This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jens Böhrnsen 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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do not start an edit war! He is the acting president according to German Grundgesetz. You can read it at www.bundespraesident.de or e.g. http://bremen.de/aktuelles/bundespraesident-koehler-tritt-zurueck-15399341 -- Chtrede ( talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this the "discussion" I was told to read. No matter how you put it, Böhrnsen is NOT President of Germany - he is filling in for the role but he is President of the Bundesrat. As such, he acts for the President when the latter is not avaiable. He (and his predecessors as President of the Bundesrat) have done so before. The office of Bundespräsident is currently vacant.
If anyone is edit-warring, it is you! Str1977 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I put down ACTING President of Germany, which he is. Please note that no German President has ever resigned under the current constitution (1949). The precedents are from Weimar in 1925, and the president leaving the country doesn't count. Ericl ( talk) 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I wish people actually took a look at the German constitution (Article 57)... German law does not provide for a temporary, acting or vice president. If the elected president should become incapacitated, die or should he office otherwise end (as happenend in this case through a resignation), the current head of the Bundesrat assumes the powers and duties normally held by the president and is as such head of state. However he does not actually asumme the office (as is the case other countries, e.g. the US). This means that currently Germany does not have a federal president (acting or otherwise), with the duties of the president (e.g. the signing of bills etc) being looked after by the President of the Bundesrat. Refer http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/koehlerruecktritt102.html (in German) :
Travelbird ( talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Remembering them is irrelevant. Do people remember Karl Dönitz as president? Or Joseph Goebbels as Chancellor? Or Benjamin Harrison as an American President? Hardly. The matter is that someone was indeed in the office between person A and person B and that the baton didn't pass directly from one to the other. Not putting the provisional/caretaker/acting/interim/regent between them would be misleading and denying fact. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, individual memory is not important. That's not what I meant. Dönitz, Goebbels, Harrison all held these respective offices. But it would be a false statement to list German presidents as "Arnold - Heuß - Lübke - Heinemann - Scheel - Carstens - Weizsäcker - Herzog - Rau - Köhler - Böhrnsen - X", just as it would be wrong to list German Chancellors as "Adenauer - Erhard - Kiesinger - Brandt - Scheel - Schmidt - Kohl - Schröder - Merkel". The "acting"s do not belong into the lineage. Scheel never was German Chancellor and neither Arnold nor Böhrnsen ever were German Presidents - the baton indeed passes directly from Brandt to Schmidt and from Köhler to his eventual successor. The inbetween is just a caretaker. The caretaker indeed is mentioned in the caretaker's bio - otherwise I would even keep out that he is Bundesratspräsident, seldomly a reason for excitement. Str1977 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not how it works. Any state (well, almost) must have a head of state. How they appoint him or her is really less relevant. Public international law will consider a certain person to be head of state like any other head of state regardless of internal issues like whether he holds the office of "President" or how he was appointed. There is no question that Jens Böhrnsen is now the head of state of Germany as defined by public international law. Even by internal German law, he is the head of state. I find it ridiculous that someone attempts to remove him this position in the article. To people outside Germany, the most important thing that is to say about him (at the moment) is that he is acting head of state of Europe's largest country. This is more important outside Germany, than being mayor of an obscure (compared to being head of state of a country with 80 million inhabitants) city-state. The article does not assert that he is President, it makes it very clear that he is acting head of state in his capacity as President of the Federal Council. Josh Gorand ( talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It could be helpful to ask: Who is the head of state of Germany at this moment? The question must have an answer. Horst Köhler is definitely not the head of state. Whoever is the head of state needs to identified as such in his article and other relevant articles, like any other head of state. Sources clearly identify Jens Böhrnsen as the head of state [1] who is representing Germany as such internationally [2]. Even while technically not quite correct, official German sources like the government-run broadcaster DW describes him as temporary President [3]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung describes him as "Kommissarischer Bundespräsident" too [4], leaving no doubt that he is head of state and enjoying all constitutional rights as such.
