Talk:Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany

87.5% of the state income in 1956

Is there a reputable source for this claim? The linked site appears awkward. -- 91.14.167.233 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence. A plea half a year ago for verification of the Hebrew-language reference was not answered; another editor inserted another reference from a dubious-looking book that makes the same claim, cited to footnote 177. However, that footnote cites a Reuters news article about Israeli purchases of armaments which does not corroborate the 87.5% figure at all.--89.204.135.118 (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Begin at Mass.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Begin at Mass.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 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. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sapper"

That the person killed by the 1952 assassination attempt should have been a "sapper" is obviously bunk since there wasn't a german army until 1955. Indeed the person killed was a police officer.

Source: http://www.welt.de/print-welt/article245630/Die-Tat-eines-Verrueckten.html

or if you want it english: http://www.dw.de/report-says-begin-was-behind-adenauer-letter-bomb/a-2054061

East German part of reparations

What about the fact that the germans only paid 67% of the money because east germany never bothered to pay its debt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.113.231.71 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"Holocaust restitution" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Holocaust restitution. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#Holocaust restitution until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. buidhe 06:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Name of article

This is an article about a specific Reparations Agreement (i.e., between Israel and Germany) and not an article about reparation agreements in general, which is a whole topic in and of itself, and of which the reparations agreement between Israel and W. Germany is only one instance. Thus I have reverted the heading of this article to Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany. -- Chefallen (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 15:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany → Reparations Agreement – Search Google Books for "Reparations Agreement" and you can see that this is the clear WP:PRIMARY topic of the term, with WP:DIFFCAPS to show that it isn't about reparations agreement in general. The current title fails WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME as it is rarely used in sources. As a second choice, I would accept 1952 Reparations Agreement. buidhe 21:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Variations on 1952 Reparations Agreement frequently occur: for example, [1][2][3][4] buidhe 21:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Note to editors: this request is in the "malformed" list, because although the new title is a redirect, it has been disabled while at WP:RFD. So technically this request is not malformed. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The term "Reparations Agreement" is a much broader the broad subject area -- as fruit is to apple or orange, or the much less discussed kiwi, so too Reparations Agreement is to Reparations Agreement between Israel and Germany; Reparation Agreement between the Allies and Germany in 1919; Reparations Agreement between France and Germany, Reparations Agreement between Japan and the Philippines, and so on -- which a search of Google Books or Google Scholar reveals within the first results. Furthermore, the term "Reparations Agreements" also includes the history, theory and implementation, or lack therof, of reparation agreements. See for example [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

"Reparations Agreement" is thus far from clearly the WP:PRIMARY topic of the term and encompasses many topics related to reparation agreements, notwithstanding WP:DIFFCAPS. --Chefallen (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

As to the argument for WP:COMMONNAME, the generic "Reparations Agreement" name is ambiguous and also fails other WP:CRITERIA for article titles, namely

Recognizability -- title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.

Naturalness –- a title that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles

Precision -- Given the abundance of other topics that are subsumed under the vast subject of Reparation Agreements, how would one know that this "Reparation Agreement", among all the others, is the one that they are looking for? "Reparation Agreement" is too vague, could and does refer to many other topics under this subject umbrella and obscures the actual subject of the article.

"Reparations Agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany" is precise, recognizable and unambiguous, and therefore, from both a logical and wikipolicy point of view, preferable, IMHO, to "Reparation Agreement". --Chefallen (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Shorter name succeeds in recognizability as it is a term that anyone with a basic familiarity of postwar German or Israeli history is likely to recognize.

The name fails recognizability as the specific agreement between Israel and Germany. As noted elsewhere, there are other reparations agreements and this title is too short to be recognizable as the title of an article about this specific agreement. --Chefallen (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Long name fails naturalness as I cannot see anyone searching for the ridiculously long name in the search bar and the short name is much more common in sources[12][13][14]

Yes, we could shorten the title somewhat. It was originally "Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany", but I think even "Reparations Agreement between Israel and Germany" could be used since the former East Germany acceded to the agreement in the 1990s so that would be technically correct and the title would still retain sufficient recognizably as referring to this particular reparations agreement as distinct from the others that exist. --Chefallen (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, a large number of results in a search for the term "Reparations Agreement" in reference to the agreement between Israel and Germany does not negate the existence of other reparations agreements from which it needs to be distinguished. It is not possible to check every instance, of course, but it is reasonable to assume that the shorthand "Reparations Agreement" is used in articles and books multiple times once the context is established that this refers to the reparations agreement between Israel and Germany.

This is a purpose of a meaningful heading -- it provides context for the rest of the article so that when a key term of the subject, such as "reparations agreement" is used, it does not have to be specified in full each time that this is the reparations agreement between Israel and Germany; the succinct but necessary detail in the title has already provided enough context to enable the reader to understand this in the article (section, chapter, etc.,) that follows. --Chefallen (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You do have a leg to stand on with precision but you haven't explained why "1952 Reparations Agreement" is imprecise. buidhe 12:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "1952 Reparations Agreement" is less imprecise than just "Reparations Agreement" but that per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY the names of the countries involved are far more distinctive as a qualifier than the year and is what a reader looking for more information about this particular reparation agreement among others is likely to search for, i.e., is more likely to know which countries the agreement was made between than when. --Chefallen (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment. In addition to above, since the agreement was updated over the course of some 40 years, I think it preferable to distinguish it by the countries involved rather than the date of initiation. --Chefallen (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: The suggested title seems insufficiently precise, recognizable, and natural as a title without identification of the context or the parties involved. There could be many reparations agreements. On the alternative suggestion 1952 Reparations Agreement, I suspect the uppercase letters should be lowercase, since this seems to be a description of the agreement rather than its title. However, with the current form, the 'A' in "Agreement" should probably be lowercase, for that reason (i.e., Reparations agreement between Israel and the Federal Republic of Germany). Wikipedia uses sentence case for article titles (WP:TITLEFORMAT). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ASTONISH. My first thought of what a "Reparations Agreement" article would cover would be the post-WWI reparations imposed on Germany. Israel–Germany Reparations Agreement might by be a more concise title. Number 57 11:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment because "Reparations Agreement" article would cover would be the post-WWI dan WWII reparations imposed by many countries for defeated countries, i suggested moving redirected name "Reparations Agreement" into a disambiguation page because that proposed move has not Dab page until recently. 36.77.95.100 (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as other reparations agreements exist. The Germany WWI reparations probably outrank Israel-Germany. Talk of slavery reparations is also in the vogue.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, If you translate the idea of "Reparation Agreement" to many East Asian languages, and talk about it in the context of East Asia, you are going to end up with a drastically different idea of reparations involving Japan. Keep the current title, so it is clear that this particular agreement is about German reparations. Perhaps instead of using official country names, just use the short forms. boldblazer (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New book

In August 2020, Manchester University Press published a new book on the relationship between both East and West Germany and Israel: Israelpolitik: German–Israeli relations, 1949–69 by Lorena De Vita, which may be a useful source for this article. I must declare a conflict of interest, as I proofread the manuscript before publication. JezGrove (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

"הסכם השילומים" dosn't translate to "Reparations Agreement" and it was and is a very contentious

"הסכם השילומים" dosn't translate to "Reparations Agreement", the transaltion would be " The Payments Agreement", and if no-one cared to read about what happen in Israel because of this agreement, I will tell that the name is euphamism for a big reason, hence it should be changed Hamelehh (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)