:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– At present I change my mind. I advise to merge this article into the article " Chancellor of Germany". Chancellor of Germany is head of government of Germany during German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany (in most of the time during Nazi Germany, Führer was served as Chancellor) and Federal Republic of Germany. This article talks about the same thing with Chancellor of Germany#Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (since 1949), so this article should be moved there. 111.192.185.97 ( talk) 14:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Per duplicate and overlap. This article is on the same subject and related subjects that have a large overlap with " Chancellor of Germany", because this article is about the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, the article " Chancellor of Germany" is about the German Chancellor throughout history of Germany, which includes the content of this article (the article " Chancellor of Germany"'s section "Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (from 1949)" is as same as this article's content). Thus, please merge this article into " Chancellor of Germany", especially its section "Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (from 1949)". 111.192.196.151 17:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
The English term Imperial Chancellor is ambigious because it could be The Empire's Chancellor (Reichskanzler) and The Emporer's Chancellor (Kaiserlicher Kanzler) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.41.37 ( talk) 14:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It is good to notice that you record Goebbels and Von Krosigk as successors to Hitler. However I have found one other person who occupied a position as head of government in Germany prior to the founding of the Federal Republic: Hermann Pünder(CDU)Overall Director of the Administrative Council for Bizonia (U.S. and British Zones) 2 March 1948 - 20 September 1949
Noel Ellis, Wellington NZ 28 March 2004
Hermann Pünder never was Chancellor of Germany. He was the head of a provisional government. He maybe should be included in the list, but not as chancellor. --Lothar 84.155.91.165 20:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Please have a look at Talk:Helmut Kohl, where User:Hajduk and me are discussing if one should count all chancellors or starts with the federal republic anew? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 08:32, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you really want to count, than count Reichskanzler and Bundeskanzler seperatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.212.87 ( talk) 16:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Does teh Germany chancellor do "chancellor's questions" like the British PM has question time? Answer: Nein.-- Benson.by]] from de:wikipedia
I think we need a rewording at "this procedure was abused by parties of both political extremes in order to oppose chancellors and undermine the democratic process." This use of "abused" seems dubious editoralising with some agenda. Using language that suggests small or extreme parties opposing chancellors brings down "democracy" seems an unacceptably loaded statement of fact. Think we need a change to something more NPOV. Alci12
Prime Minister in Britain, Germany has a President with limited Powers who is also Head of State Nevfennas 15:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
If Angela Merkal is elected what will her title be? What is the female form of Bundeskanzler? ( Alphaboi867 07:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC))
Bundeskanzlerin? john k 14:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I would imagine that she would be addressed as Madam Chancellor in English. sebmol 18:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war going on. Incidentally, I tend to agree with the changes made by Riveraz which restart numbering of chancellors from 1949 on (like it is done in the German article and in common German usage). Likewise, translating "Reichskanzler" as "federal chancellor" is inappropriate and the term "imperial chancellor" is more accurate. The title of "Reichskanzler" didn't change from before 1918 (when Germany was run by an emperor) to afterwards (commonly known as the "Weimar Republic"). Therefore, it's not appropriate to change the English translation of the title either. sebmol 01:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this a joke? I edited the Helmut Schmidt article to label him as Chancellor of West Germany, but then I noticed this article and the apparent concensus on Wikipedia to refer to the post-WWII (through reunification) chancellors as "Chancellor of Germany." Is this some kind of wishful thinking on the part of some, I don't know, Germanophile equivalent to the Cuban community in Miami? It's not a matter of opinion; it's just plain inaccurate. If you were to ask Helmut Schmidt, for example, he would tell you he was not Chancellor of Germany.
I notice in the discussion above that the chancellors are "numbered" in an uninterrupted sequence, West German chancellors included, because it's "easier," and most readers only have "a general interest in the office" anyway. What? I'm inclined to slap an NPOV tag on the article, but will wait. -- Muffuletta 14:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Chancellor of West Germany better reflects reality and avoids BrD POV. PMA 04:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be interesting if the page ever said what that means (in English, seeing as this is the English Wikipedia). The best I can figure, it means "caretaker" or "guard". I would edit that in myself, if I knew what I was doing (with the language). -- Vystrix Nexoth 03:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a difference between East and West Germans! Werter is mainly a style of adress of East Germans, as the current Chancelloress comes from Mecklenburg and has lived in the former GDR.
