Wikipedia

Talk:Politics of Germany/Archive 1

< Talk:Politics of Germany
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Alexanderkowal in topic Politics of Germany begins in 1949?
Archive 1

Bicameral or not

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This has somewhat been discussed before without much of a resolution. Common dictum holds that Germany's legislature is indeed bicameral. It may be different from how the British Parliament or the United States Congress operates, but that doesn't make it any less bicameral.

Wikipedia's very own article on bicameralism specifically states that "bicameralism is the practice of having two legislative or parliamentary chambers. Thus, a bicameral parliament or bicameral legislature is a parliament or legislature which consists of two Chambers or Houses". I believe this applies to Bundestag and Bundesrat because

  1. There are two legislative chambers: Bundestag and Bundesrat
  2. They have different responsibilities. Specifically, not all bills have to be approved by the Bundesrat. On the other hand, it can veto a bill which can be overridden the Bundestag (all in article 77, GG).
  3. It is true that the delegates in the Bundesrat are appointed by the governments of the federal states. However, that was true for the United States Senate until 1912 as well.

The bicameralism article also lists Germany as one of the countries that employ the concept.

Overall, the purpose of categorization is to find similarities between similar, not equal, objects. There are vast differences between the United States House and Senate on one hand and the British House of Commons and House of Lords on the other. Yet they are both considered bicameral. With that, I can't find any good reason why Germany should stick out in that regard. sebmol 07:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Furthermore, I'm quite happy with the current English wording for the constitutional entities Bundestag=Federal Diet, Bundesrat=Federal Council, Bundesversammlung=Federal Assembly - makes all perfect sense to me now. ;) --Istabraq 19:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd propose to use the English wording from the CIA World Fact Book. Namely
  • Bundestag - Federal Assembly
  • Bundesrat - Federal Council
  • Bundesversammlung - Federal Convention
That's just my opinion, of course.
-- Edge 08:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. While I can see why the CIA World Fact Book could bring some people to accept its contents as a guiding principle, I would like to draw your attention to more viable sources. When you look into a number of dictionaries you'll find that the term diet also describes a legislative assembly (e.g. in Japan) and is almost always used for the general assembly of the estates of the Holy Roman Empire. Since the Bundestag derives its name from the Reichstag -not only the "Reichstag" of the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) or the "Second Empire" (1871-1918)- but also from the much earlier institution that carried this name in medieval times, I would ask anyone to stick to the term "diet".

--Istabraq 03:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Istabraq. "Diet" is also the literal translation. john k 05:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether one would like to call it bicameral or not is a matter of taste; in this case, a matter of "how much do we choose to fit something into a concept we already know of". The facts, in any case, are: 1. Yes, it is true that there are two assemblies, called Bundestag and Bundesrat, which work together in making laws, with the Bundestag having the bigger rôle of the two. 2. Yes, it is true that the Bundestag is elected (by proportional vote) while the Bundesrat is not. 3. No, Germany is not bicameral at least in the technical sense: "bicameral" technically means that one legislative body, even if as such it has a merely formal existence, is split in two chambers: The thing in the UK is called Parliament, and consists of House of Lords and Commons; the thing in the USA is called Congress, and consists of Senate and House o.R. There is no "Parliament altogether" in Germany; in fact, the word "parliament" is used to refer to the Bundestag, and the Bundestag alone. 4. Let us also note that the Bundesrat is not a remainder of the ancient ruling rights of the nobility, as in the UK (historically, but that is important) or of worthy citizens elected on a meritocratic way, as the Senate in its idea in the US (historically, but that is important). Its predecessor is something rather different: the Congress of the diplomats of the German States (and notably, their governments). --88.217.180.69 (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

German Visa Affair 2005

Could a third person interested in German politics have a look at German Visa Affair 2005 and it's talk page, please? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 11:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Political culture of Germany

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fellow Wikipedians interested in German Politics could you please have a look on the article on the Political culture of Germany. It's of really poor standards in comparison to others (see Political culture of the United States of America, Political Culture of Canada. I volunteer to improve the article over the summer. Please help me find people who specialize on the issue. --Donnerstag 12:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Chancellor

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you are interested in the politics/history of Germany, you might want to take part in the discussion on Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic) regarding the splitting of the original chancellor article. --KarlFrei (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Important notice

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The government section of the "Outline of Germany" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you.

