"

I blieve the translation from the press office is very good. For someone who is not German this may not be clear, but the first paragraph states intentions, not facts. In Germany there are still people who physically hurt other people and (very few) state authorities who do not act against this, so I believe using is may be confusing. If you want to do a literal translation, the upper version is closer to the original, while the press office version is closer to the meaning.  

 Diverse errors and unencelopedic context use 

I would like to ask this whole article to be checked through. While most of it seems all right, there are passages that make no sense, lack imporatant information or are plain wrong. Examples: First paragraph of Drafting process is
The outbreak of the racial fanaticism in Germany cost humanity approximately 62 million people, or 2.5% of the world population. About 60% of all casualties were civilians, who died as a result of disease, starvation, genocide (in particular, the Holocaust), massacres; and aerial bombing.
While the numbers may or may not be correct, what is the purpose of this paragraph? The people who died and especially the people who did not die because of the war but because of the Holocaust are very important for the way to Grundgesetz was written. But there is no connection made. The next paragraph does not make reference to this and mentions the necessity to keep history from repeating itself in a much more neutral way. Later on:
Any war could and should be categorised as an ""atrocity"" but the war that Nazi Germany started brought a scale of atrocity never previously known and the statistics of World War II clearly qualify it, by far, as the most heinous atrocity in all recorded history....
Unverified claim, clearly anti-German. The figures I heard suggest that both Stalin and Mao had a higher death toll than Nazi-Germany. Correct, most of their dead were in their own country, but I do not see how that would make it any better.
...and created thereby in Germany the legal situation within which any association of persons that, by reason of their aims or the behaviour of their members or adherents, seek to undermine or abolish this constitutional order is simply illegal, and which assigns to all Germans the absolute right and duty** to resist any person seeking to undermine or abolish this constitutional order, because this demand makes on the entire German people the memory of the 62 million casualties which brought the outbreak of the racial fanaticism in Hitler’s Germany.
While it is unclear where this text comes from, it does not seem to be a quote. I do not believe that this demand makes on the entire German people the memory of 62 million casualties is something that should be claimed in Wikipedia if it is not a direct or indirect quote of some political, moral or other authority. There is also context missing the the right and duty to resist. Violence by the people is only intended as a last resort and is illegal if there is functional police or military loyal to the consitution to deal with the situation.
Directly below the list with senseless emphasis, there is the claim that the German consitution contains blasphemy. Huh? The preamble contains a direct reference to god, other than that there is a rule that religion and state must not interfere in each others buisiness. I am not seeing any blasphemy there. At that time, Germany was a fairly religious state. To sum it up: I believe there was some editor here that wanted to make modern Germany look bad by applying non neutral wording and some unverified claims. The german version of this article seems much better and (logically) is checked much more often than this one. I suggest either having someone who not only read the whole Grundgesetz, but also has significant political and historical knowlege check this article for further inaccuracies or using the german version, which I believe is often checked by people who know the subject, to check this one through. There should be sources to every claim and despite the atrocities in the third reich, wording should be neutral and the crimes of the Nazis should only be mentioned in a context where it makes sense. PS: Sorry for the vandalism on this discussion page. There seems to have been an error while previewing this comment.  "