I urge both parties to stop revert-warring and accept the current legally precise version [5] which identities him as acting head of state in his capacity as President of the Federal Council (not as "President" and not as "nothing at all"). Josh Gorand ( talk) 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Germany has a head of state as defined by international law. It's not sufficient to have President of the Federal Council in the info box because this is not the same as being head of state per se. His additional powers as head of state are distinct from the position. He didn't succeed Peter Müller last year as acting head of state. Josh Gorand ( talk) 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The day before he became head of state: Biographies in 10 Wikipedia editions. After he became head of state: Biographies in 22 editions. Josh Gorand ( talk) 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok guys. It's not that difficult. Obviously he was not the Federal President of Germany, not even acting, because if he had been he would have needed to step down as Mayor of Bremen, as the German President is not allowed to occupy any other office during his/ her incumbency. BUT he of course was the head of state of Germany. So he should be noted as 'head of state' but not as 'Federal President of the Federal Republic of Germany'. By the way: During the time that he filled in as head of state, he has to suspend his position as President of the Bundesrat! That sould be noted! 27.32.7.14 ( talk) 06:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again a user unilaterally removed the compromise version, that is as neutral and formally correct as possible [6]. Then he was reverted by a different user [7], who also noted "You really need to stop. The is the most compromised position possible and you still don't like it? Ridiculous" [8]. The same user as before unilaterally removes it again, for like the 20th time [9]. In the meantime, someone adds the less accurate "acting President" to the infobox, as has happened dozens of times before. And the user who is acting unilaterally removes it, asking "how about searching consensus for a change?" [10].
I could say: The consensus version has been here all the time, and is really only opposed by a single person. This is getting extremely tedious. Each time he removes the consensus version, some other person will eventually come along and add something like "President" or "acting President", instead of the much more formally correct compromise version that should be acceptable to everyone. Josh Gorand ( talk) 05:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jens Böhrnsen 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 must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do not start an edit war! He is the acting president according to German Grundgesetz. You can read it at www.bundespraesident.de or e.g. http://bremen.de/aktuelles/bundespraesident-koehler-tritt-zurueck-15399341 -- Chtrede ( talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this the "discussion" I was told to read. No matter how you put it, Böhrnsen is NOT President of Germany - he is filling in for the role but he is President of the Bundesrat. As such, he acts for the President when the latter is not avaiable. He (and his predecessors as President of the Bundesrat) have done so before. The office of Bundespräsident is currently vacant.
If anyone is edit-warring, it is you! Str1977 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I put down ACTING President of Germany, which he is. Please note that no German President has ever resigned under the current constitution (1949). The precedents are from Weimar in 1925, and the president leaving the country doesn't count. Ericl ( talk) 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I wish people actually took a look at the German constitution (Article 57)... German law does not provide for a temporary, acting or vice president. If the elected president should become incapacitated, die or should he office otherwise end (as happenend in this case through a resignation), the current head of the Bundesrat assumes the powers and duties normally held by the president and is as such head of state. However he does not actually asumme the office (as is the case other countries, e.g. the US). This means that currently Germany does not have a federal president (acting or otherwise), with the duties of the president (e.g. the signing of bills etc) being looked after by the President of the Bundesrat. Refer http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/koehlerruecktritt102.html (in German) :