THERE ARE 49 STATES —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.13.107 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wutbürger

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/wiki/Wutb%C3%BCrger User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seating

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The seating in the article[1] differs from the plan on the Bundestag website.[2] Can anyone correct it? Also, does anyone know why the FDP is seated on the right, while in the EU parliament they sit in the center? TFD (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Government of Germany

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Government of Germany" redirects here. But where is the current composition of the government? Best location would be 'Government of Germany', but that does not exist, and the information is not here. So I have no idea. 85.217.46.172 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Treaty of Rome.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Treaty of Rome.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Treaty of Rome.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Politics of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Politics of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Politics of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Misc

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The footnote to the diagram indicates no "#3" within the diagram, instead there are two "#2s;" presumably the Chancellor should be "#3" instead of "#2."

Could somebody rewrite the paragraph that states that Roland Koch won the 2007 elections in Hesse "overwhelmingly". In Fact, he lost a lot of votes and the fact that he is still PM is due to the fact that the opposition SPD does not dare to elect a new PM with postcommunist support. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.197.112 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied this from User talk:Istabraq to better continue discussion here. djmutex 08:10 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I suspect that the author(s) of this article are German mother-tongue so I've taken the liberty of re-writing some of the rather awkwardly written sentences.--Bibi999 00:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Nevertheless the article itself is most informative. My changes are all minor.

In your last change on Germany, you wrote "1:1 translations of «Bundestag» and «Bundesrat» don't work. «Federal Assembly» is the body that elects the head of state in Germany.", and changed the (working) links to [[Federal Assembly of Germany]] and [[Federal Council of Germany]] to the (broken) "Upper Chamber of Parliament" and "Lower Chamber of Parliament", respectively. I have reverted that edit, and let me explain why.
  1. The older links worked, the new ones don't.
  2. Upper house and Lower house are incorrect names for the two. "Upper" and "lower" only makes sense, if at all, in systems like Britain, where you have a House of Lords and a House of Commons. What makes the Bundesrat more "upper" than the Bundestag?
  3. It is even very dubious if Germany has a bicameral system at all. The majority of literature on German state theory (of which I had to read plenty in University) says it doesn't; I have listed the major points on the Federal Council of Germany page.
Now, I agree that the translations aren't perfect. I'd rather use the German terms of Bundestag and Bundesrat for the articles, but that is in conflict with Wiki policy that states English names should be used wherever possible. But your change makes this worse, really. djmutex 18:08 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  1. Sorry, it wasn't my intention to create broken links. However, maintaining the links should only be a minor problem.
  2. "Upper" and "Lower" is often used as a distinction when a country has more than one chamber of parliament. This certainly doesn't apply only to Westminster. It's the usual wording for the system in Japan, Italy, Switzerland and many more.
  3. In this context "Upper" and "Lower" are not used to create any form of superiority or precedence of one to the other.
  4. I don't want to discuss whether or not Germany has a bicameral system, although a number of points can be raised in favour of this notion given the powers of the «Bundesrat» to influence legislation.
  5. The Swiss federal government is also called «Bundesrat». Do you have a "hard" translation for that too?

I copied the dicussion here so other people familiar with terminology of politics in English will more easily find it, and here's my € 0.02.

Since you asked me on my talk page how I came up with the Federal Assembly of Germany and Federal Council of Germany translations: I didn't. These articles existed when I started adding stuff to them, and I figured someone with more knowledge of such terminology in English had a reason to call these articles as such.

I am not entirely happy with these two terms and wouldn't mind using Bundestag and Bundesrat (especially since Reichstag (institution) and Reichstag (building) use the German term too, and for a reason), but then the present terms are better than "Upper Chamber of Parliament" and "Lower Chamber of Parliament"" for several reasons.

  1. If these terms are used for parliament in Switzerland, then fine; they are not traditionally in Germany.
  2. In my view (and that of textbooks on German constitutional law), Germany's system is not designed as bicameral. It may, by now, appear as one since the Bundesrat has a say with a lot of legislation, but that is not how the system was designed. It is thus at least debatable (and definitely debated) whether the system has two chambers, and creating articles that suggest it does thus violates NPOV. I don't mind discussing the issues, but then it's presently done in Federal Council of Germany and shouldn't be stated as fact in the titles.
  3. Even if Germany's system were undoubtedly bicameral, calling the articles "Upper Chamber of Parliament" etc. without any reference to Germany is a bad idea.

