This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
1. Hlučín Region, on the Czech–Polish border in Silesia, from which most Germans were deported following WWII.
But the
Hlučín Region article says the opposite,
...different from the rest of the millions of German-speakers in the country, the region was spared a mass expulsion, and only 3000 citizens had to emigrate.
2. The legend makes no sense. Currently, there are three markings - for the territories lost in WW1, in WW2, and in both WW1 and WW2. But Elsaß, Eupen, Hlučín and Memelland are marked as only lost in WW1. Northern Ostpreußen is marked as lost in both WW1 and WW2. And then, both Posen-Westpreußen (WW1) and the rest of East Germany (WW2) are combined into one line because they both were given to Poland (so that it clashes with the rest of the table in the regard of the date).
3. Why are the names in German? They have no reason to be - Alsace is both historical and English.
4. Why are some names italicized and others not?
It's a mess. Here is
my edit. Please, help.--
Adûnâi (
talk) 00:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I am a native German speaker and I grew up in Germany and when I first saw this article in its English version I realized that serious changes are needed.
First of all, “German Empire” is not the official name of a sovereign nation state that status belongs to the term “German Reich”
secondly, the lifespan of the German Reich did not end with the end of the monarchy in 1918. It is therefore incorrect to create the impression in the English version of this article that the so-called “German Empire” was the name of a sovereign nation state that existed from 1871-1918 – the sovereign nation state was the German Reich and it existed from 1871-1945. The term “German Empire” or its German equivalent “Deutsches Kaiserreich” only refers to the PERIOD in which the GERMAN REICH was a constitutional monarchy with an emperor as its head of state.
Similarly, the term “Weimar Republic” refers to the PERIOD in which the GERMAN REICH was a parliamentary democracy and the term “Nazi Germany” refers to the PERIOD in which the GERMAN REICH was a totalitarian Nazi dictatorship – HOWEVER, in all respective English versions of the articles dealing with the “German Empire”, the “Weimar Republic” or “Nazi Germany” these terms are used and explained as if they were referring to three distinct SOVEREIGN NATION STATES and not three distinct PERIODS of the SAME sovereign nation state – the German Reich.
Also, it is very unprofessional and incorrect how the term “Germany” is used in all of these articles to refer to both the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany without distinction or further explanations. Statements like “The Reichsbank is Germany’s central bank” are incorrect – the Reichsbank was the central bank of the GERMAN REICH – whereas the central bank of the Federal Republic of Germany is the Bundesbank. It is important to distinguish between these two sovereign nation states within all articles. Both may have been called “Germany” informally by English speakers of the respective time, however it is not scientific nor encyclopedic to refer to all of them simply as “Germany” without any further explanations or references at all. The rules for common names in the TITLES of Wikipedia articles should not be used for the actual text of the article otherwise this entire project lacks the very basics of scientific work.
I am posting this comment here because all my edits to correct these misconceptions about three distinct sovereign nation states unconcernedly refered to as “German Empire”, “Weimar Republic/Germany” and “Nazi Germany” and the lack of sufficient distinction between two ACTUALLY DISTINCT sovereign nation states – the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany are immediately undone by various people without further talk or discussion.
If the English version of Wikipedia wants to be scientific and professional in covering the history of both the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany these changes will be necessary, however. For further reference please check out the respective German versions of the articles covering these topics which do not display either of the two misconceptions mentioned above. If needed Google translate certain sections and sources in order to convince yourself that I am not correcting the wording of the English articles out of sheer fun. I do it because the English version of Wikipedia is shockingly unscientific and imprecise in these matters.
