Talk:Eternity clause

POV

This text has nothing to do with an encyclopedic article but is a POV, revisionist political essay. It is totally worthless and should be deleted for good until a new, neutral article (e. g. along the lines of the de.wikipedia article on the same topic) has been written. --FA2010 (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

_________________

The de.wikipedia article on this topic is absolutely false, i.e., not neutral and presents the opposing and unlawful (totalitarian) view of those who willfully violate Articles 1, 20, 23, 79, 93, 146 and numerous other articles of "this Basic Law"---betraying the German people. Germany's "Basic Law" today is not enforced, and you are asking me to turn a blind eye to the false claims in the de.wikipedia article. For example, the de.wikipedia article on this topic claimed that "this Basic Law" is a constitution, but it is not. (I deleted that claim in the de.wikipedia article last week.) The original text of Article 146 of "this Basic Law" as enacted in 1949 makes it very clear that "this Basic Law" is not a constitution, but a temporary measure until a constitution is adopted by the free decision of the German people. And the English Wikipedia article "The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany" also explains that "this Basic Law" was to be temporary until the ultimate reunification of West and East Germany. The fact is that the eternity clause and Article 146 are the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany which the legislature has, with unlawful "amendments," replaced with an extra-legal (arbitrary) "basic law". In fact, "this Basic Law" is not valid for the people of East Germany: There has been no lawful reunification. --Ofthehighest (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and I'm learning the formatting here etc., but I fully intend to meet Wikipedia's quality standards for this article. I am being objective and will cite reputable references and sources, and include relevant internal links. If you wish to contact me personally, please do. My name is H. Everest Wilhelmsen and you can write to me at ofthehighest@yahoo.com. I live in Germany and have experienced first hand the injustice of the legal system here -- the result of the government's willful violations of the eternity clause. --Ofthehighest (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Now someone has deleted the facts I entered in this article, possibly User:Fa2010, who claims above that they are "totally worthless." It would seem polite to me that someone claiming to be "neutral" should reserve his or her claims until after scrutinizing the facts. --Ofthehighest (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No I removed the section as a blatant violation of our neutral point of view and no original research policies, which articles here must follow. When you have sources which support your wording you can add it, bearing in mind WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am in the process of adding the original research and sources which support my words. I am not the only one to have thoroughly researched what I have entered on this topic. There are lawyers (including law professors) who have thoroughly exposed the violations of the eternity clause. And the facts here are not politically motivated, but facts. It takes time to write and put these sources into the article, and when someone without warning deletes all I have entered it takes more time. I would thank you to please be patient and give me time to enter links and other reference to reputable sources. Also, the de.wikipedia article on this topic does not provide adequate research or sources for its claims. The statements made there are definitely false and politically motivated, i.e., intentionally misleading. --Ofthehighest (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted back to the June 2011 version. It doesn't matter how well you think you've researched it: statements like "Therefore, the government also knows full and well that it is an illegitimate government betraying the German people." are opinion, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting your political ideas. Please have a read of WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Synthesis and WP:No original research, and please don't put the essay back again. Thank you, Lone boatman (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Who are you? I was in the process of writing this article and you had no right to delete the entire article here based on one sentence which you chose to apply your political opinion to. I will now replace the article without the sentence you did not like. Obviously, you are biased against the entire article I wrote, but you should not have deleted the entire article. Would you approve if someone like you came along and censored an article you had written? If you had read the article you would know that you have willfully lied by writing that Germany's Basic Law is its constitution. And you have lied by claiming that I have done no original research. I have been researching this for over two years and was carefully putting the sources and reputable references in. I don't believe that Wikipedia is a place for lies, so I have deleted the entire article that you used to displace what I had carefully written. We will begin again and I ask that you please complain regarding specific sentences you do not believe are in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, not delete the entire article again. I ask that you please be more respectful in your actions here on Wikipedia, i.e., towards me and the German people. Thank you. --Ofthehighest (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Who am I? Well, I'm a Wikipedia editor, same as you. Don't be angry if other editors try to make an article conform to Wikipedia guidelines, such as were pointed out above over the last two weeks. There were many POV sentences scattered throughout, not just the one I mentioned, as two other editors before me have already pointed out here on this page. The version from which I removed content was also completely unreferenced: quotes from German law translated into English aren't references if they aren't WP:Verifiable. Now if something is factually incorrect, then you should certainly correct it, or delete it if necessary. But page blanking, as you did in this edit, is quite unhelpful. Your subsequent edits also removed the maintenance tag from the top, the categories, the interwiki links to other language versions, and the external links section. Please WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thank you, Lone boatman (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and was not aware that by removing the text of the article that I "removed the maintenance tag from the top, the categories, the interwiki links to other language versions, and the external links section." Sorry. My only concern is that the truth is stated in this article, i.e., variable and referenced sources which give the truth. Are you telling me above that it is not correct to write the German law in English, i.e., that I must reference (link) each article of German law to its German text? I know that the German text is the actual law (not the English), this is true. I am trying my best to stay within Wikipedia's policies. When you deleted what I had written I was in the process of going through, editing and referencing what I had written (from top to bottom) and I had not reached the bottom part of the article, yet. Thanks for your advice.--Ofthehighest (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In real life the truth is always the best goal. But on Wikipedia, the threshold for inclusion is WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. So yes it is fine to quote a verifiable English translation of portions of German law as content of the article. But we can't then use those translations to advance an argument or WP:Synthesis about the rights and wrongs of a law: this would be against the policy of neutrality and original research, as mentioned above. Please let me know if I can be of any help for this or any other article you're editing. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The law, (i.e., Articles 1 and 20), is the citation you have asked for. Articles 1 and 20 are demands of the legislative, executive and judicial organs and bind these organs and their separate responsiblities so that they cannot conspire with one another. This is the basic democratic principle of the separation of powers. There is no way around it. Possibly, you do not like the words "internal conspiracies by the legislative, executive and jucial organs," but that is specifically what Articles 1 and 20 prevents. Articles 1 and 20 are security measures limiting and separating the powers of these organs to prevent political conspiracies. And this is also exactly why the eternity clause was put in "this Basic Law," to protect the identity and functions of the federation. Articles 1 and 20 both specifically define and protect the integrity of the Federal Republic of Germany from internal plots.--Ofthehighest (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The law you've cited says nothing about it being passed to prevent plots. Please don't remove the citation tag again until you've found a citation that specifically supports the assertion, thanks. Lone boatman (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You clearly do not want to acknowledge the purpose of the "separation of powers". Do you acknowledge that the Parliamentary Council established the basic democratic principle of the "separation of powers" to prevent "plots" like the Reichstag Fire Decree. I have linked it to the Wikipedia articles The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany and Reichstag Fire Decree. Those articles, in my understanding, and the limits the law places on the legislative, executive and judiciary in Articles 1 and 20 are more than enough to establish the truth of what I have written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofthehighest (talk • contribs)

