Talk:Christian Wulff/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Christian Wulff. 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

"Wiesengrund"

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just for the record: An IP user attempts to add "Wiesengrund" to his name. He's not named "Wiesengrund" (possible inspiration: Theodor W. Adorno). His full name is Christian Wilhelm Walter Wulff, and he's known as Christian Wulff. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Erooneous sources, ripe with vandalism

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The page here I'm fairly certain has been vandalized. At the begining it says he has a wife, at the end it says he has a husband, bodily fluids are mentioned. The source indicated to prove his homosexual marriage ended in divorce, or indeed ever existed at all, is in German (this is an English article) and as I read through it, I noticed doesn't seem to mention the President in particular or his relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.13.16 (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Earlier versions

I agree that the earlier versions are not always neutral. However, the later text by 84.130.123.122, written on 30 March 2006, is not really a text at all but clearly ridicules the article on purpose. I have cleansed earlier versions of some statements that appear somewhat biased and brought in some more details and links. Finally, I suggest banning 84.130.123.122 from making any further changes to a Wikipedia article, as this person clearly does not have the slightest regard for Wikipedia standards; it might even make sense to semi-protect the article. Author of the June 29 (wee hours) versions

Who's the President?

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Did he become President upon election, or will he become President on friday when he takes the presidential oath? Who is head of state of Germany at this moment? Josh Gorand (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Acting President is the President of the Bundesrat. This office rotates between the Prime Ministers of the Länder; at the moment, it is held by Jens Böhrnsen, Senate President of the city-state of Bremen. Varana (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Checking your user page, you probably already knew this.

The applicable law states: "Das Amt des Bundespräsidenten beginnt mit dem Ablauf der Amtszeit seines Vorgängers, jedoch nicht vor Eingang der Annahmeerklärung beim Präsidenten des Bundestages." So Wulff already is President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varana (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. Horst Köhler resigned, Jens Böhrnsen was only interim. Therefore, Wulff became President with accepting the election. --91.32.100.227 (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

He is NOW president

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Christian Wulff is according to the German Constitution president of Germany after the acceptance of the election. The oath isn't necessary. We are not in USA. He isn't President-Elect. He is President of Germany with all privileges.see here --62.224.84.3 (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Despite what a commenter at the German Wikipedia said, the Basic Law does not say the person elected immediately becomes President. It does say, "on assuming his office, the Federal President shall take the following oath before the assembled Members of the Bundestag and Bundesrat...". If presidents are considered to hold office from the moment of election, we need a reliable source. The fact that "we are not in USA" does not, ipso facto, mean he has already become president. It would be suggestive, if not conclusive if you could show a new Minister-President had been appointed for Saxony already. If that has not yet happened, it seems highly unlike Wulff is currently president as that office is incompatible with membership in the government or legislature of a Land. -Rrius (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

a) Article 54 (6) of the Basic Law says: Elected is who got the most votes in the third ballot. There is no provision or time frame for an Inauguration, just the wording of the oath. "On assuming his office" indicates only that this should take place some time after the election.

b) Wulff resigned yesterday afternoon as Prime-Minister of Lower Saxony - as President of the Bundestag Lammert announced. --Dodo19 (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: See §10 Bundespräsidentenwahlgesetz vom 12. Juli 2007

see also this documents [1], [2] and this discussion. Wulff is official president. --Yoda1893 (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since about 30 years ago it was common that the president was elected on May 23rd (the date the Basic Law was adopted in 1949) but the president took office on July 1st. In this special case he took office the moment he accepted the election since the office of his precedessor has ended already before the election. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence for this.

The Basic Law doesn't put it that way. If Wulff had been President upon his election, why then convene Bundestag and Bundesrat for the inauguration? What's the use? Is he known to have exercised the office before his inaguration - even his giving a garden party was placed after the inauguration.

I will not unilaterally change any date on this but thus far I have seen no evidence either way, with the nature of the issue suggesting that his term of office began only on 2 July. Any government position is filled by some ceremonial act, which is either the handing over of a document of appointment (Chancellor, ministers - but obviously there is no appointer of the president) or involving an oath of office.)

Though I agree that we don't need Americanisms like President-elect because election and inauguration are that close to each other, we cannot overlook that there was an inauguration. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I provided the link to the Law on the Election of the Federal President above. The Federal President elect assumes office the moment, the term of his predecessor expires, which has been 1 July, since Lübke resigned as of 30 June. Since Köhler resigned on 31 May with immediate effect and Wulff was elected on 30 June, he became 10th Federal President when accepting the post. His term will end 29 June 2015 unless he dies, resigns or is institutionalized before that date. The Basic Law requires him to be sworn in when assuming office but does not give a time frame, thus the date has been set for 2 July for practical reasons as to prepare for the ceremony. --Dodo19 (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But the mere text of the legal provisions as noted in the Basic Law were ambiguous and hence not enought to settle this. As you say the Basic Law requires the swearing-in upon assuming office, which suggests that the two are linked (and in normal cases they are, as the new President is sworn the day his predecessor leaves. He could be sworn in earlier but then the provision "not before his predecessor's term is expired" sets in. The wording did not decided our problem here.

