![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Who is this Ashton Iommi listed as President from 1919-25? Looks like someone has been vandalizing the page and replaced Friedrich Ebert with some unknown's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.143.173.178 ( talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[quote] There is disagreement about whether the president, in fact, has greater powers than the above description would suggest. Some argue that nothing in the Basic Law suggests that a president must follow government directives. For instance, the president could refuse to sign legislation, thus vetoing it, or refuse to approve certain cabinet appointments. As of mid-2003, no president had ever taken such action, and thus the constitutionality of these points had never been tested. [/quote]
I seem to recall that I was teached in school that if the Bundespräsident refused to sign something into law he must step down from his post and a the a new one would be elected. In that way giving the präsidend no real veto power. Hexren
The article currently says that existed during the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) and is the successor to the office of Reichspräsident ("Reich President") that existed during the Weimar Republic (1919-1933). What happened between 1933-1949? Even if one argues that the office did not exsist between 1933 and April 29 1945. It did exist on April 30 1945. Philip Baird Shearer 11:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There was certainly a Reichspräsident from 33-34 (Hindenburg). While Wikipedia currently says that Dönitz was Reichspräsident in a couple of articles, I have never before heard of him being referred to as such. Rather, I've always seen him called simply "Head of State". Columbia does not refer to him as such. ( [1]). Britannica sort of does. In some sense, both Hitler and Dönitz held the office of Reichspräsident. Neither was normally styled as such. I'm not sure how this is to be indicated. It is certainly wrong, as the list linked from this page now does, to say that Dönitz was the third Reichspräsident - he was either not Reichspräsident, or Hitler was too. Obviously, there was no German government between 1945 and 1949. john k 17:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not to denigrate the Wikipedia, but I don't think other Wikipedia articles can be used properly as evidence of anything. I'd like to see a, well, book that talks about this issue, or that calls Dönitz Reichspräsident. john k 20:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I'd suggest that we remove the numeration entirely, since the question of whether Hitler was Reichspräsident, or merely held the powers of Reichspräsident, seems up in the air, and the ordinals don't really give us any additional information. john k 17:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's not at all the same as Cromwell, though. In the Third Reich, the Weimar Constitution (providing for a President) was still officially in operation, and Hitler explicitly took on Hindenburg's powers in 1934. The word Führer was certainly the one used, but in all essential respects the Führer was the Reichspräsident. The latter office had been subsumed within the larger office of "Führer". This is different from Cromwell, who was operating under a completely different political system than old Chucky I. john k 21:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In terms of the enabling act - indeed, the Weimar Constitution was put out of operation. But it was done constitutionally - that is to say, Germany's constitution was still the Weimar Constitution. It just was suspended for an indefinite period of time. But I wasn't clear. In terms of Hitler as Reichspräsident, I wasn't saying that he was Reichspräsident, exactly. Just that he incorporated within himself all of Hindenburg's powers, meaning that the role of Führer in some sense incorporated the role of Reichspräsident. At any rate, all I'm asking now is that the awkward ordinals in the other article be removed - it just seems weird to say that Dönitz was the third Reichspräsident. john k 03:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is the text of the German wikipedia about Reichspräsident: unmittelbar nach Hindenburgs Tod übernahm Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler auch das Amt des Reichspräsidenten (durch Volksabstimmung vom 19. August 1934 bestätigt), ersetzte den Titel "Reichspräsident" jedoch durch "Führer";
Means: direct after the death of Hindenburg, Hitler took over the office (Reichspräsident). Confirmed by plebiscite of 19th August 1934. He changed the title "Reichspräsident" into "Führer".