My opinion of their purpose is of no consequence whatsoever. If you keep removing the citation tag from the unreferenced assertion, an administrator is going to block you from editing. Lone boatman (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you are a Wikipedia employee. Is that what you are telling me? It appears to me that you are not trying to help me follow Wikipedia's policies, but obstructing verifiable sources here. You have not explained why I am not allowed to use other articles on Wikipedia for reference (citation). Maybe you should start by correcting other articles on Wikipedia before stopping me from writing about the eternity clause.--Ofthehighest (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)--Ofthehighest (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm a volunteer editor, same as you. We can't reference a Wikipedia article with another Wikipedia article: please have a read of Wikipedia:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. You can write about the eternity clause all you like, but we can't add our own personal analysis, and we can't remove citation tags from unsourced assertions. Lone boatman (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree that the Reichstag Fire Decree occurred? Are you asking me for evidence of this outside of Wikipedia sources? Are you asking that I cite outside Wikipedia? The article you posted as citation also has unverifiable assertions in it. I don't see that I have made any assertion, but varified all with the law and an historic event that the Parliamentary Council did not want a repeat of.--Ofthehighest (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to all of that. But as I've said, our opinions are of no consequence. It's not good enough to show evidence from which we can infer the assertion that the law was passed in order to prevent plots, it needs WP:Reliable, WP:Secondary sources from which it can be verified. Lone boatman (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lone boatman. Someone has blocked me from editing on the "deutsch" article for Eternity clause. What did I do wrong to get blocked? To my recollection I several times took out the German word "andere" from in front of "Verfassung" because it says that the German people now have a constitution ("Verfassung") even though they have not adopted a constitution. It is not possible for the Basic Law of Germany to be redefined as a "constitution" without the German people doing so in accordance with Article 146. The full sentence in German where I removed the word "andere" states, "Bis zu einer Ersetzung des Grundgesetzes durch eine andere Verfassung (Art. 146 GG)[1] kann die Ewigkeitsklausel nach heute herrschender Meinung nicht aufgehoben werden."