However, the official statement by German government agency provided us with the way the case was handled and hence settles the issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I take that back, as I have now found the needed evidence in a footnote of the German Wulff article - the most relevant part, the application of the law to the present case in bold print:

"Das Amt des Bundespräsidenten beginnt mit dem Ablauf der Amtszeit seines Vorgängers, jedoch nicht vor Eingang der Annahmeerklärung beim Präsidenten des Bundestages.“ (§ 10 BPräsWahlG). Da die Amtszeit des Vorgängers bereits bei Annahme der Wahl beendet ist, beginnt Wullfs Amtszeit sofort mit Annahme der Wahl. (Wissenschaftlicher Dienst des Bundestages: Aktueller Begriff. Die 14. Bundesversammlung am 30. Juni 2010. . Zitat: „Die Amtszeit des neuen Staatsoberhaupts beginnt mit dem Eingang der Annahmeerklärung beim Präsidenten des Bundestages und dauert fünf Jahre.“). Die nach Art 56 GG geforderte Eidesleistung markiert nicht den Zeitpunkt des Amtsantrittes. Dazu auch Maunz/Dürig, Grundgesetz, 56. Ergänzungslieferung 2009, Rn. 2 zu Art. 56 GG: „Eidesleistung und Amtsantritt stehen nach Art. 56 Satz 1 zwar in einem nahen zeitlichen Zusammenhang, bedingen einander aber nicht. Von Verfassungs wegen ist sowohl der Fall denkbar, dass der neugewählte Bundespräsident noch vor seiner Vereidigung amtlich tätig wird (weil seine Amtszeit bereits begonnen hat), als auch der Fall, dass die Leistung des Eides noch vor dem Beginn der Amtszeit erfolgt (also noch während der Amtszeit des Vorgängers). Doch stehen dem zuletzt genannten Ablauf der Ereignisse zumindest Gesichtspunkte des politischen Taktes gegenüber dem Vorgänger im Wege.[…] In keinem Falle aber trifft Art. 56 selbst irgendeine Bestimmung über den Beginn der Amtszeit des Bundespräsidenten.“

I think that settles the issue and henceforth I will uphold the 30 June date. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mackha, 3 July 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

{{editprotected}}

Minister_President of Lower Saxony -> Minister-President of Lower Saxony in the infobox.

I know there is a debate above about whether Minister President in any form is correct, but it definitely isn't with the underscore.

Mackha (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Happy to do, seems non-contentious. However - I'd prefer to get the correct one out of "Minister President" or "Minister-President". Both redirect to Prime Minister of Lower Saxony, which may be another option? TFOWR 15:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done In view of the above thread I'd prefer to leave it at m:The Wrong Version. TFOWR 16:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I like too see you guys arguing... 87.70.10.101 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Presidential Oath

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The artictle still states "Wullf will be sworn in on 2 July 2010 in front of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat." Now this citation is from 2010-07-04, and he has been sworn in. The article is edit protected an I cannot update the sentence. +--Scriberius (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was seemingly hijacked by someone who wanted to have his preferred title protected. I previously voiced my opposition to protecting it, due to the need to expand and update it following his election as President. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Josh, this is a rather cheap jibe, and you are at least as much part of the conflict which led to the article being protected as whoever asked for protection. It is certainly necessary to revise this entry in view of the subject's recent election as German President, so it would be nice if took part in the discussion in a constructive way instead of simply insisting on your favourite term. You're not going to settle the discussion by unilaterally declaring it has ended. Bibfile (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is not getting anywhere as long as it proceeds on the fallacies that one or several sources dictate the term to use (and you two, Josh and Bibfile, are both doing this.) This only leads to endless bickering and complaints about "your source is clueless" or "my source is more official". Only the complete assembly of sources may indicate what term to use, which however still doesn't remove the element that we - as editors - have to chose.

Since this triviality clutters up pages upon pages, I am for a poll between the three common terms (not for any inventions like "presiding minister" or descriptions like "chief minister") and for moving the discussion somewhere else (Prime Minister of Lower Saxony or Minister-President. This is not a Wulff-specific issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister once again

Latest comment: 14 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

Once again, the common English term is Prime Minister, not Minister-President, a weird translation from German. The Germans also call David Cameron a "Minister-President". They use their terms and we use our terms.