That is the reason for the reverting of the IP edit. -- Gabriel-Royce 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that, as the article states, Presidents in the Federal Republic are required to be non-partisan and drop their party affiliations, is it right to have parties and party colours featured on the list of Presidents? 172.215.89.16 01:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I created Reichspräsident as its own article about a year ago. This was merged with this article by an anonymous user and I restored it as a separate article about a month ago. Serø has now merged it again so I've undone the merger a second time. The reasons I think Reichspräsident deserves a separate article from this one (which should be about the modern presidency, known in German as the Bundespräsident) are the following:
Iota 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Reichspräsident is not an English word. The title used in all English language sources is "President [of Germany]". If you want to write in German language, do that on the German language Wikipedia. Besides, it's highly manipulative to cut off parts of the history. An article with the title "President of Germany" needs to deal with all Presidents of Germany. If it is too much stuff (which it isn't at the moment), some stuff could be moved to separate articles that elaborate on issues like "functions of the President of Germany from 1919 to 1934" etc., however "President of Germany" being the main article must provide an overview of the history of the office since its establishment in 1919 in any case. Donnog 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Donnog - there's no reason not to cover both Weimar and BRD in a single article. john k 04:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just edited Reichspräsident to, among other tweaks, replace most of the use of the German term with president and President of Germany. Looking at it again the German term was being overused. Iota 15:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC
Why is Hitler not on the list of Presidents?
Reichskanzler that was his title after the election of 1933-- Gabriel-Royce 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) And Reichspräsident after the referendum of the year 1934 (19 August).-- Gabriel-Royce 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You are messing around a bit.
Germany as Nation State had severel legal forms with changing borders and offices:
The Deutsches Reichs reigned by the Kaiser (emperor) between 1871 and 1918. (Monarchy) The Deutsches Reich also named the "Weimarer Republik"(Reichspräsident between 1918 and 1933.(Republic) The Deutsches Reich or Third Reich (Drittes Reich oder Tausendjähriges Reich) of Hitler and the NAZI's.(Dictatorship) The Deutsches Reich ended with the Allied victory and the dicissions of the allies. Instead there were now two new German States: West-Germany =Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) and East Germany = Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic) 1989/90 both states were reunificated (German reunification) The new state took its name, flag and signs from West-Germany also the law. So you got six different political systems between 1871 and today. In consequence you can't say the President of Germany! You could name the article German head of states or you have to change it into several articles. For ex.: The presidents of the Federal Republic of Germany, and another one Presidents of the German Reich or so. It is totally wrong to say something like this the President of Germany (Bundespräsident, formerly Reichspräsident). It is not the same office, because Reich and Federal Republik of Germany are not the same states! You wouldn't say England while talking about Great Britain, would you. Or King instead of Queen. -- Gabriel-Royce 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you've seen it. Yes that is a possible change for the future of this article.-- Gabriel-Royce 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Gustav Heinemann.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why are the Presidents of the FRG given the title "President of Germany" during the period 1949-91, but the Presidents of the DDR are not? Either Germany had two Presidents (or heads of state) during this period (because there were two de facto and internationally recognised states on German soil), or there were none (because both the FRG and the GRD had no de jure status in the absence of a peace treaty). Both are arguable positions, but to say that the FRG was the only legitimate German state during this period is a political opinion. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Theodor Heuss.