How do I challenge what has been written in the Deutsch article on this topic? It is just not correct for false statements (lies) to be made on Wikipedia. You, yourself, agreed with me on that. Are you an administrator for Wikipedia. Apparently, an administrator blocked me on the deutsch article at someone's request. Thanks for being patient with me in what I am writing on the English Eternity clause. I am trying to follow the policies of Wikipedia, but want to present the truth only.--Ofthehighest (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just answered you at my talk page where you also posted. Lone boatman (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have eliminated several statements I wrote where you asked for citations. Later, after finding citations, I may add them again. I have also changed the one remaining sentence where you have asked for citation. What I have written there is only an introduction to a list of "the basic principles" and a different way of saying that the eternity clause and Articles 1 and 20 do not allow state authority to eliminate democracy. But let me know if you still think it needs a citation.--Ofthehighest (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible for the German authorities to accuse me of being a "Verfassungstroll" and have me blocked from the English Wikipedia Eternity clause article?--Ofthehighest (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You or someone else has twice taken out a clause in one sentence leaving the sentence absolutely false. You cannot write, "i.e., illegal amendments of this basic law cannot be abbrogated or infringed upon, neither by additional legislation of the Bundestag (Federal legislature), nor by an executive order, nor by an assertion, opinion, decision or rule of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court)." Whoever removed the first clause of the i.e., is saying that illegal amendments are valid in the law. Not so!

It must read, "i.e., the will of the people regarding illegal amendments of this basic law cannot be abbrogated or infringed upon, neither by additional legislation of the Bundestag (Federal legislature), nor by an executive order, nor by an assertion, opinion, decision or rule of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court)."

I am correcting it again. Thanks.--Ofthehighest (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it say "the will of the German people" in the Constitution? If so, please cite it. If it's your own personal analysis, please remove it. Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you always taking "the democratic rule of law" out of the sentence before "Rechtsstaat"? This is an English article on the eternity clause. I find it inappropriate that you only want the German word here. Obviously, the Basic Law is based upon the democratic rule of law, otherwise it would not have been allowed to be a member of the European Union (EU). It seems to me that you are agreeing with the German article which states that the rule of law is not in the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. I wish you would start editing the German article. It is full of false assertions, ABSOLUTELY FALSE assertions, many without sources.--Ofthehighest (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't find deletion of the words "the democractic rule of law" in any of my edits. I have removed other POV analysis that you added, such as "The eternity clause and “the basic principles” of Articles 1 and 20 are the essential barriers against a new dictatorship in Germany", and "...rule of law (Rechtsstaat]) and the separation of powers essential for all free liberal democratic societies". I can't tell which assertions you were banned from German Wikipedia for removing, but your personal views, referenced by your blog, are inappropriate content in an encyclopedia article. Please see WP:NOTESSAY. Lone boatman (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not made any reference to my blog in the text of the article, as you accuse me of above. I have already explained to you that the reference for that second sentence is from the article "Quo vadis, Germany?". Current Concerns. 15 July 2012. http://currentconcerns.ch/index.php ?id=1871 which I referenced to several days ago. You had already seen the reference and had apparently approved of it, because you did not disapprove of it. But after accusing me above of taking the second from my blog, (i.e., "The eternity clause and “the basic principles” of Articles 1 and 20 are the essential barriers against a new dictatorship in Germany"), you removed the reference, even from the first sentence. What is really unethical about what you did is that you have not acknowledged doing it, and apparently you did not even bother to read the Quo vadis, Germany article, as referenced, and instead falsely accused me of taking it from my blog. Either that or you chose to disapprove of the sentence and wrongfully censor it. Also, you have falsely accused me of starting an "editing war". It is you who have repeatedly and wrongfully removed properly referenced material, even though I had previously sourced it with your approval. At this point I have decided to let you write the article.--Ofthehighest (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You have repeatedly taken out "The eternity clause and “the basic principles” of Articles 1 and 20 are the essential barriers against a new dictatorship in Germany" even though I had sourced it with your approval previously. Is it you who wrote regarding the "three resolutions of the United Nations"?

