Talk:Unification of Germany

Fair Use Rationale for website and historical images

When archiving future pages, please leave this on talk page.

Calls for national unification, freedom of speech, wide suffrage led to restriction of academic freedoms, and censorship of the press.© Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

The Prussian Culture Bureau claims the copyright on this picture; it is a widely use caricature of the problems related to censorship, particularly in the Vormärz. My rationale for using it: it appears in a variety of texts and publications; it was published in newspapers in 1848 and later, and is available through those sites as well. It is a specific illustration of the ways in which different parts of the population, specifically among the intelligenstia, were hampered by such measures as the Carlsbad Decrees, the Six Articles, and the 10 Articles. In this caricature, the various members of society are represented (lawyers, politicians, students, businessmen, etc.) and they are shown as blinded, deafened, gagged, although they are trying to discuss something.

--Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

thank you

Wonderful, outstanding article! A heartfelt "thank you" to everybody involved in its creation! 217.234.25.90 (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of the Nations

I propose that we mark the mention of the Battle of the Nations (Battle of Leipzig) in the text by adding its date (October 1813), thus helping non-expert readers to fit this event into its time-frame. -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Good idea. auntieruth (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Social insurance

The article mentions "social insurance" -- a technical term seldom used in some English-speaking jurisdictions. I suggest that we link it as social insurance. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Epic fail for Wikipedia

Germany united in 1990, not 1871. 142.110.227.191 (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The top of the article clearly states that this article deals with the Unification of Germany in 1871. This is a completely separate event from the Reunification of Germany in 1990. That event is addressed in the article German reunification. Zachlipton (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As Zachlipton said. Germany unified more than once, the first time being in 1871 after being a series of small German states ruled by Spanish emperors and known as the Holy Roman Empire. I suggest you brush up on German history before exclaiming epic fail like you just did. –MuZemike 07:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Big fail from a User! Article is as far as i know right! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.190.172 (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Holy Roman Empire was ruled by Spanish Emperors? Where did you get that from? The Habsburgs were German.--MacX85 (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Today article of the day and the first picture was intentionally changed by an Idiot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.183.190.172 (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Purge the page, and even he is, do not attack others. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 08:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 93.133.216.104, 18 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Suggestion for an external link: Persons mentioned in this article put on a timeline

93.133.216.104 (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. The article is unprotected, so you could conceivable make the change yourself. However, even though you can edit the article, that link should not go in, as it is a self-made picture, and doesn't meet the very high standards of our guideline on external links. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem of Chronology

In the first paragraph it is written:

In 1806, after a successful invasion of Prussia and the defeat of Prussia and Russia at the joint battles of Jena-Auerstedt, Napoleon dictated the Treaty of Pressburg, in which the Emperor dissolved the Holy Roman Empire.

If I look on the others articles of WP, I discover that the Treaty of Pressburg is from the 26th of December 1805 < 1806!! Moreover the Russia was not part of the battle of Jena. I think the right sentence is: the battles of Austerlitz of 1805... lead to the Treaty of Pressburg. Battle of Jena confirmated that Napoleon is the boss in Germany. What I don't understand is how is it possible to write such thing and then to source then. 194.138.39.56 (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC) (psemdel in Fr)

This seems a bit confusing or badly formatted: [Revolutions of 1848 in Germany|German revolutions of 1848–1849]] is it supposed to link to other articles or what? edit: under the German revolutions of 1848 and the Frankfurt Parliament heading.184.60.225.4 (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Germanies?

Never heard that expression. Is that really a contemporary use? I only know of expressions like "deutsche Lande" (lit. German lands) but "Germany" or Germania/Germanien/Deutschland doesn't appear in a plural form to my knowledge.--MacX85 (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! This is nonsense. I wonder if the author can give a few sources - some older, some of current usage? Norvo (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As a proper noun it should be 'Germanys' not 'Germanies'. Red Jay (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If you've not heard/read it's use, then perhaps you should read some of the sources cited. Just saying... Start with David Blackbourn Thomas Nipperdey, and go from there. There were many German states, each considering themselves as Germany in the early 19th century. The problem was, which interpretation of Germany would win. Furthermore, there were two conceptions of a Germany Empire, both of which could be considered Germanies. Or Germanys.... The proper plural was a substantive discussion in the review processes. auntieruth (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Updating