Thank you very much! WikifreakTranslator ( talk)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
On this edit, Michael Bednarek reverted a change of " stormtrooper tactics" to " infiltration tactics". I don't understand why. The tactics of stormtroopers are called infiltration tactics, per COMMONNAME. The object of the sentence is the tactics; isn't it more helpful to the reader to link the object of the sentence rather than its agent? -- A D Monroe III( talk) 22:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am a daily user of Wikipedia. I would like to tell everyone to not edit this page. I see this page being edited left and right. I would kindly like everyone to stop editing this page. Thank you for you time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.27.62 ( talk) 21:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Mathglot the version you reverted to - along with the removed mismatched tag - (if there's been yet another edit in the meantime) seems fine with me ( [1]). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harleywisdom32.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The correct name was the German Realm. ( Derscht ( talk) 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC))
So for some reason German Empire is considered "absolute monarchy" in 1916-1918. What is the source for this claim? Every source tells that Emperor actually lost power in 1916 because Hinderburg and Luderdorff became de facto military dictators. Emperor retained all power he had before the war but he never gained "absolute" power over the country. You can find this information from for example Röhl´s Kaiser Wilhelm II 1859–1941: A Concise Life, 2014.
Also how is German Empire considered federal semi-constitutional monarchy (non parliamentary) when for example listed monarchies below are considered "parliamentary" even though their monarchs retained executive powers like German Emperor:
Russian Empire
Empire of Japan
Bourbon Restoration
Ottoman Empire
For example Russian Empire was far more autocratic than German Empire. This is one of the reasons why German social democrats supported the war effort against Russian empire. This information can be found from for example Strachan´s The First World War: A New History, 2014. So having Russian Empire as "parliamentary" and German Empire not is just false information.
I also want to point out that having a parliamentary system does not equal liberal democracy. For example Soviet union had a parliamentary system in it but obviously was not free or democratic. And German Empire was at best semi-democratic. 86.50.72.21 ( talk) 07:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I would like to raise an issue about calling Germany a military dictatorship and the sources used to support the claim. Re the infobox: Wheeler-Bennett, on the page cited (14), states without support: "Rarely in modern times had military dictatorship achieved more unfettered licence. In the course of their rule Hindenburg and Ludendorff dragooned into submission the Kaiser, the Imperial Chancellor, the Cabinet and the Reichstag, the party chieftains, the captains of industry, and the leaders of the trade unions." No other references to Hindenburg or Ludendorff in the book support his sweeping claim. He is correct on page 14 that H & L were responsible for the fall of two chancellors and a foreign minister, but that doesn’t qualify Germany as a military dictatorship. In addition, my copy of Nemesis of Power has a 2004 introduction that warns of W-B's biases (pages xiv-xv) and states on p. xix, in contradiction to W-B, that "the Army, influential though it undoubtedly was, remained loyal to the State and to the appointed government throughout its pre-1933 history."
As for the second mention of a military dictatorship at the end of the 'Domestic affairs' section, the Lemar Cecil book cited in footnote 87 can be referring only to the "figurehead" part of the sentence, not the "dictatorship". The snippet view in Google books has only 6 references to "dictator" or "dictatorship", none of them pertinent to Ludendorff.
The additional research I've done in both English and German sources hasn’t turned up anything to support Germany being a military dictatorship in 1916–1918. It remained a (wartime) semi-constitutional monarchy with ministers and a functioning parliament that could and did at times stand up to the military. See e.g. Bethmann Hollweg, or the Reichstag Peace Resolution.
Thoughts? Other sources? GHStPaulMN ( talk) 22:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Over the last year, this article has become a horrific mess with a large "history" section, in which the sections do not make very much sense to a reader. A vast number of things are lumped together in this section. As far as I can see this structure has never been discussed and the underlying problem is that everything about the German Empire is, in some sense, "History".
Compare the neat structure from a year ago, in which "history" was divided into "Background", "Bismarck Era," "Year of the Three Emperors," "Wilhelmine Era" and "World War I." Somehow, totally without discussion, the more thematic sections ("Economy" "Social issues" etc) have been promoted to their own sections, even though (for example) the Kulturkampf is entirely an event of the Bismarck era. "World War I" is apparently no longer "History" at all. At worst, (A) I would like the article to return to this structure, which is at least clearer than the current.