What is more, the State Chancellery uses the term Prime Minister in English itself: http://www.state-chancellery.niedersachsen.de/live/live.php?navigation_id=5797&article_id=16139&_psmand=1003 (cached as of 30 June). Also see their English language front page http://www.state-chancellery.niedersachsen.de (cached as of 30 June), leaving no doubt that the head of government is Prime Minister Christian Wulff, and that his official title in English is Prime Minister. Josh Gorand (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The correct term is Minister-President, see there.--Dodo19 (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the State of Lower Saxony disagrees with you. We'll stick to the official title, supported by reliable official sources. Also, the article Minister-President in no way establishes that the title of the head of government in Lower Saxony is "Minister-President", the article mainly deals with the German language term, even written in German as Ministerpräsident. We are not obliged to use German language in the English language Wikipedia, especially not when the Lower Saxon government uses a different term (Prime Minister) in English. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Now what is the official title? The German Foreign office says it is Minister President ([3]), so does the German Information Centre in New Dehli ([4]). It's most unfortunate that the state chancellery doesn't know proper English, with the new Minister-President being a Scotsman. --Dodo19 (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

German Information Centre in New Dehli? The Government of Lower Saxony says the title is Prime Minister. It's really up to them, not to the information centre in New Delhi. This is a state matter, the federal government has no jurisdiction as far as the PM's title is concerned. Also, I would believe The Guardian knows proper English[5]. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also believe the new Prime Minister, David McAllister, a native English speaker, knows proper English: He writes: As Prime Minister of Lower Saxony I would like to... and Best wishes, David McAllister, Prime Minister, Lower Saxony on the English website of the Lower Saxony state government (cached). The idea that we should translate "Ministerpräsident" as "Minister-President" when even the relevant authorities consistently use the translation Prime Minister comes very close to original research. The Germans themselves frequently translate the British PM's title as "Ministerpräsident". Josh Gorand (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the cause of the trouble, as Mr McAllister is used to a Premierminister. But this is constitutional law, not linguistics: Prime Minister requires a formal head of state, while a Minister-President of Lower Saxony is acting as a head of state, representing the state abroad (article 35,1 Constitution of Lower Saxony).--Dodo19 (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. This is solely a matter of English language. The government of Lower Saxony wouldn't consistently use a term if it was incorrect. We should only stick to what the official sources say, not make our own judgements. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The official language in Lower Saxony is German. So it is highly irrelevant what the government uses on its English language website. The official translation of a German Ministerpräsident is Minister-President (pl: Ministers-President), because s/he is the minister presiding over the government and representing the state abroad. A Prime Minister is the First Minister, but not a representative of state. That's basically the difference.--Dodo19 (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This, however, is not the German language Wikipedia, which means we don't use German language here. It's highly relevant which titles are used on the official English language website of the government of the state. Your claims regarding an alleged difference between the titles remain unsourced - the very fact that Germans translate other countries' Prime Minister's titles as "Ministerpräsident" proves you are wrong[6][7] (David Cameron is not head of state of the UK). Official sources have established that the English translation of the title, that is used consistently, is Prime Minister. Wulff and his successor have used this title themselves, there is nothing more to discuss. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well then, look it up in a proper dicitionary. E.g. The Oxford-Duden German Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition 1999 ISBN 0-19-860226-X p.529: Minister-: ~präsident der, Ministerpräsidentin die (eines deutschen Bundeslandes) minister-president ... --Dodo19 (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a dictionary when we have an official English language website of the government and the Prime Minister's office. Minister-President, Prime Minister and First Minister all have the same meaning, but Prime Minister is the more common term, and used by the Lower Saxon government in English. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the people in Hanover need one. Or is it officially Hannover as it says in the Imprint? If the terms are interchangebly, why are you making such a fuss? I tell you it's not merely linguistics. Since you don't have a dictonary handy, why not just leave it alone?--Dodo19 (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personal blog to tell the government what they should do. The official title used by the government on their English language website and elsewhere, and by other reliable sources, is Prime Minister. That's where the story ends. This article is not the right place for a crusade against the titles used by the government. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with blogging nor crusading. I have provided reliable sources, too, including a dictionary. But if you're giving up, I am fine with that. --Dodo19 (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided any relevant sources, just a random one-line dictionary entry that does not deal with Lower Saxony, that was written by a random person and that has no official status whatsoever. The most relevant source is the official information provided by the government itself. I have not only provided you with the official English language website of the government, but even with official statements by the Prime Ministers themselves where they use the title, and with quality English language sources like The Guardian also using the term. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I put on a RfC, see below --Dodo19 (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The title Minister-President merely means "First Minister", "Prime Minister", like in "President of the Ministers", i.e. the one chairing the cabinet. Compare "President of the Council of Ministers", the formal title of the Prime Minister of Italy. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia says, "A prime minister is the most senior minister of cabinet in the executive branch of government in a parliamentary system." Kingjeff (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And? It doesn't contradict anything I said. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

While Ministerpräsident is the official and correct title, it may very well be translated as Prime Minister. That a an article Prime Minister of Lower Saxony exists should be instructive. Also, WP calls the heads of government of many nations "prime minister" even though their title's are different, e.g. Prime Minister of Italy. However, that Prime Minister is a somehow official English term is nonsense - there is no official English term just a set of options of how to translate the German term, with Prime Minister being the more obvious choice.

And Minister-President always seemed to me a clumsy translation that not actually grasps the German meaning (it sounds like President among the Ministers, in parallel to Secretary-General, when it actually means President OF the ministers.)