I've fully copy-edited to a slightly more appropriate style for a history text and encyclopedia article, which is hopefully helpful. In order to reduce the risk of 'EngVar' friction, I have in doing so in also replaced a number of words with contested spellings, as recommended by the Manual of Style. However, inevitably it has not been possible to remove all bones of contention, and where there has to be a choice one way or the other I'm afraid there is no plausible option other than European spellings and usages; this is a straightforward case of MOS:TIES trumping MOS:RETAIN. It would be appreciated if fellow editors restrained themselves from knee-jerk reversions and properly discussed the matter if they feel differently - if there is really some previously unknown rationale for setting an article about a European subject in American English, let's hear it. ByzantiumLives (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Per status qou ante, it has been in American English, and changing is not supported. Of course any other type of copy-edit may be ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC))

As noted above, the 'status quo ante' is not the prime consideration here. This is an article on a European subject, rightly rendered in European spelling and grammar. Your personal preference is not enough to outweigh MOS:TIES, I'm afraid. ByzantiumLives (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TIES discusses topics with "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation." It says nothing about articles relating to German or European ties using BritVar. Meanwhile, MOS:Retain states, "With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another." Also, per WP:BRD, an editor does not demand that their version remain in place during discussion; the status ante version remains in place until a new consensus is formed. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Demands of any sort are probably not an ideal start to a conversation. You may well have identified some useful ways in which the guidance could be improved in future, but for this specific article the key issue, I'd suggest, is not a competition between UK and US but what variety of English, a Germanic language, is used, recognised and acknowledged in Germany. Obviously, it's the European form - which curiously enough is now officially Irish English, but that's by the bye. Getting into an 'edit-war' is unattractive for everyone. Shall we refer upwards for seasoned hands to resolve? ByzantiumLives (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, KIENGIR has been editing here for over 9 years, and I hit 15 this weekend, so we're both quite seasoned! The procedure is for you to achieve a new consensus among editors here on the talk page. You may review more on that process at Wikipedia:Consensus. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2021

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 20:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Unification of Germany → Unification of Germany (1871) – This article and German reunification essentially have the same title. WP:CRITERIA says "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." --Cyrobyte (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unification and reunification are distinct enough to not cause confusion. The hatnotes in each article also direct readers to the one they're looking for if they stumble onto the wrong one. Further, the joing of east and west germany is always referred to as reunification—blindlynx (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - very confusing title and could eeeeeeeasily be taken to refer to the event around 1990 Red Slash 22:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support, good idea. Presented with just the title I'd think of the East-West Germany event. Much less confusing by simply adding the year. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. A reunification is ALSO a unification. The safest bet is to have a disambiguation page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support for reasons outlined above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. A two item disambiguation page should be fairly rare per WP:TWODABS. Agree that if there were lots of unifications of Germany to disambiguate the article could be moved, but when there's just two, save the reader a click and pick one to "win", and stick the other in the hatnote. The current setup works fine. SnowFire (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, but the 1990 page seems primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose One is always called the unification and the other is called the reunification. There is a hatnote on both pages anyway. I'm thinking this might be recency bias as people were actually alive for the reunification but that doesn't make it more important than the unification. -- Maykii (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence that German reunification is referred to with the word "unification" with enough frequency to cause confusion. Vpab15 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I think the natural disambiguation and hatnote is sufficient; there is no need for parenthetical disambiguation. (unless I'm missing some evidence of confusion; do we have stats on how often the hatnote is clicked?) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. For the reason stated above that one is always called the unification while the other is called the reunification. Furthermore, the unification process started well before 1871 (during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic period).--Lubiesque (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per others. Super Ψ Dro 18:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per others. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2021 (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.

WP:URFA/2020

I am reviewing this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to assess and improve Wikipedia's oldest featured articles. I noticed that thisi article has several uncited pargarphs, which should be rectified. There are also some works listed in the bibliography that are not used as inline citations, and several sources listed in "Further reading" that should be incorporated into the article for conprehensive purposes or removed. Is anyone interested in fixing up this article or should this go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed this now and I will address some issues in the next few weeks. auntieruth (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC) auntieruth (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)