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. --12:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Chancellor of Germany was recently split into two parts, to refer to the different offices in modern Germany (Bundeskanzler) and before 1945 (Reichskanzler). I suggest that we split this article in the same way, for consistency. Note that the office of president was much more important/powerful before 1945, and had a different name in German (Reichspräsident versus Bundespräsident). -- KarlFrei ( talk) 12:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with the original poster. This article is complete nonsense. Nobody in Germany would ever acknowledge any kind of continuity from the President of the Reich to the Federal President. It's like having one article for the King of England and the President of the United States. Besides: The title of President didn't come up in Germany only after World War I. In the North German Confederation, the king of Prussia was the de facto President, Prussia as a whole holding the Presidency. In the German Empire that did not change, only now instead of using the title President they went back to Holy Roman Empire and made William I German Emperor. So if you want to cover all German presidents in one article, please add William I, Frederick and William II, if only so that you see the overall lunacy of having these completely different offices covered in one and the same place. BTW the same nonsense is happening over at the "President of France" article. Covering Napoleon III and Sarkozy in one article... Honestly, you have to be seriously braindead even to think of doing that... So could someone just call up ANY historian before inventing historical continuity where it does not exist?! -- Eisenmaus ( talk) 23:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)There is no reason for a "split". I support the existing version that appears to have been stable for 10+ years. The history of the office of President of Germany started in 1919, claiming anything else is pure invention. We have articles on "president of [country]" based on the fact that they held the same position in their respective countries. Let's see:
The difference between Ebert's office and Hitler's office was much bigger than between Wulff's office and Ebert's office, and the titles used were more similar for Ebert and Wulff (both being referred to as Presidents of Germany in English) than for Ebert and Hitler (who didn't hold the title President at all). The quite misleading "Reichspräsident of Germany" article, which listed Hitler who was never a "Reichspräsident" or a President at all, is so short that it should be merged with this article. Josh Gorand ( talk) 01:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I definitely think one article on all heads of state of Germany since 1919 is better than having one article for the Weimar Era head of state, one article for the Nazi era head of state, one article for the postwar era head of state, and then someone comes along and says the Cold War era office was too different from the post 1990 office and demands separate articles. This sort of fragmentation is not helpful, and the key issue is the position as head of state of the country called Germany (we have debated similar issues in relation to Jens Böhrnsen and Horst Seehofer). If one looks at articles on presidents or prime ministers of other countries, they are all covered in the same article. Josh Gorand ( talk) 10:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Christian Wulff has been elected today, but his inauguration will be on Friday, July 2. I have corrected this in the top box, but do not know how to correct the timeline (cannot find the template).-- SiriusB ( talk) 19:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for me, the ugly german, editing first :-) but i think it´s correct so far. Uwe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.196.29.247 ( talk) 20:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A more technical question: How are these timelines generated? Are they edited somewhere in tabulated form? If so, how can I find these timeline-templates? I have searched the Wikipedia help and template pages, used even Google, but could not find anything that fits.-- SiriusB ( talk) 20:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
{{Timeline President and Chancellor of Federal Republic of Germany}}
, which you can edit by going to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Timeline_President_and_Chancellor_of_Federal_Republic_of_Germany (generally: Put "Template:" before template name. HTH --
Pbro en (
talk) 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)The redirection should be from President of Germany to Federal President of Germany, thus the other way around from the current status. As said in the first sentence in the article, the official title in German is Bundespräsident, which means Federal President. There ist nothing such as the President of Germany, it is the German Federal President. -- Chtrede ( talk) 06:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
NO - The official wording is in German: Der Bundespräsident - but in English as in any other foreign language: The President of the Federal Republic of Germany or in French: Le President de la République fédérale d'Allemagne or in Italian: Il Presidente della Repubblica di Germania. The Term Federal is never used twice.
As there is no precedent it might be confusing, but Wulff became the 10th President of Germany upon accepting the election since the post was vacant. Previously, the election took place well in advance of the end of term (30 June since Lübkes resignation), leaving enough time to organize the transition (usually 1 July). (See §10 Bundespräsidentenwahlgesetz vom 12. Juli 2007). -- Dodo19 ( talk) 07:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Will the term of the federal president Christian Wulff end on 29th June 2015, not on 30th June 2014? So, is his term exactly five years long?
Was Horst Köhler formally the federal president til Wulff was elected, although Köhler resigned on 31st May and left the presidential duties immediately?