Preferably (B), I'd like to see some of the thematic sections separated out from "History" and promoted to top level sections of their own, as is done for Russian Empire and other historical countries. At the moment these sections often expect the reader to know about the post-Bismarck history of the Empire before the reader has reached it (e.g. economy) or discuss only events under Bismarck despite ostensibly being about the whole empire (e.g. "Social reform". The most obvious candidates for this are "economy" and "infrastructure," perhaps also "social issues". "Law" might move to be part of "Constitution". The result might bring us closer to the neat structure of the de.wiki article (a good article) which has a nice overview of various thematic aspects, dispenses with the "History" section altogether (since it is all history) and then gives a clear narrative in sections on "Bismarck Era," "Year of the Three Emperors," "Wilhelmine Era" and "World War I."
(Additional point: There are several vestigial sections. "Military" is currently too short and in a strange place, wedged between two legacy sections. "Consolidation" is a five sentence section that appears to assume a setting shortly after unification and is in fact largely about foreign policy, but is oddly wedged between "economy" and "social issues." The initial discussion of colonies under Bismarck is extremely short, while that under Wilhelm is very long. There is no balance here.) Furius ( talk) 08:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Somehow, totally without discussion
In the Infobox, on the photo of The German Empire and its occupied territories in September 1918. The German Empire did not occupy the whole of Finland, only a tiny portion in the South. This needs to be fixed. Aaron106 ( talk) 19:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The German Empire with Colonies was 3,7km² large and not 1,7km². You must correct the conquests of eastern europe In WW1 to, they mostly Controlled 2,5km² on the eastern front + mostly Belgium and little path of north France. So we are on 6,2km² overall but We don't have to mixed them up, but please correct them anyway AsuraZC ( talk) 23:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The dates in this article are wrong some likely by over a century claiming some of these things happened as early as 2018.
It's possible someone used an AI to vandalize this article by flipping all the dates to +100 years and then +/- some additional years as well possibly. There could be other parts of the article which have also been vandalized.
I suggest this article needs an AI restoration with human approved changes and or or reset to a cold storage copy. 64.110.223.142 ( talk) 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"Third-largest"? What about the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and American colonial empires? 32.132.12.210 ( talk) 05:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
1. Hlučín Region, on the Czech–Polish border in Silesia, from which most Germans were deported following WWII.
But the
Hlučín Region article says the opposite,
...different from the rest of the millions of German-speakers in the country, the region was spared a mass expulsion, and only 3000 citizens had to emigrate.
2. The legend makes no sense. Currently, there are three markings - for the territories lost in WW1, in WW2, and in both WW1 and WW2. But Elsaß, Eupen, Hlučín and Memelland are marked as only lost in WW1. Northern Ostpreußen is marked as lost in both WW1 and WW2. And then, both Posen-Westpreußen (WW1) and the rest of East Germany (WW2) are combined into one line because they both were given to Poland (so that it clashes with the rest of the table in the regard of the date).
3. Why are the names in German? They have no reason to be - Alsace is both historical and English.
4. Why are some names italicized and others not?
It's a mess. Here is
my edit. Please, help.--
Adûnâi (
talk) 00:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I am a native German speaker and I grew up in Germany and when I first saw this article in its English version I realized that serious changes are needed.
First of all, “German Empire” is not the official name of a sovereign nation state that status belongs to the term “German Reich”
secondly, the lifespan of the German Reich did not end with the end of the monarchy in 1918. It is therefore incorrect to create the impression in the English version of this article that the so-called “German Empire” was the name of a sovereign nation state that existed from 1871-1918 – the sovereign nation state was the German Reich and it existed from 1871-1945. The term “German Empire” or its German equivalent “Deutsches Kaiserreich” only refers to the PERIOD in which the GERMAN REICH was a constitutional monarchy with an emperor as its head of state.
Similarly, the term “Weimar Republic” refers to the PERIOD in which the GERMAN REICH was a parliamentary democracy and the term “Nazi Germany” refers to the PERIOD in which the GERMAN REICH was a totalitarian Nazi dictatorship – HOWEVER, in all respective English versions of the articles dealing with the “German Empire”, the “Weimar Republic” or “Nazi Germany” these terms are used and explained as if they were referring to three distinct SOVEREIGN NATION STATES and not three distinct PERIODS of the SAME sovereign nation state – the German Reich.