That "Prime Minister requires a formal head of state, while a Minister-President of Lower Saxony is acting as a head of state" is just humbug. Ministerpräsident is also often used to describe the prime ministers of France, Italy etc. and even Germany in 1919 had a Reichsministerpräsident for a time, all under Presidents. Furthermore, the Ministerpräsident does not function as head of state. German states commonly do not have one, though sometimes the president of parliament perform some functions.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The date of creation of the article Prime Minister of Lower Saxony might also be relevant. I also note that the Guardian, for instance, has previously used variations on "minister president". --Boson (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure it is a recent article but it has been created before the whole controversy. A scandalous AfD on it has fortunately come to nothing. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article has been created on the day that this controversy started, by the person most vociferously pushing for Prime Minister as the only acceptable term. Bibfile (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Voting has started here. Kingjeff (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Succession

Latest comment: 14 years ago63 comments6 people in discussion

It is completely inappropriate to say Wulff is succeeding the person acting as president. Wulff's predecessor as president is clearly Kohler, and Kohler's successor is clearly Wulff. The official responsible for performing the offices duties during the vacancy does not become president. It is a nonsense, then, to suggest that Wulff is succeeding as President of Germany the person who acted as president. -Rrius (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wulff's immediate predecessor as head of state is Jens Böhrnsen. Köhler resigned a month before Wulff could take office. That month has to be accounted for, you cannot pretend it never existed. No, it's not nonsense or "completely inappropriate" to say Christian Wulff succeded the acting head of state as head of state. Jens Böhrnsen was head of state until a certain moment, when Wulff became the new head of state (look up "succeed"). Jens Böhrnsen has been the head of state as defined by international law and even by internal law, enjoying all rights of a head of state and representing his country internationally as such. His formal title or the way he is appointed (or his "office") is irrelevant in this regard. Adolf Hitler is included in any list of German heads of state despite never holding the office of President. Being head of state and holding an (internal) "office" are two different things, the latter is less important to the outside world. Josh Gorand (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not say "German Head of State"; it says "President of Germany". There is no other German President between Kohler and Wulff. Full stop. If you want to discuss starting a new entry in the infobox for "German Head of State", go ahead, but that does not change the fact that Bohrnsen was never President of Germany. -Rrius (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. He has been identified as acting head of state and his predecessor as president in relevant articles, which is the standard practice. The mere fact that Böhrnsen had a different title as head of state doesn't make Wulff an immediate successor to Köhler. Succession is based upon holding the actual position of head of state (and there must always be a head of state, including during the last month), not on their titles. Josh Gorand (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Jens Böhrnsen had the duties of the President of Germany because those duties are are given to the President of the German Bundesrat when the President of Germany resigns. Kingjeff (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. Josh Gorand (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm glad you see that he was never President of Germany or Head of State. Kingjeff (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said any such thing. If you have no knowledge of these issues, stop revert-warring your nonsense into the article. It's universally agreed upon that Böhrnsen was head of state[8][9], your theory is a fringe theory that I've so far not seen anyone else than you advocate. Josh Gorand (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So, would you agree that that amtierender Bundespräsident is Acting President? Kingjeff (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already been through this discussion here and on other articles several times, and have always made it clear that Jens Böhrnsen was acting head of state in his capacity as President of the Federal Council, a completely uncontroversial and undisputed fact, and legally precise description. He was not President of Germany, he was acting head of state. Several other users have insisted on describing him as acting president (and described him as such repeatedly after one particular user removed any mention of him being head of state, also repeatedly), which I have also opposed. I have urged both parties to accept the precise compromise version that is accurate and neutral. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. would you also agree with that another name for acting head of state is interim head of state? Kingjeff (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, probably. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Lets get a couple of definitions here. What does acting, in the general sense, mean and what does interim mean? Kingjeff (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

These are clearly terms used interchangeably for the same thing in this context. The main point here is that Böhrnsen exercised all the powers of a head of state and represented Germany internationally as its head of state for a month. Whether you call him "interim" or "acting" head of state is immaterial, it's not a title, merely a description. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's very material for this discussion. Because the definition of both words indicate that he had the duties of the President of Germany but not the actual title of President of Germany. Kingjeff (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But I have never ever said he held the title of President of Germany. The title is immaterial, what matters is whether he is legally, internationally and internally, considered the head of state. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The particular part of the article we are discussing is the line item in the infobox regarding his being "President of Germany". To say anyone other than Kohler preceded him is wrongheaded and misleading. You keep talking about who was head of state, but that is totally irrelevant. The infobox heading is not "Head of State", it is "President of Germany". Whatever content dispute is occurring at the other article is also irrelevant here. We don't have to do something incorrect and misleading just because some other article does. -Rrius (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You are completely mistaken, it's the title that's irrelevant. Titles of heads of state frequently change, Nelson Mandela had a different title than his predecessor. What is important is the actual status as head of state as recognized by internal and international law. A comparable case is Adolf Hitler, an article that includes both his predecessor and successor in the infobox, while noting their different titles. As does the infobox in the Nelson Mandela article. I could find countless more examples, because this is standard practice on Wikipedia. The succession refers to him being head of state, not his title. He succeeded Jens Böhrnsen as head of state. He didn't succeed Köhler because Köhler resigned a month before he could succeed anyone. The infobox heading is not "Head of State" because Wulff's title as head of state is President of Germany, whereas his predecessor didn't have a particular title (as head of state) and is just described as acting head of state (a description, not a title). Head of state is the material issue here; you can be head of state without holding the title "President", but you're still a head of state like every other head of state. But say, if Germany introduced monarchy but retained the title "President" as an honorary title for retired parliament speakers, those holding that title wouldn't be successors of the Presidents who were heads of state, they would hold a completely different position. Josh Gorand (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The person fullfilling some of the duties of the Bundespräsident isn't Head of State since he isn't Bundespräsident, he also isn't acting Bundespräsident. See Article 57 of the Grundgesetz. So Mr. Börhnsen never was Head of State of Germany and even not an acting head of state. He just did business for the Bundespräsident as he is doing everytime the Bundespräsident is abroad or ill or otherwise cannot do business as usual, certainly several times each year. --Matthiasb (talk)