I am beginning to see that I am wasting my time here on Wikipedia. Why? Because nothing is secure, not even the truth with verifiable sources can be told here on Wikipedia. It doesn't stick. At this point I suggest you write the Wikipedia article on the Eternity Clause. Afterall, you are censoring me on everything I write. Good luck. I'll check back in a few days to see if you are truly a believer in the basic democratic principles. If you like you can draw from my blog, http://ofthehighest.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/what-is-the-eternity-clause/ I have included in my blog the sentence you wrote, "The eternity clause establishes that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed."--Ofthehighest (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs in democratic principles have nothing whatever to do with this, and nobody's "censoring" anything here. You're free to write whatever you want on your own blog. On shared websites like Wikipedia, you need to learn to edit using the same guidelines that all the other editors on Wikipedia have to abide by. I've tried repeatedly to help free the article of bias, but you don't seem to be the least bit interested in writing an unbiased article, only in preaching about "the truth". Best of luck with your blog. Lone boatman (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You have falsely accused me of starting an "editing war". It is you who has been trying to stop me from sharing properly referenced material. You showed me how and I referenced what I wrote. You had accepted what I referenced, but when I added the second sentence (even though it was in the same reference) you chose to delete the reference and accuse me of not having a citation for either sentence. If it wasn't that I don't believe you, (i.e., I believe you do work for Wikipedia and are lying to me), I would report you to Wikipedia. At this point I believe Wikipedia is a great place for lies, because that is what you have been supporting. Go ahead and have me blocked and it will only prove that you are not interested in the basic principles of democracy, but in your own political opinions.--Ofthehighest (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It would do you good to read my blog. But your eyes are apparently closed to the truth I do my utmost to only write verifiable material there, and I am in the process of adding the sources for everything written.--Ofthehighest (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman, please stop accusing me of referencing my blog. I have never done that. I referenced "Current Concerns," an article called "Quo vedas, Germany?" This is a reputable/reliable Swiss publisher. I have also referenced this publisher in my blog. And please stop accusing me of participating in an "editing war". It is you who have wrongfully removed material by accusing me of referencing my blog. I have not done as you claim. And also stop removing the words "democratic rule of law" in front of (Rechsstaat). This is an English article on the eternity clause, not a German one. The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany has the rule of law established in "the constitutional order" of the Basic Law. Obviously, the Federal Republic of Germany has the rule of law in its Basic Law, otherwise it would not have been permitted into the European Union. Do you not find it interesting that the Deutsch article on Wikipedia for the eternity clause claims that there is no Rechtsstaat within the Basic Law? That is only one of the false statements made on that site. Another false statement is that the Basic Law is the "constitution" for the Federal Republic of Germany. Utterly false. If you have any constructive additions to the English article, you are welcome. I appreciate that you added the sentence "The eternity clause makes it clear that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed." And also where you added the words "three United Nations resolutions" before the source I referenced. You hhave also simplified the headers. Probably a good idea. Thank you.--Ofthehighest (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)--Ofthehighest (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Current Concerns" is also a blog, and blogs are not considered WP:Reliable sources. Please don't re-add the original research, if it's only supported by some blog. Lone boatman (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman, thanks for changing the word from "intrical" to intrinsic. And also thanks for putting in "aimed at preventing" - it's more positive than "barriers". Thanks.--Ofthehighest (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman, please do not change that sentence again. It is you who originally wrote "The eternity clause establishes that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed, even by parliament." You took that directly from the reference you cited. I changed that to "The eternity clause establishes that certain fundamental principles of this democracy can never be changed, even by parliament," which says the same as what you had originally written, but replaced the word "things" with "fundamental principles," which is more explicit and accurate, as referenced. But yesterday you took out "democracy" and put "constitution". The reference refers only to changes of "democracy," not the "constitution" as you have written. So, you have not been "more explicit," but are synthesizing to present your argument that "this Basic Law" is a "constitution". Please do not change this sentence (take the subject off track) again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofthehighest (talk • contribs)

That addition I made wasn't good enough, so I improved it. Where's the synthesis? We don't have to repeat what the referenced articles of the Basic Law say verbatim, if a paraphrase better conveys the meaning with a WP:Neutral point of view. Lone boatman (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You did not "paraphrase" anything. You changed one word from "democracy" to "constitution," thereby taking the article off topic, a topic not referenced in the citation. The reference is about not changing "democracy," not about not changing the "constitution". And now you have changed it again to "Basic Law," once again again removing the word "democracy". Please stop removing the word "democracy".--176.94.1.106 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to log in. We have no idea which editor is writing all these changes to the article (and the comment above) when you post them without logging in: are you editor User:Ofthehighest?