Travelbird ( talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Remembering them is irrelevant. Do people remember Karl Dönitz as president? Or Joseph Goebbels as Chancellor? Or Benjamin Harrison as an American President? Hardly. The matter is that someone was indeed in the office between person A and person B and that the baton didn't pass directly from one to the other. Not putting the provisional/caretaker/acting/interim/regent between them would be misleading and denying fact. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, individual memory is not important. That's not what I meant. Dönitz, Goebbels, Harrison all held these respective offices. But it would be a false statement to list German presidents as "Arnold - Heuß - Lübke - Heinemann - Scheel - Carstens - Weizsäcker - Herzog - Rau - Köhler - Böhrnsen - X", just as it would be wrong to list German Chancellors as "Adenauer - Erhard - Kiesinger - Brandt - Scheel - Schmidt - Kohl - Schröder - Merkel". The "acting"s do not belong into the lineage. Scheel never was German Chancellor and neither Arnold nor Böhrnsen ever were German Presidents - the baton indeed passes directly from Brandt to Schmidt and from Köhler to his eventual successor. The inbetween is just a caretaker. The caretaker indeed is mentioned in the caretaker's bio - otherwise I would even keep out that he is Bundesratspräsident, seldomly a reason for excitement. Str1977 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This is not how it works. Any state (well, almost) must have a head of state. How they appoint him or her is really less relevant. Public international law will consider a certain person to be head of state like any other head of state regardless of internal issues like whether he holds the office of "President" or how he was appointed. There is no question that Jens Böhrnsen is now the head of state of Germany as defined by public international law. Even by internal German law, he is the head of state. I find it ridiculous that someone attempts to remove him this position in the article. To people outside Germany, the most important thing that is to say about him (at the moment) is that he is acting head of state of Europe's largest country. This is more important outside Germany, than being mayor of an obscure (compared to being head of state of a country with 80 million inhabitants) city-state. The article does not assert that he is President, it makes it very clear that he is acting head of state in his capacity as President of the Federal Council. Josh Gorand ( talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It could be helpful to ask: Who is the head of state of Germany at this moment? The question must have an answer. Horst Köhler is definitely not the head of state. Whoever is the head of state needs to identified as such in his article and other relevant articles, like any other head of state. Sources clearly identify Jens Böhrnsen as the head of state [1] who is representing Germany as such internationally [2]. Even while technically not quite correct, official German sources like the government-run broadcaster DW describes him as temporary President [3]. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung describes him as "Kommissarischer Bundespräsident" too [4], leaving no doubt that he is head of state and enjoying all constitutional rights as such.
I urge both parties to stop revert-warring and accept the current legally precise version [5] which identities him as acting head of state in his capacity as President of the Federal Council (not as "President" and not as "nothing at all"). Josh Gorand ( talk) 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Germany has a head of state as defined by international law. It's not sufficient to have President of the Federal Council in the info box because this is not the same as being head of state per se. His additional powers as head of state are distinct from the position. He didn't succeed Peter Müller last year as acting head of state. Josh Gorand ( talk) 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The day before he became head of state: Biographies in 10 Wikipedia editions. After he became head of state: Biographies in 22 editions. Josh Gorand ( talk) 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok guys. It's not that difficult. Obviously he was not the Federal President of Germany, not even acting, because if he had been he would have needed to step down as Mayor of Bremen, as the German President is not allowed to occupy any other office during his/ her incumbency. BUT he of course was the head of state of Germany. So he should be noted as 'head of state' but not as 'Federal President of the Federal Republic of Germany'. By the way: During the time that he filled in as head of state, he has to suspend his position as President of the Bundesrat! That sould be noted! 27.32.7.14 ( talk) 06:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Once again a user unilaterally removed the compromise version, that is as neutral and formally correct as possible [6]. Then he was reverted by a different user [7], who also noted "You really need to stop. The is the most compromised position possible and you still don't like it? Ridiculous" [8]. The same user as before unilaterally removes it again, for like the 20th time [9]. In the meantime, someone adds the less accurate "acting President" to the infobox, as has happened dozens of times before. And the user who is acting unilaterally removes it, asking "how about searching consensus for a change?" [10].
I could say: The consensus version has been here all the time, and is really only opposed by a single person. This is getting extremely tedious. Each time he removes the consensus version, some other person will eventually come along and add something like "President" or "acting President", instead of the much more formally correct compromise version that should be acceptable to everyone. Josh Gorand ( talk) 05:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)