Further notice: It is common for reasons of courtesy to adress former bearers of a constitutional offices (state president, head of government, president of parliament) in case of oral adress with the former title. (In the written form there will be an annex added refering to the end of teniture like in German a. D. = out of service / out of duty) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.41.37 ( talk) 13:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we have an image of Angela Merkel at the top of the article, perhaps above the "Germany" box? -- Ddxc 13:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated Image:German Chancellors1.png for deletion because of possible copyright infringement and no fair-use rationale. -- Ddxc ( talk) 00:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
it's a bit strange that Schröder's picture is very small, and that Scheel's pic is about 4 times as big —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.224.207 ( talk) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Erhard.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
is this chancellor even German? she is a strong leader and so are many of the other past chancellors of Germany. But is it neccecery, given the very fact that she is Justin timberlakes sister in law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.50.28 ( talk) 17:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Could someone with an account please request a lock? Someone is vandalizing with "pokemon" lol. 67.180.237.81 ( talk) 22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, Papen can't be registered as an independent, since he did belong to the Centre Party, and only left the party after being Chancellor, later joing the Nazis till the end of the war. lususromulus Correction: he left it little before becoming Chancellor for avoiding expelling due to being more of a monarchist than of a Catholic Christian Democrat lususromulus —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC).
First of all:
I suggest separating the chancellors before and after WWII into two articles. In Germany, the word Kanzler is almost never used alone, they always say Reichskanzler (Imperial Chancellor of Germany, before WWII) or Bundeskanzler (Federal Chancellor of Germany, after WWII), and they're always "counted" separately (see discussions above). Politically, there is no or very little continuity, just a similarity in the name.
I'm not quite sure how to best name the two articles, here are some considerations:
Federal Chancellor seems to be the official translation for Bundeskanzler, see: http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/Homepage/home.html
For Reichskanzler, there are different translations according to http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed§Hdr=on&spellToler=on&chinese=both&pinyin=diacritic&search=Reichskanzler&relink=on:
See also at the existing Redirects pages!!
-- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been updating some of the links to reflect the split but someone who understands the automated tools available on-wiki might do a better job. I don't have much of a normative view on the split itself. I liked the old omnibus article but do understand that the topics are rather distinct and easily presented seperately. Eluchil404 ( talk) 03:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This is utterly inappropriate and I have undone it. There is no such thing as "Imperial Chancellors" - the Weimar Republic was hardly an empire, and the office has always been known as Chancellor of Germany in English. Secondly, the office of Chancellor of Germany was established in 1867 under the title Bundeskanzler. The history of the office goes back to 1867, not 1871 and absolutely not 1949. There is a clear continuity – it is historically the same office - and no need for a split. Furthermore, there is a clear precedent at Wikipedia that one does not split articles like this. There are not separate articles for prime ministers in other states, even if it's quite common that the formal title of the head of government has changed one or more times, the constitution has been replaced or the role of the head of government modified. UweBayern ( talk) 15:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
If one would create articles on the office in different eras (I'm not convinced of the necessity of this), the article Chancellor of Germany should in any case be a main article, providing an overview, not a disambiguation page. The list of Chancellors should be included in the main article. And most links should still point to the main article. UweBayern ( talk) 16:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
As I stated before: In Germany, the word Kanzler is almost never used alone, they always say Reichskanzler (Imperial Chancellor of Germany, before WWII) or Bundeskanzler (Federal Chancellor of Germany, after WWII), and they're always "counted" separately. Politically, there is very little continuity, just a similarity in the name.
The majority (public opinion, science, media, politics) in Germany considers Reichskanzler and Bundeskanzler two different things. The official site of the Bundeskanzlerin for instance doesn't mention the Reichkanzlers, beneath the text "Historic pictures of former German chancellors:" for instance only the post war chancellors are listed (which would be what every German would expect): http://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/Webs/BK/EN/Office-and-constitution/office-and-constitution.html
There are a lot of users in the German Wikipedia who want to give the impression of a strong continuity in German history (meaning they want to it negate the significant breaks in German history). Hope they don't win. -- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to make several points:
There is no consensus to split the article, the original discussion consisted of only two people, it seems. Furthermore, let me remind you that this is not the German Wikipedia. Which words are used in German are irrelevant to an English-language encyclopedia. In English, the German head of government has been known exclusively as the Chancellor of Germany since 1871. The Weimar Republic was not known as the "German Empire" in English, the English word empire implies monarchy (the word "Reich" does not have an exact equivalent in English). Germany in the Weimar Republic period was mostly known as Germany in English.