Assuming that you are, then please understand that references don't work that way. I tried to improve what was a completely unreferenced article by adding a reference from a political magazine by a writer who agrees with your views but, alas, no good deed goes unpunished. One sentence in that article reads "Germany’s constitution forbids this. An “eternity clause” in Germany’s constitution says that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed, even by parliament." The fact that the writer of the magazine article used the word "democracy" in one part of the sentence, rather than "constitution", doesn't mean that that's the only way it can possibly be written in the article. If I add another reference that uses different wording, what then? I strongly suggest you have a read of WP:Ownership of articles: you seem to be angry that I (and two other editors) insisted that the article must be referenced. Lone boatman (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman, your argument above is absolutely false and you are continuing to vandalize this article. You posted the original sentence as follows: "The eternity clause establishes that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed, even by Parliament." In fact, you plagiarized the sentence from National Review's article that you referenced (cited). I changed the sentence to "The eternity clause establishes that certain fundamental principles within this democracy can never be changed, not even by parliament," which was not plagiarizing and in line with the topic of the referenced (cited) National Review article and the purpose of the 'eternity clauses' as stated in the National Review article. After I added "this" to be more explicit, you then took out the word "democracy" and supplanted it with the word "constitution," ignoring the context of the reference cited. I warned you that what you did would need a different citation, and that you were only presenting your usual political argument that Germany has a "constitution." I put the word "democracy" back in the sentence. But again you supplanted it with the words "Basic Lsw" -- ignoring what I had told you. The National Review article is not about changing a "constitution" or changing the "Basic Law," but about interference with (changing) Germany's "democracy". And now you are again vandalizing this article on the 'eternity clause" to pursue your argument again that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution" -- purposely added material already published in Wikipedia's article on entrenched clauses -- claiming again that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution". The 'eternity clause' is not a "colloquial term" used in other countries for an entrenched clause, as you claim. And Wikipedia already has an article for "entrenched clause" which is where the material you have added to the 'eternity clause' article belongs. You are vandalizing the 'eternity clause' article and obviously pushing your political view that Germany has a "constitution". You have been censoring me with false accusations, claiming I am violating Wikipedia's policies, but it is you who have been doing so, not me. Now, I am going to remove the material you have added, because you are using it to vandalize (sabotage) this article. Please take your political opinions elsewhere and stop disrupting this article. Stop pushing your political views and censoring what I am writing and referencing. And now you claim that you have a partner who is also against me. I do not find it to be a coincidence that I was blocked from the German (Deutsch) article on the eternity clause. It was probably you who had me blocked, not wanting Germans to read what I was writing. --Ofthehighest (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing and POV-pushing. If you want to promote your political views, join a political party or pressure group, start your own blog or write a letter to the editor or something. Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2012 (UT

@Lone boatman: It seems to me that it's high time to escalate this issue and to deal with this disrespectful and disruptive editor once and for all. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reported this problem again at WP:ANB. Lone boatman (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also reported this problem. It is you (Lone boatman) -- you are vandalizing this article. Your new data is again to push your political view that Germany has a "constitution," and a deliberate attempt to distract people from reading about the eternity clause. The material you added on other countries belongs in Wikipedia's "entrenched clause" article. If you want to add the entrenched clauses of other countries, do it in the correct article, i.e., "entrenched clause". As for you Mmeijeri, I find it interesting that you have only now shown up after Lone boatman has been causing nothing but trouble. Lone boatman has again started an "editing war," and you have come to help him I see.--Ofthehighest (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy against you here. Wikipedia runs on WP:Consensus: please gain consensus here before attempting further large-scale deletions of referenced content. You are quite right that eternity clauses can be part of basic law as well as a constitution, and that they are a type of entrenched clause. I have linked to these in the intro. Lone boatman (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Who said the word "conspiracy"? You did. I simply pointed out that Martijn Meijering showed up for the first time when you started adding all of this other material regarding other countries, which I consider to be vandalism because you are angry that I pointed out that you had wrongfully deleted "democracy" and replaced it with "constitution". And then you did it again - deleted "democracy" and replaced it with "Basic Law" even though you know that the article referenced is not about changing the "constitution" or "Basic Law," but changing "democracy". And then you did it again by adding the new material on top of the eternity clause, again claiming that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution". It is you who ar3e not "neutral". Do not accuse me of that. And it is you who have been synthesizing (also plagiarizing). Therefore, it is you who should be given a "stern warning," not me. You always get the last say by changing things and then threating me. Okay, I will not delete what you last changed. It is you who does not gain "concensus" before deleting and changing things to your liking. And suddenly you have another person here supporting you. He has never been here before today. Is that what you are calling "concensus"? I have also filed my complaint on the same pages you have. Maybe we will get some help with this. At this point I have asked for protection until the page is written and then protection if Wikipedia agrees that it meets Wikipedia policies.--Ofthehighest (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You're going to ask the admins to protect the article once you've finished writing it? From all editors, or just me and the four other editors that have tried to make changes? Have you read WP:Ownership of articles yet? Lone boatman (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman, it is you who is claiming ownership of this article, not me. I only want you out of this article because you are vandalizing it all the time. was adding much needed material to this article when you showed up and started manipulating everything to fit your political views. You even found my personal blog, told me that you did not like my views and falsely accused me several times of using my blog as a reference. I made it very clear to you several times that you were falsely accusing me. You have not yet apologized for that. You have started several "editing wars" with me by insisting on having it your way (deleting and revising and threatening me if I changed it). It is you who have in each case ended up with the last change. You plagiarized the one sentence that has now caused this disagreement. I changed it so it was not plagiarism and then you came again and changed it again taking out the word "democracy," supplanting it with "constitution" because I have told you that Germany's Basic Law is not a "constitution". But you disagree and will have it your way with manipulation, lies and threats. Yes, I want this article to be protected from vandalism. You are vandalizing it. The 'eternity clause' is intended to protect the fundamental principles of democracy, and in the same way I want the fundamental purpose of this article to be protected from you changing it so that it is meaningless.--Ofthehighest (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I also had put a German flag at the top of the article. Lone boatman removed it when he changed the page into an international page like the "entrenched clause" article. He did so only to take the focus off of Germany's 'eternity clause'. Then someone else came and removed all I had written and correctly referenced. Much work totally vandalized (sabotaged)! There is no other way to say it.--Ofthehighest (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman has also accused me of wanting to personally own the article (page). Not true. It is he who has always gotten his way with this article, always threatening to have me blocked after making his changes. And what is very interesting is that three other editors suddenly turned up to agree with him. They had never been here before yesterday and today. And suddenly the entire article is GONE. I see them as a gang of VANDALS, nothing more. They did discuss, but only acted rapidly to delete the article.--Ofthehighest (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing original research