--
Finrus (
talk) 18:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks! So, if future would come without surprises, the table in de:Bundespräsident (Deutschland) may be (til 2015):
Nr. | Name (Lebensdaten) | Partei | Beginn der Amtszeit | Ende der Amtszeit | Wahl(en) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Theodor Heuss (1884–1963) | FDP | 13. September 1949 | 12. September 1959 | 1949/1954 |
2 | Heinrich Lübke (1894–1972) | CDU | 13. September 1959 | 30. Juni 1969 | 1959/1964 |
3 | Gustav Heinemann (1899–1976) | SPD | 1. Juli 1969 | 30. Juni 1974 | 1969 |
4 | Walter Scheel (* 1919) | FDP | 1. Juli 1974 | 30. Juni 1979 | 1974 |
5 | Karl Carstens (1914–1992) | CDU | 1. Juli 1979 | 30. Juni 1984 | 1979 |
6 | Richard von Weizsäcker (* 1920) | CDU | 1. Juli 1984 | 30. Juni 1994 | 1984/1989 |
7 | Roman Herzog (* 1934) | CDU | 1. Juli 1994 | 30. Juni 1999 | 1994 |
8 | Johannes Rau (1931–2006) | SPD | 1. Juli 1999 | 30. Juni 2004 | 1999 |
9 | Horst Köhler (* 1943) | CDU | 1. Juli 2004 | 31. Mai 2010 | 2004/2009 |
10 | Christian Wulff (* 1959) | CDU | 30. Juni 2010 | 29. Juni 2015 | 2010 |
-- Finrus ( talk) 19:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This article uses to translate the term "Bundespräsident" as "President". I think that this is a bit inacurate. In Germany, this guy is always referred to as the "Bundespräsident" (not just "Präsident") and "Bundespräsident" would translate to "Federal President". The word "Federal" is very important in this context, for several reasons:
So, to cut a long story short, I think that this article should be renamed to "Federal President" or "Federal President (Germany)" -- 62.156.56.92 ( talk) 05:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
Some Germans seem very insistent that they get to decide what people should write in other languages than German. It doesn't work that way, English speakers decide which terms to use in the English language. And this is, incidentally, the Wikipedia edition in that language. English speakers overwhelmingly refer to the head of state of Germany as the President of Germany. A term such as "Federal President" doesn't exist in the English language. We also refer to the head of government of Italy as the Prime Minister of Italy, although the term in the Italian language means something else. Josh Gorand ( talk) 16:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The German constitution does not know the position of an interim or acting president. Seehofer is solely the president of the Bundesrat. As such, he carries out the duties of the President. But he is neither president, nor head of state. That may be a common misconception. This office is vacant. It is not justified to put a big picture of Seehofer in the infobox, because then it lokes like Seehofer were somehow the incumbent President of Germany. But he is not. Not by any means. Not even acting. -- RJFF ( talk) 19:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As already mentioned in 2010 there must NOT be a redirection from federal president to president, but the other way round. There is no such thing like a "Präsident Deutschlands". It is just "Bundespräsident", meaning just "Federal President". Don't argue about the translation - I AM German. If there are no issues until the end of the week, I'll do the redirection.-- JR natural scientist ( talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The correct title is "Bundespräsident" (BPr) and "Bundespräsident der Bundesrepublik Deutschland". ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespr%C3%A4sident_(Deutschland)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerElektriker ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 19:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
President of Germany → President of the Federal Republic of Germany – The note at the top of this article says that "This article is about the position of President of Germany in the current 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 "President of the Federal Republic of Germany". 111.192.185.97 ( talk) 11:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. JC7V ( talk) 05:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems odd to see the Chancellor referred to as the de facto chief executive. The Chancellor's authority is clearly set out by the Basic Law, articles 64 and 65. There is divided executive authority between the President and the Chancellor, but the Chancellor's authority is constitutional in nature; not de facto. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 18:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
As the recent edits to the article have been solely focused around the usage of pronouns on the page (with edits changing he/she to they or he to they and vice versa). To resolve this, and prevent a edit warring, I think it would be better to reach a consensus here. The views seem to be that, either:
I'm in favour of the former, but I'd prefer to reach a consensus, rather than undo changes which may leave people feeling disgruntled. So, what's the consensus? - ATeaAddict ( talk) 09:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Who is this Ashton Iommi listed as President from 1919-25? Looks like someone has been vandalizing the page and replaced Friedrich Ebert with some unknown's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.143.173.178 ( talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[quote] There is disagreement about whether the president, in fact, has greater powers than the above description would suggest. Some argue that nothing in the Basic Law suggests that a president must follow government directives. For instance, the president could refuse to sign legislation, thus vetoing it, or refuse to approve certain cabinet appointments. As of mid-2003, no president had ever taken such action, and thus the constitutionality of these points had never been tested. [/quote]
I seem to recall that I was teached in school that if the Bundespräsident refused to sign something into law he must step down from his post and a the a new one would be elected. In that way giving the präsidend no real veto power. Hexren
The article currently says that existed during the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) and is the successor to the office of Reichspräsident ("Reich President") that existed during the Weimar Republic (1919-1933). What happened between 1933-1949? Even if one argues that the office did not exsist between 1933 and April 29 1945. It did exist on April 30 1945. Philip Baird Shearer 11:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There was certainly a Reichspräsident from 33-34 (Hindenburg). While Wikipedia currently says that Dönitz was Reichspräsident in a couple of articles, I have never before heard of him being referred to as such. Rather, I've always seen him called simply "Head of State". Columbia does not refer to him as such. ( [1]). Britannica sort of does. In some sense, both Hitler and Dönitz held the office of Reichspräsident. Neither was normally styled as such. I'm not sure how this is to be indicated. It is certainly wrong, as the list linked from this page now does, to say that Dönitz was the third Reichspräsident - he was either not Reichspräsident, or Hitler was too. Obviously, there was no German government between 1945 and 1949. john k 17:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not to denigrate the Wikipedia, but I don't think other Wikipedia articles can be used properly as evidence of anything. I'd like to see a, well, book that talks about this issue, or that calls Dönitz Reichspräsident. john k 20:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I'd suggest that we remove the numeration entirely, since the question of whether Hitler was Reichspräsident, or merely held the powers of Reichspräsident, seems up in the air, and the ordinals don't really give us any additional information. john k 17:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's not at all the same as Cromwell, though. In the Third Reich, the Weimar Constitution (providing for a President) was still officially in operation, and Hitler explicitly took on Hindenburg's powers in 1934. The word Führer was certainly the one used, but in all essential respects the Führer was the Reichspräsident. The latter office had been subsumed within the larger office of "Führer". This is different from Cromwell, who was operating under a completely different political system than old Chucky I. john k 21:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In terms of the enabling act - indeed, the Weimar Constitution was put out of operation. But it was done constitutionally - that is to say, Germany's constitution was still the Weimar Constitution. It just was suspended for an indefinite period of time. But I wasn't clear. In terms of Hitler as Reichspräsident, I wasn't saying that he was Reichspräsident, exactly. Just that he incorporated within himself all of Hindenburg's powers, meaning that the role of Führer in some sense incorporated the role of Reichspräsident. At any rate, all I'm asking now is that the awkward ordinals in the other article be removed - it just seems weird to say that Dönitz was the third Reichspräsident. john k 03:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is the text of the German wikipedia about Reichspräsident: unmittelbar nach Hindenburgs Tod übernahm Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler auch das Amt des Reichspräsidenten (durch Volksabstimmung vom 19. August 1934 bestätigt), ersetzte den Titel "Reichspräsident" jedoch durch "Führer";
Means: direct after the death of Hindenburg, Hitler took over the office (Reichspräsident). Confirmed by plebiscite of 19th August 1934. He changed the title "Reichspräsident" into "Führer".