Chancellor of Germany and Chancellor of Germany are not different concepts. On the contrary, it's exactly the same concept. The differences in powers and the role of the Chancellor were far greater between Chancellors whose formal title were Reichskanzler (for instance between the Weimar Republic and the Nazi era, and perhaps even between the Chancellors of the German Empire and the Weimar Republic) than the difference of Chancellors of, say, the Weimar Republic and today's Germany. If one were to follow your argument, it doesn't make sense at all to cover Chancellors of the Empire, the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany in the same article - the differences in their powers and responsibilities being too great.
And how about some honesty? It's completely untrue that I didn't "[bother] to put a message on the talk page" - that it exactly what I did. UweBayern ( talk) 11:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
A lot of projects have one article for German Chancellors, including bs, ca, da, es, gl, hr, io, is, lv, ms, no, nn, pl, pt, scn, simple, sh, sv and possibly others. What matters most, however, is not which words are used in foreign languages, but usage in the English language, in which the German head of government is consistently referred to as the Chancellor of Germany. UweBayern ( talk) 12:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit of an outsider in this debate but here goes:
If the majority of the English speaking people considers Bismark, Hitler and Angela Merkel to have held the same office, one article would be appropriate. To me (and the current chancellor and - as I'm convinced - the majority of the German speaking people) they did not. -- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 14:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's generally frowned upon to ask people from other projects to join in and take side in discussions. I would very much welcome opinions from English Wikipedia contributors, especially native speakers, however.
On the question on whether Bismarck and Merkel hold the same office: It's not that simple. They hold the same office in the sense that the historical tradition of the office goes back to the office of Bismarck, which arguably had a lasting influence on the office, even if the office has evolved/changed under subsequent constitutions. They also hold the same office in the sense that they are the "prime ministers" of Germany, to other countries the differences between the offices are rather unsignificant (with a possible exception for the 12 years of Nazi rule when the office was merged with that of head of state). Furthermore, they hold the same office in the sense that they are heads of government in the very same state (as established by the Federal Constitutional Court) with a rather similar title (which in English is the same title, but differs slightly in German – both Reich- and Bundes- mean "federal", as opposed to state level, in this context). Also, the overall similarities of the office today and previously (especially, but not restricted to, the Weimar Republic era) are more significant than the differences.
I repeat that if the article should be split into more than one, based on whether the role of the office holder has changed, it would need to be split into several (at least 4) articles. And there is so far no precedent for this. I believe such a solution is not very helpful for the readers. There are not that many chancellors and the article is not that long. UweBayern ( talk) 17:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have not read most of the above, and I am not connected to the topic, but I'd like to give another opinion. I think that, although the Chancellor of modern Germany and the Chancellor of Weimar/Nazi Germany were technically different positions with the same name (as what I've seen of this makes it seem), they are closely related (the highest office in Germany). I probably would consider Bismark, Hitler, and Merkel to hold the same office, so I would prefer to see both Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic) and Chancellor of Germany (German Reich) merged to Chancellor of Germany. I am a mergist, and the list is not so excessively long that it is required to be separated. However, the German Wikipedia also has two separate articles, both of which are very good, so I can't really make a decision. If this federal article were like its featured German counterpart, then I would support a split. But at this short length and not as high quality I would currently support a merge. Basically, quit fighting and work on improving it! Reywas92 Talk 20:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
After WWII, the founding fathers of modern Germany wanted by all means avoid the tragedy to repeat, so they joined to invent a constitution that is a better foundation than the Weimar constitution was. A constitution with a inherent protection against take-over by anti-democratic (i.e. anti-constitutional) forces. So they designed a Grundgesetz that was different in many aspects, of which the most important aspect was the strengthening of the chancellor (who now indeed is the leader of the country) and the weakening of the president (who is now just a representative). So the label was adapted (not kept, since this constitution was no alteration of the one before, but a new one, and a different word was used), but the meaning was a different one (intentionally!).
I understand that some might want to depict the German history as a constant flow where every era is nothing but a modernized variant of the era before, where a set of (kind of Ur-German) motifs and institutions reappear ever and ever again. I understand the longing for a chain of successors that is as long and impressing as the line of American Presidents or the line of British kings and queens. But Wikipedia describes the reality and should therefore stick to the signified, not the signifier.
Putting Bundeskanzler and Reichskanzler into one article is to me as fanciful as putting Reichstag and Bundestag into one article (which - hopefully - noone would ever consider, for exactly the same reasons, i.e. they belong to significant different systems/constitutions).
-- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 22:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Are we not talking about two different offices belonging to two different countries in terms of ideology, governance and geography? Shall we include the Chancellors of the Holy Roman Empire in the Chancellor of Germany article as well? Gavin ( talk) 23:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe that it is good to keep the old situation with BK and RK seperated. They belong to two different historical fields or eras, political systems and constitutions - and titles. And someone who wants to read about the BK might not be too interested in the RK. Furthermore, both articles are relatively long already and might become longer in future. Discussing about the continuity in German history helps us here, let us consider the needs of the readers. By the way, I do not believe that words like "nonsense" improve the quality of Wikipedia discussions.-- Ziko ( talk) 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is good to keep the old situuation with one article. If the article should be split, it needs to be split into four or possibly five articles (different political systems and constitutions). If we were to consider the needs of the readers, we need to keep one article, as is precedent, not making this ahistorical nonsense split into two. There were far bigger differences (monarchy, republican democracy, dictatorship which combined the office with that of head of state) between the offices covered by the RK article than between the current Chancellorship and that of the Weimar Republic. UweBayern ( talk) 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
As there is, after a lengthy debate, no consensus to split the article, the stable situation (one article) should be restored. UweBayern ( talk) 23:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why this was added in the first place, but Chancellors (or most other Heads of Government elected by a parliament) do not have term limits, as there is no such thing as terms in the sense of the US-Presidency e.g. An elected chancellor remains chancellor until a successor is elected by parliament, the tenure is de facto independent from parliamentary elections as parliament can elect a new chancellor at any time it is in session. Even if a chancellors tenure was related to parliamentary elections (which are held every 4 years), the term length would still differ due to the time the general election is scheduled, the day the new parliament actually convenes and how fast involved parties choose a new candidate - unlike the US-President, whos term is exactly 4 years long (Jan. 20th to Jan. 20th 4 years later). -- 84.177.35.134 ( talk) 19:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The link at the second footnote is out of date. Bukovets ( talk) 13:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
see my user page for my question -- Luthermütze ( talk) 22:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The common name of the office is "Chancellor of Germany". The term "Federal Chancellor" is not used in English sources, except by Germans who are not fluent in English. The country is similarly, like all other countries, titled using its common name ( Germany) on Wikipedia, not "Federal Republic of Germany." As explained by WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." This doesn't just apply to the German chancellor, but offices in other countries as well ( Prime Minister of Italy, not "President of the Council of Ministers of the Italian Republic"). Tadeusz Nowak ( talk) 12:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Whatever your beef is with the Reich -- I didn't read it all -- just want to point out that Bund and Reich were/are used as shorthands for the State, just as the Crown is in UK (usually for its treasury, the really important part). The official name of Weimar Republic was still Deutsches Reich and Reich has a lot of meanings not only empire. I believe it was the Reich article where I already added some musings about that. Der Bund is often seen in constitution for the Federal state and I'm not aware of any regional chancellors, these we call Ministerpräsident of whatever. -- 88.74.134.48 ( talk) 09:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The lemma suggests a predestined end of the period where Germany has a chancellor, like it’s waiting to change it to Chancellor of Germany (1949–2016). While this may come true surprisingly, I suggest to move the article to Chancellor of Germany (since 1949) or something similiar. -- Gohnarch ░ 13:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chancellor of Germany (1949–). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved as it appears the nominator has changed their mind and there is no consensus regarding this move. Further discussions can be had regarding the purpose and future of this article, and another move proposed if necessary. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Brad v🍁 03:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Chancellor of Germany (1949–present) → Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany – Federal Republic of Germany was commonly known as " West Germany" between 1949 and 1990, and it is commonly known as "Germany" from German reunification in 1990, so this article's title should be changed to "Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany". 111.192.185.97 ( talk) 10:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– At present I change my mind. I advise to merge this article into the article " Chancellor of Germany". Chancellor of Germany is head of government of Germany during German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany (in most of the time during Nazi Germany, Führer was served as Chancellor) and Federal Republic of Germany. This article talks about the same thing with Chancellor of Germany#Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (since 1949), so this article should be moved there. 111.192.185.97 ( talk) 14:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Per duplicate and overlap. This article is on the same subject and related subjects that have a large overlap with " Chancellor of Germany", because this article is about the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, the article " Chancellor of Germany" is about the German Chancellor throughout history of Germany, which includes the content of this article (the article " Chancellor of Germany"'s section "Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (from 1949)" is as same as this article's content). Thus, please merge this article into " Chancellor of Germany", especially its section "Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (from 1949)". 111.192.196.151 17:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)