This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
German question article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 18 May 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from German Question to German question. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 July 2020 and 13 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cwerth490.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Großdeutschland , (i.e., Greater Germany) was not conceived on the basis of race, it was conceived on the basis of language (i.e., a Union of German language speaking peoples). Can we de-emphasize the racist thing?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 02:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
" ß" is used extensively in this article, but I think it should not be. This German character, pronounced "ss", is not generally well-known to English speakers who may be interested in this article. It is not even used at all in Switzerland. I think it should be changed to 'ss' in the first instance (or at least explained), and then the use of the German term should be reduced throughout the article, in favor of the English translation.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 09:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out a slight inaccuracy in the article, the German Question never seems to have included all German speaking peoples, since it neglected Switzerland. The Swiss Germans are not even mentioned in the article, and I don't remember there being any discussion of them in the contest between Prussia and Austria and even Hitler never attempted to include them in his versions of "Greater Germany". I just think that should be noted, for completeness. -- Hibernian ( talk) 13:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The German dualism and German question articles discuss the same topic. As such, German dualism should be merged here. Neelix ( talk) 23:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Mugwump and 14Adrian appear to think so ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=German_question&diff=455841471&oldid=455294852 ). True, this entire article needs more sources, but I am challenging this as a relevant fact in the "German question" article. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability ). For sure, this is mentioned in articles on Hitler himself, and probably the Anschluss as well, but this is hardly a key fact to bring up in a one-paragraph summation of the Anschluss. There are many more facts we could discuss that are actually relevant to it. Hitler was a pan-German nationalist is the main point, but he was a Germany-German nationalist as well and Germany had an overwhelming role in the combined state created after the Anschluss. I'm not sure what exactly is trying to be implied by the reference to Austrian birth - that Austria took over Germany? Because that isn't what actually happened.
If you can find sources that claim that Hitler's Austrian birth was somehow keyly important to the Anschluss, we can talk again. SnowFire ( talk) 03:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
do you say Austria or Austria-Hungary Empire ? RhineConfederation and Prussia and Hanover make **little** Germany **Then** to put Austria their to Germany to make great Germany **It is shame to bring but Austria born and homeland on putting to **relevant** **relevant** born place is put on Germany as legitimacy claim on dictatorship **but not Wien born** Wienbarmaid ( talk) 17:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This has been tagged as not citing any references or sources sense 2010. Should we redirect it to Greater Germany#The German question? Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
@ Cwerth490: I modified your recent additions somewhat. I see you're doing this for a school project. Some of the addition is good, but I think this might be the wrong article for it? All of the "Later influence" section is essentially a long postscript. This article is supposed to be mostly about the German Question when Germany was disunited in the 19th century, with the 20th century being a bit of a footnote (with the Anschluss being the exception, but it only lasts for ~7 years). There's no need to go into the (horrible) persecution of political opponents and Jews after the Anschluss, for example - that's more for the Anschluss article. In the same way, some of your additions seem better for History of Germany, History of Austria, etc. and their sub-articles. Again, this article is really about the debate in the 1800s.
Finally, your additions on Switzerland - Wikipedia is weird in that it prefers secondary sources ( WP:SECONDARY). So just quoting some German or Swiss intellectual directly is not encouraged, because it's very easy to accidentally create nonsense. We'd much rather cite historians who've studied the matter, because otherwise people can easily cite irrelevant or misleading bits of primary sources (like Ardnt & Mayer). I've moved this to a separate section for now; do you have any sources from historians or the like who think that the Swiss side is relevant to cover, specifically as part of The German Question movement / debate, and not "here's a random person who wanted Switzerland to join Germany?" SnowFire ( talk) 05:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 11:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
German Question → German question – More often than not, this term is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources. See naive NGRAMS [1], filtered for uses in sentences (as opposed to titles or citations) [2] Google Scholar results show it's not consistently capitalized as well: [3] ( t · c) buidhe 18:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. -- Calidum 00:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
German question article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 18 May 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from German Question to German question. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 July 2020 and 13 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cwerth490.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Großdeutschland , (i.e., Greater Germany) was not conceived on the basis of race, it was conceived on the basis of language (i.e., a Union of German language speaking peoples). Can we de-emphasize the racist thing?
ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! ( talk) 02:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
" ß" is used extensively in this article, but I think it should not be. This German character, pronounced "ss", is not generally well-known to English speakers who may be interested in this article. It is not even used at all in Switzerland. I think it should be changed to 'ss' in the first instance (or at least explained), and then the use of the German term should be reduced throughout the article, in favor of the English translation.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 09:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out a slight inaccuracy in the article, the German Question never seems to have included all German speaking peoples, since it neglected Switzerland. The Swiss Germans are not even mentioned in the article, and I don't remember there being any discussion of them in the contest between Prussia and Austria and even Hitler never attempted to include them in his versions of "Greater Germany". I just think that should be noted, for completeness. -- Hibernian ( talk) 13:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The German dualism and German question articles discuss the same topic. As such, German dualism should be merged here. Neelix ( talk) 23:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Mugwump and 14Adrian appear to think so ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=German_question&diff=455841471&oldid=455294852 ). True, this entire article needs more sources, but I am challenging this as a relevant fact in the "German question" article. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability ). For sure, this is mentioned in articles on Hitler himself, and probably the Anschluss as well, but this is hardly a key fact to bring up in a one-paragraph summation of the Anschluss. There are many more facts we could discuss that are actually relevant to it. Hitler was a pan-German nationalist is the main point, but he was a Germany-German nationalist as well and Germany had an overwhelming role in the combined state created after the Anschluss. I'm not sure what exactly is trying to be implied by the reference to Austrian birth - that Austria took over Germany? Because that isn't what actually happened.
If you can find sources that claim that Hitler's Austrian birth was somehow keyly important to the Anschluss, we can talk again. SnowFire ( talk) 03:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
do you say Austria or Austria-Hungary Empire ? RhineConfederation and Prussia and Hanover make **little** Germany **Then** to put Austria their to Germany to make great Germany **It is shame to bring but Austria born and homeland on putting to **relevant** **relevant** born place is put on Germany as legitimacy claim on dictatorship **but not Wien born** Wienbarmaid ( talk) 17:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
This has been tagged as not citing any references or sources sense 2010. Should we redirect it to Greater Germany#The German question? Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
@ Cwerth490: I modified your recent additions somewhat. I see you're doing this for a school project. Some of the addition is good, but I think this might be the wrong article for it? All of the "Later influence" section is essentially a long postscript. This article is supposed to be mostly about the German Question when Germany was disunited in the 19th century, with the 20th century being a bit of a footnote (with the Anschluss being the exception, but it only lasts for ~7 years). There's no need to go into the (horrible) persecution of political opponents and Jews after the Anschluss, for example - that's more for the Anschluss article. In the same way, some of your additions seem better for History of Germany, History of Austria, etc. and their sub-articles. Again, this article is really about the debate in the 1800s.
Finally, your additions on Switzerland - Wikipedia is weird in that it prefers secondary sources ( WP:SECONDARY). So just quoting some German or Swiss intellectual directly is not encouraged, because it's very easy to accidentally create nonsense. We'd much rather cite historians who've studied the matter, because otherwise people can easily cite irrelevant or misleading bits of primary sources (like Ardnt & Mayer). I've moved this to a separate section for now; do you have any sources from historians or the like who think that the Swiss side is relevant to cover, specifically as part of The German Question movement / debate, and not "here's a random person who wanted Switzerland to join Germany?" SnowFire ( talk) 05:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 ( talk) 11:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
German Question → German question – More often than not, this term is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources. See naive NGRAMS [1], filtered for uses in sentences (as opposed to titles or citations) [2] Google Scholar results show it's not consistently capitalized as well: [3] ( t · c) buidhe 18:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. -- Calidum 00:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)