And no, it is Josh Gorand who is completely mistaken. The office is all-important when talking about succession to an office in an infobox. Who is head of state is an irrelevancy as is international law. This notion that "head of state" is somehow a tacit infobox item that needs to be navigable from person to the next is completely in your head. "President of Germany" is listed because Wulff has been elected president, not because he's been elected head of state. Offices are listed in infoboxes as offices, not as the particular constitutional function they fill. I realize that you think there should be an unbroken line from Kohler to Borhensen to Wulff, but your case is weak. If Borhnsen can legitimately be called "acting President", then it might, might, make sense to note it in his infobox, but it doesn't make sense for either Kohler's or Wulff's to note him in the succession. We are talking about one office, not people who perform some of its functions when the office is vacant. Where the name of the office changes, as in your Mandela example, of course it is right to pass succession from one to the other so long as it is substantially the same office. That is not the case here. The office did not change in any respect other than it ceased to have a holder for a time. Kohler held it, then no one did, then Wulff. Wulff succeeded Kohler, and that can be established by reliable sources. -Rrius (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. It's all in your head, not in mine. I'm merely insisting on following the same practice as in any other Wikipedia article. Head of state an irrelevancy? Ridiculous. Head of state and President refers to the very same thing, President is merely a title for a head of state. Do we also need to remove F.W. de Klerk from Mandela's infobox, since they held different titles? Being head of state ad interim and being head of state as President is substantially the same office because it has exactly the same competencies and is recognized internationally as such. Btw., the Federal Government refers to Böhrnsen as acting President[10]. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: It is really sad that otherwise reliable sources like the Süddeutsche Zeitung or the Tagesschau are writing such bullshit on their respective websites. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: Who was the head of state of Germany between 31 May and 30 June 2010? The answer cannot be "none". I'm quite aware that Böhrnsen was widely referred to by German media as "acting Bundespräsident". I'm also aware that this is not formally correct. Furthermore, unlike you, I'm aware that being head of state and holding a particular office or title are two completely different things, and that Jens Böhrnsen represented his country internationally[11] as head of state from 31 May to 30 June. Being head of state has nothing to do with whether you are Bundespräsident, if you hold all the competencies of the President's office when the office is vacant, you are head of state, this is universally agreed upon by legal scholars. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources like The Times and Der Spiegel establish that Jens Böhrnsen succeeded Köhler as head of state[12][13]. Der Spiegel writes: "Jens Böhrnsen, will take over from Köhler as interim head of state until a new president is elected. Under the constitution, Böhrnsen assumes the position in his capacity as president of the Bundesrat, the upper house of parliament". Now can we please end this discussion, if you don't have any sources that demonstrate that the entire world press is wrong. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, even the Federal Government of Germany refers to Böhrnsen as "acting Federal President"[14]. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

None of that changes the fact that he was never, ever president, so no, we can't end it. Wulff's predecessor as "President of Germany", which is what the infobox entry says, was Kohler, not Bohrnsen. There is simply no reason to reflect a brief stand in the succession. It is not about the head of state; it is about the President of Germany, which Bohrnsen was not. -Rrius (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Josh Gorand (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe they should read Art. 59 and Art. 57 of the basic law more thoroughly:

Art 59

(1) Der Bundespräsident vertritt den Bund völkerrechtlich. Er schließt im Namen des Bundes die Verträge mit auswärtigen Staaten. Er beglaubigt und empfängt die Gesandten.

(2) (...)

Art 57

Die Befugnisse des Bundespräsidenten werden im Falle seiner Verhinderung oder bei vorzeitiger Erledigung des Amtes durch den Präsidenten des Bundesrates wahrgenommen.

Article 57 does not speak of the Bundesratspräsident acting as Bundespräsident but simply says that the Bundesratpräsident is doing the Bundespräsident's business in the case that the Bundespräsident cannot do his or if the office of the Bundespräsident finished (it is not said wether by death, by resignation or as a result of trying him at the Bundesverfassungsgercht) --Matthiasb (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources instead of original research? The sources have demonstrated that Böhrnsen held all the competencies (as Article 57 indeed states) of the President and that he represented his country internationally as head of state. Der Spiegel clearly writes that he succeeded Köhler ("[took] over from Köhler as interim head of state"). It's completely and utterly irrelevant whether the head of state was "Bundespräsident", Article 57 makes it clear that he was head of state – by virtue of holding all the competencies of the President – a fact that is also supported by the other sources I have cited. Being head of state is made up by competencies, not a title, that in itself means nothing. Josh Gorand (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's look on your claims in detail, Josh, to see who actually conducts original "research"

"The sources have demonstrated that Böhrnsen held all the competencies (as Article 57 indeed states) of the President and that he represented his country internationally as head of state."