Also, it is very unprofessional and incorrect how the term “Germany” is used in all of these articles to refer to both the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany without distinction or further explanations. Statements like “The Reichsbank is Germany’s central bank” are incorrect – the Reichsbank was the central bank of the GERMAN REICH – whereas the central bank of the Federal Republic of Germany is the Bundesbank. It is important to distinguish between these two sovereign nation states within all articles. Both may have been called “Germany” informally by English speakers of the respective time, however it is not scientific nor encyclopedic to refer to all of them simply as “Germany” without any further explanations or references at all. The rules for common names in the TITLES of Wikipedia articles should not be used for the actual text of the article otherwise this entire project lacks the very basics of scientific work.
I am posting this comment here because all my edits to correct these misconceptions about three distinct sovereign nation states unconcernedly refered to as “German Empire”, “Weimar Republic/Germany” and “Nazi Germany” and the lack of sufficient distinction between two ACTUALLY DISTINCT sovereign nation states – the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany are immediately undone by various people without further talk or discussion.
If the English version of Wikipedia wants to be scientific and professional in covering the history of both the German Reich and the Federal Republic of Germany these changes will be necessary, however. For further reference please check out the respective German versions of the articles covering these topics which do not display either of the two misconceptions mentioned above. If needed Google translate certain sections and sources in order to convince yourself that I am not correcting the wording of the English articles out of sheer fun. I do it because the English version of Wikipedia is shockingly unscientific and imprecise in these matters.
Thank you very much! WikifreakTranslator ( talk)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
On this edit, Michael Bednarek reverted a change of " stormtrooper tactics" to " infiltration tactics". I don't understand why. The tactics of stormtroopers are called infiltration tactics, per COMMONNAME. The object of the sentence is the tactics; isn't it more helpful to the reader to link the object of the sentence rather than its agent? -- A D Monroe III( talk) 22:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am a daily user of Wikipedia. I would like to tell everyone to not edit this page. I see this page being edited left and right. I would kindly like everyone to stop editing this page. Thank you for you time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.27.62 ( talk) 21:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Mathglot the version you reverted to - along with the removed mismatched tag - (if there's been yet another edit in the meantime) seems fine with me ( [1]). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harleywisdom32.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The correct name was the German Realm. ( Derscht ( talk) 19:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC))
So for some reason German Empire is considered "absolute monarchy" in 1916-1918. What is the source for this claim? Every source tells that Emperor actually lost power in 1916 because Hinderburg and Luderdorff became de facto military dictators. Emperor retained all power he had before the war but he never gained "absolute" power over the country. You can find this information from for example Röhl´s Kaiser Wilhelm II 1859–1941: A Concise Life, 2014.
Also how is German Empire considered federal semi-constitutional monarchy (non parliamentary) when for example listed monarchies below are considered "parliamentary" even though their monarchs retained executive powers like German Emperor:
Russian Empire
Empire of Japan
Bourbon Restoration
Ottoman Empire
For example Russian Empire was far more autocratic than German Empire. This is one of the reasons why German social democrats supported the war effort against Russian empire. This information can be found from for example Strachan´s The First World War: A New History, 2014. So having Russian Empire as "parliamentary" and German Empire not is just false information.
I also want to point out that having a parliamentary system does not equal liberal democracy. For example Soviet union had a parliamentary system in it but obviously was not free or democratic. And German Empire was at best semi-democratic. 86.50.72.21 ( talk) 07:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I would like to raise an issue about calling Germany a military dictatorship and the sources used to support the claim. Re the infobox: Wheeler-Bennett, on the page cited (14), states without support: "Rarely in modern times had military dictatorship achieved more unfettered licence. In the course of their rule Hindenburg and Ludendorff dragooned into submission the Kaiser, the Imperial Chancellor, the Cabinet and the Reichstag, the party chieftains, the captains of industry, and the leaders of the trade unions." No other references to Hindenburg or Ludendorff in the book support his sweeping claim. He is correct on page 14 that H & L were responsible for the fall of two chancellors and a foreign minister, but that doesn’t qualify Germany as a military dictatorship. In addition, my copy of Nemesis of Power has a 2004 introduction that warns of W-B's biases (pages xiv-xv) and states on p. xix, in contradiction to W-B, that "the Army, influential though it undoubtedly was, remained loyal to the State and to the appointed government throughout its pre-1933 history."