The vast majority of this article is either unsourced or relies exclusively on primary sources. Per WP:V, contentious material (which this obviously is, based on the edit history) must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source.

Please do not restore any material without including a reliable source. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Bdb484, are you referring to what Lone boatman has last done? What was there before Lone Boatman's last changes was all properly referenced in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.--Ofthehighest (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who added what. I'm referring to the material that I pulled out, none of which was appropriately sourced. Whoever is responsible for it, it needs to be cited with reliable, secondary sources before it is restored. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the material you removed consisted of way too much undue detail too - this is a summary of the concept, not a detailed analysis of individual constitutions (or Basic Law, or whatever technical term is appropriate). So I support your removal of it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:OR and WP:NPS. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I also note that Ofthehighest had been removing sourced content about other countries - I think that was also wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I do think he has a point that that material might be more appropriate on the entrenched clause page, but then I wonder whether the present article should not be merged with it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point - a merge might indeed be a good idea. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, an article about the German law specifically might be viable, but only if reliable secondary sources can be found to support it - we can't have an article based on personal analysis of the statutes themselves. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like everything worth keeping here is already over there at this point. I'm not 100 percent on protocol here, but I'm just going to boldly redirect the page over there. Feel free to revert if that's somehow uncouth. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look at the two, I think you're right. As for protocol, I thing being bold is fine - the old contents are still in the history if anyone wants to inspect it for anything overlooked that might be useful. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The merge to Entrenched clause looks pretty good to me, thanks. I did add a few book references here that used the words "eternity clause" to describe certain laws of the Czech Republic and other countries, which haven't been included in the merge. If there are no objections, I'll add them there. Lone boatman (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You have all vandalized the article, violated all of Wikipedia's policies. The entire article is gone and you have wasted my time - censored what I had properly written and referenced.--Ofthehighest (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Reversion and other matters

Hello, I am a volunteer for the DRN. A dispute over this article was filed (albeit to the wrong WP resolution area) and I thought it might be better to leave the page intact until some issues were resolved. I likely don't know all the details surrounding the page but I have some concerns. I'm not opposed to a redirect after all the issues are resolved. I would appreciate feedback.

I think most of the editors here have been very patient, civil and followed protocols and etiquette so kudos to you. I am going to be very forward and address the main editors to see if the major problems can be resolved here on the talk page. If that's ok then I'd like to withdraw and allow consensus to decide about the redirect issue. If the majority wish me to withdraw now then please let me know as no one has formally asked for a comment, etc. Thanks. Jobberone (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jobberone, the article is gone, Lone boatman and others hacked it to pieces - and now they have deleted it completely, replacing it with what you see. The 'Eternity clause' article was about Germany's 'eternity clause,' how it functions, its purpose in securing the fundamental principles of democracy, and the history of it. But after I told Lone boatman that he was synthesizing (not "paraphrasing" as he claimed), he changed the whole page by turning it into an article like Wikipedia's "entrenched clause" article. And suddenly today many "editors" showed up and Lone boatman now claims there is a "consensus". There is no "consensus," just an attack (vandalismj) on the article. I have tried to discuss this with Lone boatman, but he only insists on having it his way - acting at whim, changing the article to whatever he wants - then threatens to have me blocked if I return it to what it was. Lone boatman always gets the last say, because he deletes and changes things and then threatens to have me blocked from Wikipedia. He accuses me of being in an "editing war" when it is he who starts and maintains "editing wars". He claims in his complaints about me that he doesn't want me to be blocked, but that is exactly what he wants. He even found my blog and accused me of having the wrong views and then falsely and repeatedly accused me of using my blog as a reference on Wikipedia. He only wants his political views endorsed on Wikipedia. He has contributed almost nothing and today when I told him that he had turned the 'eternity clause' into another "entrenched clause" page, he quickly changed it so that it looked as though he knew what he was doing. I have tried to reach an authorized Wikipedia administrator, but have not been able to. In the meantime Lone boatman told me today that he deleted my complaint to an administrator, he claimed I had no right to put it next to his complaint. It appears to me that Wikipedia is under the control of a gang that spreads propaganda. Obviously, Lone boatman and others today have censored the article in its entirety. Germany's 'eternity clause' is not meaningless. It has history and is of great importance to Germany's democracy. The German page has false statements in it that are not even referenced. I tried to correct the false statements which have no references and was accused of being a "Verfassungstroll" and blocked from the page with no discussion. --Ofthehighest (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even check who was the main author of the detailed content on German law when I reviewed it, so I have no idea who I am supporting here. But it was all personal analysis of primary sources - the statute itself. And that is prohibited by Wikipedia's WP:OR policy. If reliable, independent, secondary sources can be found that provide an analysis of German statute, then an article specific to Germany might be viable - but the version we had was not.