So, here's my suggestion.

Could the someone who came up with the present two "Assembly" and "Council" articles please come forward and explain why these were chosen? And could people maybe come up with a better solution? Thanks. djmutex 08:10 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Interesting. However Wikipedia's policy is not to translate everything into english, but to use the name used in english. Bundestag and Bundesrat are used widely in english, far more widely than any translation. Media coverage talks about the French Chamber of Deputies so in that instance the english translation rather than the French original is correct to use. But they talk about the Irish Dáil not the Irish House of Representatives, so though a gaelic word Dáil is treated as in effect an honorary english word. Similarly people write and talk about the "German Bundestag" not the "German Federal Assembly". (In fact the only time I have ever seen that in twenty years reading about politics is in one US newspaper.) Also using the german names that are widely used in english avoids the complications of finding a correct english translation. In contrast it would be wrong for example to talk about the Federal President being elected by the Bundesversammlung since that word is not used in english; its translation, the Federal Convention is instead.

In other areas, wiki talks about the Tsar, the Kaiser, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Fuhrer, the Seanad, the Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach, Éire etc, again non-english words which are used in english and so treated as de-facto english. Bundestag and Bundesrat are the same.

As to whether Germany is a bicameral system, it is complicated but I would conclude having revisited the Basic Law (constitution), that it is more accurate to say that it is than it isn't, though it is quite a different form of bicameralism than elsewhere. The reasons include:

  • the requirement that laws passed by the Bundestag in certain areas require the consent of the Bundesrat.
  • Both Houses can create a Meditations Committee to solve disputes.

When I studied political science, both of the above were seen as central definitions of whether a parliament is or isn't bicameral. If two united the legislative process are involved in law-making, with either having the right to veto, revise or change a law made by the other, with provision made for a commitee of both Houses to agree a compromise, the system is bicameral. If only one Houses makes laws and no other House has a revisionary or approval role, then it is unicameral. But there are different forms of bicameralism, with the full relationship in each nation differing in terms of scale.

The english language summary at the beginning of the Basic Law actually mentions "both Houses". So on balance, though it is markedly different form of bicameralism, the fact that two houses may play part of the legislation-making process and a committee is provided for to solve disputes, makes it at the very least quasi-bicameral.

In view of the naming conventions and the usage of non-english words in wiki when they are generally accepted in the english language, I propose to put the two houses' names in as Bundestag and Bundesrat. We can work on an in brackets translation separately, though I would go for the terms used in the english translation of the Basic Law, which are Bundestag = Federal Parlament, Bundestag = Council of Constituent States (though Federal Council is also a version I have heard and makes sense also.) FearÉIREANN 19:37 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I vote for Bundestag and Bundesrat, as well. I think those are almost universally used in English. john 19:39 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