That is the reason for the reverting of the IP edit. -- Gabriel-Royce 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that, as the article states, Presidents in the Federal Republic are required to be non-partisan and drop their party affiliations, is it right to have parties and party colours featured on the list of Presidents? 172.215.89.16 01:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I created Reichspräsident as its own article about a year ago. This was merged with this article by an anonymous user and I restored it as a separate article about a month ago. Serø has now merged it again so I've undone the merger a second time. The reasons I think Reichspräsident deserves a separate article from this one (which should be about the modern presidency, known in German as the Bundespräsident) are the following:
Iota 20:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Reichspräsident is not an English word. The title used in all English language sources is "President [of Germany]". If you want to write in German language, do that on the German language Wikipedia. Besides, it's highly manipulative to cut off parts of the history. An article with the title "President of Germany" needs to deal with all Presidents of Germany. If it is too much stuff (which it isn't at the moment), some stuff could be moved to separate articles that elaborate on issues like "functions of the President of Germany from 1919 to 1934" etc., however "President of Germany" being the main article must provide an overview of the history of the office since its establishment in 1919 in any case. Donnog 22:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Donnog - there's no reason not to cover both Weimar and BRD in a single article. john k 04:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just edited Reichspräsident to, among other tweaks, replace most of the use of the German term with president and President of Germany. Looking at it again the German term was being overused. Iota 15:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC
Why is Hitler not on the list of Presidents?
Reichskanzler that was his title after the election of 1933-- Gabriel-Royce 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) And Reichspräsident after the referendum of the year 1934 (19 August).-- Gabriel-Royce 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You are messing around a bit.
Germany as Nation State had severel legal forms with changing borders and offices:
The Deutsches Reichs reigned by the Kaiser (emperor) between 1871 and 1918. (Monarchy) The Deutsches Reich also named the "Weimarer Republik"(Reichspräsident between 1918 and 1933.(Republic) The Deutsches Reich or Third Reich (Drittes Reich oder Tausendjähriges Reich) of Hitler and the NAZI's.(Dictatorship) The Deutsches Reich ended with the Allied victory and the dicissions of the allies. Instead there were now two new German States: West-Germany =Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) and East Germany = Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic) 1989/90 both states were reunificated (German reunification) The new state took its name, flag and signs from West-Germany also the law. So you got six different political systems between 1871 and today. In consequence you can't say the President of Germany! You could name the article German head of states or you have to change it into several articles. For ex.: The presidents of the Federal Republic of Germany, and another one Presidents of the German Reich or so. It is totally wrong to say something like this the President of Germany (Bundespräsident, formerly Reichspräsident). It is not the same office, because Reich and Federal Republik of Germany are not the same states! You wouldn't say England while talking about Great Britain, would you. Or King instead of Queen. -- Gabriel-Royce 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you've seen it. Yes that is a possible change for the future of this article.-- Gabriel-Royce 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:Gustav Heinemann.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Why are the Presidents of the FRG given the title "President of Germany" during the period 1949-91, but the Presidents of the DDR are not? Either Germany had two Presidents (or heads of state) during this period (because there were two de facto and internationally recognised states on German soil), or there were none (because both the FRG and the GRD had no de jure status in the absence of a peace treaty). Both are arguable positions, but to say that the FRG was the only legitimate German state during this period is a political opinion. Intelligent Mr Toad ( talk) 09:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Theodor Heuss.