@Ofthehighest, I've warned you to stop accusing those who disagree with you of vandalism, and you really should stop that, and also stop the personal attacks against others, before someone blocks you for it (I can't, as I am involved in the content discussion, but I am quite prepared to ask another admin to review your comments).

@Jobberone, thanks for your input, but to me the dispute seems to be one person against the rest. I think a discussion here is better, but if we could ask for your evaluation of the consensus when the discussion has progressed a little, I think that could be very valuable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have accused you and will continue to accuse you, because you did not even enter into discussion before deleting all I had done. You are a VANDAL, nothing more and should be permanently blocked from Wikipedia. All I had written was very well referenced. I doubt that you even read the article.--Ofthehighest (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything - if you look at the history of the article, you'll see I have not made a single edit to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Boing, true, you did not even check who the main editor of the article was. Apparently, you and BdB484 did not take the time to read the discussion before making your comments and acting. And now for the first time someone is telling me that it is wrong to quote the law here on Wikipedia. I referenced (cited) my statements and the law here on Wikipedia. That is, afterall, what the 'eternity clause' is. It is a law. Why do you think it wrong to write the law on Wikipedia? Reference was given for the laws written, showing them on Germany's government web-sites, translated into English by the German government. Since when is it wrong to quote the basic principles of democracy written in the law and protected by the 'eternity clause'?--Ofthehighest (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Boing, you endorsed what Lone boatman did and thus on this page encouraged another "editor" to totally delete the article. It is GONE in its entirety, replaced with a fraudulent attempt to censor what was written.--Ofthehighest (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Boing, it was Bdb484 who deleted the entire article after Lone boatman changed it into an international cover like the "entrenched clause" article which already exists. But you endorsed what Lone boatman had done. You have all disrespectfully wasted my time--Ofthehighest (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Boing, so you would have me blocked to protect yourself from my accusations. The 'eternity clause' article was in accordance with Wikipedia's policy, every bit of it. Go ahead and continue to threaten me as Lone boatman has done repeatedly after he deletes things and changes the article - and he always gets the last change in before threatening me. I have tried my best to discuss and be polite with Lone boatman, but he will have his way, first by acting like he is offering advice, but in the end it is clear that he is intent on having his views expressed, doing the opposite of what he preaches. And it seems that you are taking the same approach as Lone boatman.--Ofthehighest (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jobberone, Lone boatman also removed the German flag I had put with the article. Loan boatman deleted it when he changed the page into an international page like the "entrenched clause" article. He did so only to take the focus off of Germany's 'eternity clause'. Then someone else came and removed all I had written and correctly referenced. Much work totally vandalized (sabotaged)! There is no other way to say it.--Ofthehighest (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman has also accused me of wanting to personally own the article (page). Not true. It is he who has always gotten his way with this article, always threatening to have me blocked after making his changes. And what is very interesting is that three other editors suddenly turned up to agree with him. They had never been here before yesterday and today - and suddenly the entire article is GONE. I see them as a gang of VANDALS, nothing more. They did not discuss with me, but only acted rapidly to delete the article.--Ofthehighest (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actual quote from The Economist

The quote can be found here [1] and it looks like an article rather than an opinion column, so should fall under WP:RS. If I've misunderstood or someone disagrees, please say so. WP policy based arguments only please.

- An “eternity clause” in Germany's constitution says that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed, even by parliament.