He held all the competences and represented his country internationally (or at least, had the comptence to do so).

"Der Spiegel clearly writes that he succeeded Köhler"

Der Spiegel being not a very trustworthy paper.

"("[took] over from Köhler as interim head of state")"

Which literally means, that Köhler was "interim head of state". Rubbish, either the Spiegel's sentence or your translation!

"It's completely and utterly irrelevant whether the head of state was "Bundespräsident", Article 57 makes it clear that he was head of state"

No, the article does not say that at all. It doesn't even say that Böhrnsen was head of state, it says he performed all the rights and duties of the head of state. Strictly speaking, that does not make him head of state.

"Being head of state is made up by competencies, not a title, that in itself means nothing."

Being head of state is made up of holding the office that is considered head of state. Bundespäsident is not a title (or not merely a title - it is a title now for Mr Scheel, Mr Weizsäcker, Mr Herzog and Mr Köhler), it is an office which is entered in a clear way, by election, and not by holding another office, not by acclamation by some dirt sheet from Hamburg. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Countless reliable secondary sources[15][16] have demonstrated that he was head of state. The Bundeskanzleramt even described him as "acting President"[17]. The United Nations describes him as head of state/President[18]([19]). And, since some people here are fond of Australia, the Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs describes him as "Interim Federal President"[20]. I could go on forever. So it's only you claiming he was not head of state. Where are your sources? I'm the only one who have cited reliable sources here. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He filled the gap of there being no President and as such filled the role of head of state. Whether that actually makes him head of state or not is largely an academic one (which I raised just as an aside), as he clearly was not Federal President and hence is not the successor of Köhler or the predecessor of Wulff. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If you consider the original wording of the German Basic Law original research and rather like to accept wording of the journaille we rather end this discussion. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, the German Basic Law merely corroborates what I said and proves you are wrong. Also, you need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources ("Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources") – also see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The Basic Law is a primary source. Your own incorrect interpretation of a primary source, that contradicts everything reliable secondary sources like the website of the Federal Government or Der Spiegel or The Times write, is not admissible as a source, because it's your original research as a layperson. You are clearly not a lawyer, not everyone are able to read legal texts. Yes, if you don't have any sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, we can end this discussion. I have provided a bunch of sources which have demonstrated that Jens Böhrnsen succeeded Horst Köhler as head of state (that's even what the article on Germany stated all the time). Josh Gorand (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The succession is the one to an office, with one office-holder succeeding the other.

The office is that of Bundespräsident, which has thus far been held by Heuß, Lübke, Heinemann, Scheel, Carstens, Weizsäcker, Herzog, Rau, Köhler and Wulff. This is the only succession in existence. Consider that nobody considers Walter Scheel Chancellor of Germany, despite the events of 1974.

Mr Böhrnsen has held a different position, that of Bundesratspräsident which included him filling in for the absent President (in this case, because of the President's resignation). It does not make him President. He is a footnote in the history of the office but no more. The actual importance of his short stint as acting head of state is that someone performed the duties normally vested in the Presidency (e.g., signing decorations for sporting events) during this short intermission.

There also seems to be some confusion about offices and titles. What counts is the office, which is that of Bundespräsident. Böhrnsen held AND HOLDS a quite distinct office and will do so until late in the year (provided he remains in office in Bremen). A title is simply a term used for an office or a person. Whatever Böhrnsen was called the previous month, it was not a different title for President of Germany.

There also is a distinction between "acting" and "interim" - an "interim whatever" is put in a certain position on the understanding that he is to preside over some transitional phase and will make way in the end. But he is actually elected or appointed something. And "acting whatever" simply fills in by virtue of holding some other position that is charged with filling in. But he is not put in a distinct office.

Rrius is correct in his reading of the German constitution, neither adding nor substracting anything - Josh is not. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying doesn't make any sense. Nope, Rrius is not correct that Germany didn't have a head of state in June, and has so far failed to cite a single reliable source backing up his claims. So, I'll ask you, who was the head of state of Germany from 31 May to 30 June 2010? Once again, I'll point out that mere opinions that aren't backed up by reliable sources (I've cited quite a number of source above) don't carry any weight. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not have cite sources in order to show that you overinterpret the constitution's text. There is nothing in there to support your claim that Böhrnsen was (acting) president, not even that he was acting head of state but merely that, by virtue of his office of Bundesratspräsident, he did the work that would normall have been done by the Federal President. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the German Wikipedia points out[21]: "Bis zum Amtsantritt von Bundespräsident Christian Wulff beginnend mit Annahme der Wahl[4] war Böhrnsen Staatsoberhaupt der Bundesrepublik Deutschland.[5]" Source no. 5 is [22]. There, we have another source, adding to the ones we already had.Josh Gorand (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, WP articles cannot ever be sources for WP articles. If the German WP is shoddy on this (as it so often is), that's no reason to imitate this. Tagesschau also claimed that Köhler was the first president to resign which was clearly false. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The official translation as published by the Bundestag [23] of Article 57 is as follows:

"Article 57 [Substitution] If the Federal President is unable to perform his duties, or if his office falls prematurely vacant, the President of the Bundesrat shall exercise his powers." Strictly speaking, the office of President was vacant from the resignation of Köhler, and Jens Böhrnsen was merely exercising the President's duties and powers for the interim, without assuming the office, or even officially becoming (interim) head of state, though the distinction between "acting as head of state" and "acting for the head of state" escaped many German newspapers (or they thought that it would confuse their readers too much), which is understandable, given that there was a vacancy.Bibfile (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I ask, where are the sources? A Wikipedians' own interpretation of a legal text (a primary source) isn't a reliable source, it's original research (Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Original research). "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources". I have cited countless reliable secondary sources, even official sources like the website of the Bundeskanzleramt, that contradict this very private interpretation of the German constitution by some Wikipedia users. If you are going to make an argument against what all the sources say, you need reliable sources backing up your claims, not private theories. Btw., you need legal qualifications to be able to interpret a legal text properly. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you keep citing sources that seem to back your own private interpretation of the constitutional situation. By the way, do you have any legal qualifications to interpret a text properly, or do you just think that others need them?Bibfile (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, I don't have any "private interpretation" of anything as I'm merely, unlike you, relying on what reliable secondary sources say. Find some sources, or give it up. I asked you to come up with some sources that supported your view, seemingly this is very difficult (I'm not surprised, really). Josh Gorand (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Article 57 [Substitution] If the Federal President is unable to perform his duties, or if his office falls prematurely vacant, the President of the Bundesrat shall exercise his powers" - exercise his powers means acting as head of state, there is no question over this at all. I think any legal scholar would give you the same answer. But, we are not supposed to use our own interpretations of this text, but to use reliable secondary sources per Wikipedia policy. Reliable secondary sources confirm that Böhrnsen acted as head of state. Josh Gorand (talk) 20:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But, however he wasn't head of state, and therefore Christian Wulff did not succeed him, but Horst Köhler.Bibfile (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Wikipedia relies on sources, not just personal opinions of Wikipedia users. An opinion that isn't backed up by a single source is worthless. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How about Jens Böhrnsen himself saying that he wasn't interim President, only President of the Bundesrat performing the duties of the Federal President, for a start [24]? Bibfile (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Especially since there's no such thing as an interim presidency in Germany. Then, he would have been elected into that position and I would gladly accept him into the succession. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, I've never said he was President or acting President, I've reverted other users adding that to Böhrnsen's article several times. Also, I fail to see where in the interview he says anything like what you are claiming. The interviewer consistently refers to him as President, he doesn't even directly distance himself from it. On the contrary he says: "Ich habe Gesetze unterzeichnet, Botschafter akkreditiert, Staatsgäste empfangen wie den Staatspräsidenten von Armenien". That's what heads of state do. The article doesn't address the question of whether he was head of state directly, and if at all, it just confirms that he was. This is a local newspaper that doesn't in any way prove anything of what you have been saying. I repeat once again: Who was the head of state of Germany between 31 May to 30 June 2010? Josh Gorand (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Böhrnsen: Moment, ich war ja nicht Interims-Bundespräsident oder Zwischenzeit-Bundespräsident, sondern habe das getan, was das Grundgesetz vorsieht. [...] Hat es Sie denn nicht gereizt, als Bundespräsident mal verbal dazwischenzuhauen, gerade angesichts der Lage von Schwarz-Gelb? Böhrnsen: Natürlich. Als politischer Mensch hätte ich das gerne getan. Aber nicht als Bundesratspräsident, der die Aufgaben des Bundespräsidenten wahrnimmt."

And as for your question: Germany didn't have a head of state between the resignation of Horst Köhler and the accession of Christian Wulff, just somebody performing the necessary duties without becoming head of state himself. It's as simple as that.Bibfile (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources disagree with you. He doesn't say he wasn't head of state either, just that he didn't hold the office of Bundespräsident (which I've never said he did). The German Wikipedia explicitly states he was head of state, also see its talk page where this issue has been discussed and explained: de:Diskussion:Jens_Böhrnsen:

"JB übernimmt aber die Aufgaben (auch Rechte!) des Bundespräsidenten, solange das Amt vakant ist. Im eigtl. Sinn ist er auch kein Stellvertreter mehr (da man als Stellvertreter ja auch jemanden braucht der vertreten wird - gibt's aber nicht). Gleichwohl ist er aber z.Z. ziemlich uneingeschränkt (übergangsweise) das Staatsoberhaupt der BRD. Staatsoberhaupt ist ja kein von der Verfassung geschützter oder definierter Begriff. Er beschreibt nur die Stellung des BP. Wenn aber Böhrnsen fast alle Rechte des BP hat (abgesehen von Bezahlung, Stander, Orden, etc) und auch die Pflichten des BP zur Zeit (uneingeschränkt) ausübt, so ist seine Stellung im politischen Sytem absolut identisch zu der Stellung des BP. Er ist also Staatsoberhaupt."

