Talk:History of Baden-Württemberg

Untitled

It looked much better when there were separate pages for "History of Baden" and "History of Wurttemberg" - BW only started in 1952. Adding them on top of each other has stripped out links to other subjects, it's very bad editing all round.78.18.211.113 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This article should be re-split between its components.

I was surprised when I first came upon this article in the past. It has been a very bad decision (with or without a...consensus) to regroup the histories of three distinct entities -- Baden, Württemberg and Baden-Württemberg -- into this article.

It should be re-split into its three separate components, with Baden-Württemberg dealing with the political entity created after WWII. You don't expect the article "Austria-Hungary" to get lost into distinct articles on the detailed history of Austria, on the detailed history of Hungary, then on Austria-Hungary, and indeed it doesn't.--Lubiesque (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a History of Austria-Hungary article because Austria-Hungary is already about the history of a former state. Wikipedia already have Baden-Württemberg, Baden, Württemberg, the dozens of different entities of them and its rulers plus this article which are basically past copies of Britannica. I can't see how any more articles would improve the overall quality of them. IMO a better solution would be merge the history sections into the existing articles where appropriate and keep this article abot the actual state. Ruddah (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. I see that there already is an article titled "Baden-Württemberg" that covers very nicely and completely the land of Baden-Württemberg. Generally, it follows the format of articles on some other länder such as "Rhineland-Palatinate". Therefore, all that would need to be done (and I don't know how to do that) would be to create two new articles with the sections "History of Baden" and "History of Württemberg" contained in "History of Baden-Württemberg" (the new articles would be exact replicas of the existing sections), and then delete the useless "History of Baden-Württemberg". Then, there should be links to those two new article inserted in the existing article "Baden-Württemberg". Is that a reasonable and practical proposition? --Lubiesque (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree that this article should have its scope toned down, but I don't think that the creation of two more articles are really necessary while the work can be focus on the articles already existing that covers the same time period. These sections are already duplications of the Württemberg articles. Ruddah (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's messy, and bad because, in English, Baden-Württemberg is the name of the state/land, and so the "History of Baden-Württemberg" can only have started in 1952. The page should be renamed "History of Baden and of Württemberg". The earlier smaller articles on the histories of Baden and Württemberg that linked into this page was much better and neater than what we have now.78.19.219.154 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Jews?

The area was one of the largest and earliest Jewish settlements in Germany and the Jews had immense significance economically and in the emergence of the area over generations. According to this article, despite their integral and essential role in the region for centuries, Jews don't show up in a significant way until they are canon fodder for the Nazis. And we get as much discussion of the persecution of the disabled and a dozen women who had sex with Frenchmen as we do of Jews. I'm always embarrassed by my fellow students of Germany. It's disingenuous and all too convenient to rewrite the contributions of these citizens and to minimize the harm we did to them over centuries. Let's do a little better and be a little better.

2601:19B:E00:2640:A004:4C81:BA0A:CDC7 (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)