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. --12:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Chancellor of Germany was recently split into two parts, to refer to the different offices in modern Germany (Bundeskanzler) and before 1945 (Reichskanzler). I suggest that we split this article in the same way, for consistency. Note that the office of president was much more important/powerful before 1945, and had a different name in German (Reichspräsident versus Bundespräsident). -- KarlFrei ( talk) 12:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with the original poster. This article is complete nonsense. Nobody in Germany would ever acknowledge any kind of continuity from the President of the Reich to the Federal President. It's like having one article for the King of England and the President of the United States. Besides: The title of President didn't come up in Germany only after World War I. In the North German Confederation, the king of Prussia was the de facto President, Prussia as a whole holding the Presidency. In the German Empire that did not change, only now instead of using the title President they went back to Holy Roman Empire and made William I German Emperor. So if you want to cover all German presidents in one article, please add William I, Frederick and William II, if only so that you see the overall lunacy of having these completely different offices covered in one and the same place. BTW the same nonsense is happening over at the "President of France" article. Covering Napoleon III and Sarkozy in one article... Honestly, you have to be seriously braindead even to think of doing that... So could someone just call up ANY historian before inventing historical continuity where it does not exist?! -- Eisenmaus ( talk) 23:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)There is no reason for a "split". I support the existing version that appears to have been stable for 10+ years. The history of the office of President of Germany started in 1919, claiming anything else is pure invention. We have articles on "president of [country]" based on the fact that they held the same position in their respective countries. Let's see:
The difference between Ebert's office and Hitler's office was much bigger than between Wulff's office and Ebert's office, and the titles used were more similar for Ebert and Wulff (both being referred to as Presidents of Germany in English) than for Ebert and Hitler (who didn't hold the title President at all). The quite misleading "Reichspräsident of Germany" article, which listed Hitler who was never a "Reichspräsident" or a President at all, is so short that it should be merged with this article. Josh Gorand ( talk) 01:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I definitely think one article on all heads of state of Germany since 1919 is better than having one article for the Weimar Era head of state, one article for the Nazi era head of state, one article for the postwar era head of state, and then someone comes along and says the Cold War era office was too different from the post 1990 office and demands separate articles. This sort of fragmentation is not helpful, and the key issue is the position as head of state of the country called Germany (we have debated similar issues in relation to Jens Böhrnsen and Horst Seehofer). If one looks at articles on presidents or prime ministers of other countries, they are all covered in the same article. Josh Gorand ( talk) 10:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Christian Wulff has been elected today, but his inauguration will be on Friday, July 2. I have corrected this in the top box, but do not know how to correct the timeline (cannot find the template).-- SiriusB ( talk) 19:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for me, the ugly german, editing first :-) but i think it´s correct so far. Uwe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.196.29.247 ( talk) 20:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
A more technical question: How are these timelines generated? Are they edited somewhere in tabulated form? If so, how can I find these timeline-templates? I have searched the Wikipedia help and template pages, used even Google, but could not find anything that fits.-- SiriusB ( talk) 20:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
{{Timeline President and Chancellor of Federal Republic of Germany}}
, which you can edit by going to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Timeline_President_and_Chancellor_of_Federal_Republic_of_Germany (generally: Put "Template:" before template name. HTH --
Pbro en (
talk) 20:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)The redirection should be from President of Germany to Federal President of Germany, thus the other way around from the current status. As said in the first sentence in the article, the official title in German is Bundespräsident, which means Federal President. There ist nothing such as the President of Germany, it is the German Federal President. -- Chtrede ( talk) 06:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
NO - The official wording is in German: Der Bundespräsident - but in English as in any other foreign language: The President of the Federal Republic of Germany or in French: Le President de la République fédérale d'Allemagne or in Italian: Il Presidente della Repubblica di Germania. The Term Federal is never used twice.
As there is no precedent it might be confusing, but Wulff became the 10th President of Germany upon accepting the election since the post was vacant. Previously, the election took place well in advance of the end of term (30 June since Lübkes resignation), leaving enough time to organize the transition (usually 1 July). (See §10 Bundespräsidentenwahlgesetz vom 12. Juli 2007). -- Dodo19 ( talk) 07:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Will the term of the federal president Christian Wulff end on 29th June 2015, not on 30th June 2014? So, is his term exactly five years long?
Was Horst Köhler formally the federal president til Wulff was elected, although Köhler resigned on 31st May and left the presidential duties immediately?