An addition to the question if Germany has a bicameral parliamentary system or not: The Federal Constitutional Court decided in 1975 that the Federal Republic of Germany has a unicameral parliamentary system and that on the federal level only the Bundestag has the right to call itself "parliament" as only the "Landtage" are parliaments on state level. The Bundesrat would be a "constitutional organ in its own right". Since than there exists the joke in Germany: The second house of parliament didn´t exist but is very powerful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.29.144 (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks, everyone. Unfortunately, FearÉIREANN, you had a typo when moving; it's "Bundesrat", not Bundestrat, where the page is now. I can't fix it cos the present Bundesrat page appears to have a non-empty history. Could some admin clean up the mess, please? djmutex 19:49 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Mea culpa. My new browser is using a hideous font which I am trying to change. It makes it hard to spot any inadvertently added spelling mistakes; it makes it bloody hard to read anything! (Being high on drugs doesn't help either. But they are the legal type. I severely injured by ankle in a fall on a broken pavement on Sunday and have strong painkillers from my doctor, and a solictor to sue Dublin City Council for the disgraceful state they left the pavement, and as a result of their incompetence, my anke, in. Which reminds me I must take the next batch of painkillers. (And check to see is my ankle still the shape of a deflated football!) Weeeeeee! :-) FearÉIREANN 20:54 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well, it worked out, didn't it? Thanks for your efforts, and hope you'll be better soon. djmutex 07:43 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Bundesrat is a disambiguation page with links to German, Austrian, and Swiss Bundesraten (all, unfortunately, translated into English), ... "German Bundesrat" might be a better place for it, or "Bundesrat of Germany"... john 20:08 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Fixed the Bundesrat (disambig) page, and added a few words to Bundesrat (Germany). I very much like how the pages about Germany are now. djmutex 07:39 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Should we try to find standard translations for other political phrases and words to? For example, on the Edmund Stoiber page he was namend "presidential minister", which was changed to "governor", which I changed to "Minister President" (capitals?). Is the right translation for "Ministerium" "ministry" or "Ministry" or "Dept."? Etc. -- till we *) 22:44 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I would go with ministry if talking non-specifically and Ministry if part of a full name of one. As to Minister President, it should be Minister-President as both words are cojoined, and again capitals if talking about a specific office of office-holder, minister-president if referring generically. So a minister-president, the Minister-President. These offices do have standard translations; the appearance of misleading words like governor and presidential minister is seriously worrying. A credible encyclopædia can't afford to have clangers like that. FearÉIREANN 23:08 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The somebody would use "Governor" for the Minister-President of a German Bundesland is rather disturbing. I think calling Stoiber the "Premier" of Bavaria would be appropriate as well (or maybe even "Prime Minister" - Bismarck is occasionally called "Prime Minister" of Prussia, when his title was actually Minister-President). But "governor" or "presidential minister" are just ridiculous. john 04:46 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jtdirl, Chicago Manual of Style confirms your capitalization rules (14th ed., par. 7.16), so it's "President Bush", but "Bush was president". I am just wondering, is this rule American English or is it in common use in Britain too? I believe the British tend to capitalize more than the Americans; at least I keep seeing titles capizalized everywhere in the 'pedia, so either the rule is not universically accepted, or people have no clue. :-) There should really, really be a word on this in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. djmutex 07:19 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I am not quite happy with the lines " This principle has been quite reversed in practice through many amendments of the constitution since 1949, leaving basically only police and cultural affairs to be handled by state legislature." in the first part "Federalism". This is simply not true, education and science topics for example are fields of authority exclusivly for the Bundesländer, and there are many other examples. Should be changed! (I wouldn't want to do it myself, my english is not nearly good enough --Lode 12:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism or censorship?

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

What is the meaning of this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_Germany&diff=1027670301&oldid=1027605584

Is it vandalism or is it censorship? Either way, why has it been chosen to be ignored?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8832:2ecd:99bb:81b6:a027:f40e (talk • contribs) 23:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Done You ask What is the meaning of this edit? None, I would think. It is the single edit of an IP who may well have not known what they were doing. Have a look at their contributions – it will not take you too long. Censors would be a bit more subtle and vandals are often funnier or at least ruder. This – the removal of two words and a dot – strikes me as neither of those. As for why has it been chosen to be ignored? ... no-one chose to ignore anything – it just didn't get noticed. We don't actually have that many full-time salaried staff monitoring the health of this one article. We don't even have meetings where we choose which edits to ignore. It didn't get corrected because it didn't get noticed, so thank you very much for bringing it to our attention, so that we could fix it. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for putting the record straight, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. 2403:6200:8832:2ECD:99BB:81B6:A027:F40E (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
2403:6200:8832:2ECD:99BB:81B6:A027:F40E – You're very welcome! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Legislative type

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Germany is not bicameral, but unicameral with 2 legislative assemblies -GogoLion (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? See Bundestag, Bundesrat. Bicameral. Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes - it's Bicameral.... unless you can find some very good sources that say otherwise. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Nazism

How does this article not have a section on the legacy of nazism? Very serious omission, and is key to understanding the politics of Germany.

Also why is there no option to ‘add topic’ on this talk page?

If no one replies I’ll add a section. To be clear I haven't seen a section anywhere in any article about the legacy of nazism. User:Alexanderkowal

Politics of Germany begins in 1949?

Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seems like this should at least start off with Bismarck. I'm trying to find who who the cancellers were before Hitler, and haven't yet found the magic prompt that unlocks that information. 2601:600:9080:22A0:C8A7:8FEC:357F:79F5 (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Weimar Republic was the state that preceded Nazi Germany. On that page you can trace Germany's history back at the bottom of the info box. I'll put it in see also. Bismarck was the first Chancellor of Germany, if you go to his page and go to Chancellor in the info box, you can click on the person that succeeded him and so forth Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Politics_of_Germany/Archive_1&oldid=1233572912"