Josh Gorand (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"The sources disagree with you. He doesn't say he wasn't head of state either ..."

But the sources needn't say that. YOU are making a positive claim and the sources do NOT back it up. There is no need for those opposing your positive claim to prove the contrary. In wiki-terms, you are engaging in WP:OR, as the sources say less than you would like them to. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent way of turning the world upside down. I am the one who has cited (dozens) of reliable third party and official German government sources. Those claiming Böhrnsen was not head of state haven't cited a single relevant, reliable source, only their original research. What you are saying is a very good description of what my opponents are doing here. Also, I'm still waiting for the sources. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are some more sources that establish that Jens Böhrnsen was head of state:

Also, according to the Foreign Office of Germany, Jens Böhrnsen was head of state: "Head of state: President of the Bundesrat Jens Böhrnsen".[25]

Both the Foreign Office and the Bundeskanzleramt have described Böhrnsen as acting President too[26][27] - I do not insist on this description, because I think merely head of state in his capacity as President of the Federal Council is most correct, but considering this it can't be completely inaccurate.

It is your good right to believe that the entire German and international press, the German federal government including the Bundeskanzleramt and the Foreign Office, the United Nations, the ministries of foreign affairs of various other countries and so on, are all wrong. But you have to prove it, with reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Until now, I've not seen anything else than original research (private theories about what a legal text means, from Wikipedia contributors who aren't lawyers).

Being head of state is not an "office" that is necessarily defined by any law, it is the person fulfilling particular duties and representing his country internationally, regardless of how he was appointed or his title. Germany had a head of state in June because the constitution provides for the President of the Federal Council assuming all the rights and duties of the office of President, and representing his country internationally as head of state. If you are going to continue this discussion, it's not sufficient to say "I disagree". You have to find some real sources that are better than the sources that I cited (like the Bundeskanzleramt or the Foreign Office, or Deutsche Welle, Tagesschau or Süddeutsche Zeitung) that establish that he wasn't head of state. An example of such a source could be: "Not head of state: The Federal Constitutional Court rules that Jens Böhrnsen was not head of state. The Foreign Office, the Bundeskanzleramt and the entire press had it all wrong". Josh Gorand (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, head of state in any meaningful sense is an office. But if it isn't, we may very well dispense with the whole notion, which would make your entire case pointless. (Does the constitution actually use the term Staatsoberhaupt anywhere?) There are several actually existing offices, among them the Bundespräsident and the Bundesratspräsident and they are the ones to be primarily recorded - not some notion of "head of state". Next time, you will introduce "highest-ranking German government official" just in case both Bundespräsident and Bundesratspräsident are killed in a car crash. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea of what you're talking about. Very few constitutions mention the term head of state at all, the head of state-ness has to do with the long-standing customs of international diplomacy rather than a country's constitution. This is not about head of government, it's about head of state. As you very well know, there will always be a President of the Federal Council. If the President of the Council dies or resigns, his deputy Prime Minister in his home state will become acting Prime Minister (like Jörg Bode (politician) recently did in Lower Saxony) and thus President of the Federal Council. This is all hypothetical, I'm sure Germany will at any time have someone exercising the powers as head of state that include representing the country internationally. Josh Gorand (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Josh, you just said that "the constitution provides for the President of the Federal Council assuming all the rights and duties of the office of President" We established earlier that, in this case, acting and interim are the same thing. Wikipedia defines interim as a "temporary pause in a line of succession or event." Therefore, there was no Head of State or President of Germany druing this period. Therefore, Jens Böhrnsen simply had the rights and duties of Head of State or President of Germany and nothing else. Kingjeff (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again I see a (puzzling) private theory and no sources at all. I think I'm going to ignore further comments unless I see some sources. Josh Gorand (talk) 02:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I quote Wikipedia and one of it's users (You Josh) and I'll be happy to give you references. Kingjeff (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not quite understand your question. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. If you haven't yet read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, now is the time to read it. You need to cite reliable secondary sources that support your claims, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The guideline deals directly with what we've seen on this talk page: "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". Josh Gorand (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No Josh. You need to read up on Sarcasm. Kingjeff (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the Maunz/Dürig Basic Law commentary or anything similar , and can tell us whether it has anything to say about this?Bibfile (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it would deal directly with this kind of situation, and it possibly would take the head of state-ness for granted, or use legal language a layperson wouldn't understand (this book is written for lawyers and law students), so it would still be original research. What you need is a reliable secondary source (preferably more than one), that establishes that even the Foreign Office and the Bundeskanzleramt had it all wrong. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I was merely asking if they had anything to say about the matter, and yes, I wouldn't be sure either whether Maunz/Dürig or any other Basic Law commentary (of which there are a few more) would deal directly with it, but if they did, I'd regard them as sources worth considering. I fail to understand where original research would come into this.Bibfile (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)