As for the second mention of a military dictatorship at the end of the 'Domestic affairs' section, the Lemar Cecil book cited in footnote 87 can be referring only to the "figurehead" part of the sentence, not the "dictatorship". The snippet view in Google books has only 6 references to "dictator" or "dictatorship", none of them pertinent to Ludendorff.
The additional research I've done in both English and German sources hasn’t turned up anything to support Germany being a military dictatorship in 1916–1918. It remained a (wartime) semi-constitutional monarchy with ministers and a functioning parliament that could and did at times stand up to the military. See e.g. Bethmann Hollweg, or the Reichstag Peace Resolution.
Thoughts? Other sources? GHStPaulMN ( talk) 22:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Over the last year, this article has become a horrific mess with a large "history" section, in which the sections do not make very much sense to a reader. A vast number of things are lumped together in this section. As far as I can see this structure has never been discussed and the underlying problem is that everything about the German Empire is, in some sense, "History".
Compare the neat structure from a year ago, in which "history" was divided into "Background", "Bismarck Era," "Year of the Three Emperors," "Wilhelmine Era" and "World War I." Somehow, totally without discussion, the more thematic sections ("Economy" "Social issues" etc) have been promoted to their own sections, even though (for example) the Kulturkampf is entirely an event of the Bismarck era. "World War I" is apparently no longer "History" at all. At worst, (A) I would like the article to return to this structure, which is at least clearer than the current.
Preferably (B), I'd like to see some of the thematic sections separated out from "History" and promoted to top level sections of their own, as is done for Russian Empire and other historical countries. At the moment these sections often expect the reader to know about the post-Bismarck history of the Empire before the reader has reached it (e.g. economy) or discuss only events under Bismarck despite ostensibly being about the whole empire (e.g. "Social reform". The most obvious candidates for this are "economy" and "infrastructure," perhaps also "social issues". "Law" might move to be part of "Constitution". The result might bring us closer to the neat structure of the de.wiki article (a good article) which has a nice overview of various thematic aspects, dispenses with the "History" section altogether (since it is all history) and then gives a clear narrative in sections on "Bismarck Era," "Year of the Three Emperors," "Wilhelmine Era" and "World War I."
(Additional point: There are several vestigial sections. "Military" is currently too short and in a strange place, wedged between two legacy sections. "Consolidation" is a five sentence section that appears to assume a setting shortly after unification and is in fact largely about foreign policy, but is oddly wedged between "economy" and "social issues." The initial discussion of colonies under Bismarck is extremely short, while that under Wilhelm is very long. There is no balance here.) Furius ( talk) 08:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Somehow, totally without discussion
In the Infobox, on the photo of The German Empire and its occupied territories in September 1918. The German Empire did not occupy the whole of Finland, only a tiny portion in the South. This needs to be fixed. Aaron106 ( talk) 19:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
The German Empire with Colonies was 3,7km² large and not 1,7km². You must correct the conquests of eastern europe In WW1 to, they mostly Controlled 2,5km² on the eastern front + mostly Belgium and little path of north France. So we are on 6,2km² overall but We don't have to mixed them up, but please correct them anyway AsuraZC ( talk) 23:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The dates in this article are wrong some likely by over a century claiming some of these things happened as early as 2018.
It's possible someone used an AI to vandalize this article by flipping all the dates to +100 years and then +/- some additional years as well possibly. There could be other parts of the article which have also been vandalized.
I suggest this article needs an AI restoration with human approved changes and or or reset to a cold storage copy. 64.110.223.142 ( talk) 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
"Third-largest"? What about the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and American colonial empires? 32.132.12.210 ( talk) 05:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)