--
Finrus (
talk) 18:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks! So, if future would come without surprises, the table in de:Bundespräsident (Deutschland) may be (til 2015):
Nr. | Name (Lebensdaten) | Partei | Beginn der Amtszeit | Ende der Amtszeit | Wahl(en) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Theodor Heuss (1884–1963) | FDP | 13. September 1949 | 12. September 1959 | 1949/1954 |
2 | Heinrich Lübke (1894–1972) | CDU | 13. September 1959 | 30. Juni 1969 | 1959/1964 |
3 | Gustav Heinemann (1899–1976) | SPD | 1. Juli 1969 | 30. Juni 1974 | 1969 |
4 | Walter Scheel (* 1919) | FDP | 1. Juli 1974 | 30. Juni 1979 | 1974 |
5 | Karl Carstens (1914–1992) | CDU | 1. Juli 1979 | 30. Juni 1984 | 1979 |
6 | Richard von Weizsäcker (* 1920) | CDU | 1. Juli 1984 | 30. Juni 1994 | 1984/1989 |
7 | Roman Herzog (* 1934) | CDU | 1. Juli 1994 | 30. Juni 1999 | 1994 |
8 | Johannes Rau (1931–2006) | SPD | 1. Juli 1999 | 30. Juni 2004 | 1999 |
9 | Horst Köhler (* 1943) | CDU | 1. Juli 2004 | 31. Mai 2010 | 2004/2009 |
10 | Christian Wulff (* 1959) | CDU | 30. Juni 2010 | 29. Juni 2015 | 2010 |
-- Finrus ( talk) 19:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This article uses to translate the term "Bundespräsident" as "President". I think that this is a bit inacurate. In Germany, this guy is always referred to as the "Bundespräsident" (not just "Präsident") and "Bundespräsident" would translate to "Federal President". The word "Federal" is very important in this context, for several reasons:
So, to cut a long story short, I think that this article should be renamed to "Federal President" or "Federal President (Germany)" -- 62.156.56.92 ( talk) 05:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
Some Germans seem very insistent that they get to decide what people should write in other languages than German. It doesn't work that way, English speakers decide which terms to use in the English language. And this is, incidentally, the Wikipedia edition in that language. English speakers overwhelmingly refer to the head of state of Germany as the President of Germany. A term such as "Federal President" doesn't exist in the English language. We also refer to the head of government of Italy as the Prime Minister of Italy, although the term in the Italian language means something else. Josh Gorand ( talk) 16:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The German constitution does not know the position of an interim or acting president. Seehofer is solely the president of the Bundesrat. As such, he carries out the duties of the President. But he is neither president, nor head of state. That may be a common misconception. This office is vacant. It is not justified to put a big picture of Seehofer in the infobox, because then it lokes like Seehofer were somehow the incumbent President of Germany. But he is not. Not by any means. Not even acting. -- RJFF ( talk) 19:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
As already mentioned in 2010 there must NOT be a redirection from federal president to president, but the other way round. There is no such thing like a "Präsident Deutschlands". It is just "Bundespräsident", meaning just "Federal President". Don't argue about the translation - I AM German. If there are no issues until the end of the week, I'll do the redirection.-- JR natural scientist ( talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The correct title is "Bundespräsident" (BPr) and "Bundespräsident der Bundesrepublik Deutschland". ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundespr%C3%A4sident_(Deutschland)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerElektriker ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 19:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
President of Germany → President of the Federal Republic of Germany – The note at the top of this article says that "This article is about the position of President of Germany in the current 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 "President of the Federal Republic of Germany". 111.192.185.97 ( talk) 11:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. JC7V ( talk) 05:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems odd to see the Chancellor referred to as the de facto chief executive. The Chancellor's authority is clearly set out by the Basic Law, articles 64 and 65. There is divided executive authority between the President and the Chancellor, but the Chancellor's authority is constitutional in nature; not de facto. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 18:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
As the recent edits to the article have been solely focused around the usage of pronouns on the page (with edits changing he/she to they or he to they and vice versa). To resolve this, and prevent a edit warring, I think it would be better to reach a consensus here. The views seem to be that, either:
I'm in favour of the former, but I'd prefer to reach a consensus, rather than undo changes which may leave people feeling disgruntled. So, what's the consensus? - ATeaAddict ( talk) 09:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)