The quote has some ambiguity but I'd argue that it is democracy that cannot be changed, rather than the constitution. Opinions? JanetteDoe (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the difference between "democracy" and "constitution" is really not the point of the disagreement at all. The reason the article was severely pruned is because it was mainly a detailed personal analysis of German statute - have a look at, for example, this version -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I see your point. JanetteDoe (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Boing, prove what you have said above. You have no right to lie here, as Lone boatman was doing by claiming to "paraphrase," but repeatedly changed only one word, i.e., "democracy" to "constitution". Lone boatman was synthesizing - misusing the reference to argue his personal political views. And when I warned him, he took revenge by changing the entire article into a catch-all international article, and again at the top of the page put "constitutions". I then pointed out that he had only changed it to push his change to "constitution" again---violating the article referenced, i.e., that the 'eternity clause' is to protect fundamental principles of democracy, not the "German constitution". The article was not "a detailed personal analysis of a German statute." All was referenced. The history was there. The fundamental principles of Germany's democracy were listed there. The 'eternity clause' forbids changes to the fundamental principles of democracy and Lone boatman and the other VANDALS here have done exactly that by changing the page. Lone boatman first completely changed the purpose for the page (making it like the "entrenched clause" page). That was also drastically pruning the page,(he changed the topic of the page) - and then another editor showed up and deleted everything - all of these changes were made in willful violation of Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia's policies have been abused (alienated) by the manipulation and arbitrary acts of these VANDALS who are at this moment sabotaging this article on the 'eternity clause,' i.e., the article is gone. Wikipedia's policies are at this moment gone and if Wikipedia does not reasonably deal with these willful violations, then Wikipidia is allowing "editors" and "administrators" to use Wikipedia only for their own political objectives, contributing nothing - only bullying and threatening editors who are attempting to contribute.--Ofthehighest (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ofthehighest, please have a read of WP:CIVIL, and please refrain from making WP:Personal attacks on other editors. Let's please keep this discussion cool. Thank you. Lone boatman (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• @Ofthehighest, you appear to be misunderstanding a few things here - what WP:OR means, what WP:RS requires, what WP:Consensus is, what WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL require, and how third parties become involved in trying to settle content disputes - they/we are necessarily newcomers to the disagreement. Now, I'd usually be happy to explain these things further and, for example, expand on what I mean by "personal analysis of German statute" - but I refuse to use my valuable time to help people who are abusive and accuse me of lies and vandalism -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman, it is you who have willfully and repeatedly violated Wikipedia's policies by making entire changes to the 'eternity clause' article then threatening me as usual. And you ask me now to stay "cool" as you continue to manipulate editors and possible administrators to cover your wrongdoings. Oh, I am staying "cool". You know full and well that I am staying "cool". If I was not staying cool I would have deleted your last changes. It is you who made the last changes, not me. Hopefully, administrators will see through your manipulations and make the right decisions. Clearly, you wanted a "concensus" and several other editors suddenly turned up for the first time to give you the support you needed. What a coincidence! You are not aiming at a "concensus" or "discussion," but willfully vandalizing (sabotaging) the 'eternity clause' article.--Ofthehighest (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

___________________________

JanetteDoe, You are right that the referenced article in National Review is about not changing the fundamental principles of democracy, not changing the "constitution". And this is why I have a BIG problem with Lone boatman (and the three other "editors" who suddenly showed up for the first time and agreed with Lone boatman - the three others had not been at the 'eternity clause' article previously). Lone boatman does not want the word "democracy". After I accused him of synthesizing he then took revenge by changing the entire article into a catch all international page in which he redefines 'eternity clause' as a "term" used internationally instead of the colloquial description specific to Article 79 paragraph (3) of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. This page was part of the German law page specific to Germany, not an international one which is already covered under a Wikipedia article entitled "entrenched clause". Lone boatman added the additional international data at the top of the page only to cover up the 'eternity clause' article. And again he focused on the word "constitution" at the top of his change. And when I told him he had wrongfully duplicated the "entrenched clause" to pursue his use of the word "constitution" (which I had previously told him Germany does not have), he then added "Basic Law" to his change to make it appear that he is not politically motivated with his changes. Then several editors suddently showed up for the first time and one of them deleted the entire 'eternity clause' article, leaving only what Lone boatman had put in at the top. Wikipedia is apparently no place to safeguard an article, even a properly referenced article, which the article was. And it was not a personal essay on a statute, as I have been accused of. It is an important historic prohibition placed in the Germany's Basic Law regarding the protection of Germany's new democracy.--Ofthehighest (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Eternity clause be merged into Entrenched clause. As far as I can see, the articles are substantial duplicates; Eternity clause article articulates no meaningful distinction. 73.202.30.72 (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Support: Neither article describes any difference between them. - Frankie1969 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)