Talk:Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany/Archive 1 - Talk prior to 2006-12-03

message: Everybody relax; the official translation as it appears is just fine, and the "qualified translation" is at best unnecessary, and at worst misleading; I've removed it. One "official" translation of Artikel 1 is from the Bundestag and it's perfectly correct. It may seem, on the surface, that the translation of ist (3rd pers. sg. of Ger. sein which is the verb to be) must be is. But this, while not wrong certainly, is not the best choice here.
I don't want to get into a whole polemic here about translation and how it depends on context and you can't just do plain dictionary lookups, but in this case, shall be is the perfect choice, for reasons partly alluded to already by others above. German speakers with less than bi-native/bi-lingual mastery of English are unfortunately being reckless when saying that this is not a good translation--in fact, they are not qualified on this point, but should take note: please see the Constitution of the United States and count the occurrences of shall be which mean is (I counted 75 of them.) This is a well-established, formal usage in English-speaking law, and it means is with a kind of sense of Verpflichtung added, so is even more is-zy than just, plain is. 
It's arrogant of us to supplant the official translation with our own. The existing translation is correct. There's no reason for us Wikipedians to assume we know better, most especially when the evidence is against us.
On a more light-hearted note, I'm amazed no one commented on the connection with Clinton's comment "that depends on what the meaning of is is..." (before you jump on me, I supported him--still, it's very funny!).Mathglot 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the qualified engl. translation in support of Clinton

message: I had previously taken a break from editing this article, because I was disappointed that my suggestions were not taken well by other contributors. However, I've come back, and found that little has changed since.
My points are these.
1: What role does the Basic Law actually have??
The Basic Law was, as correctly observed, drawn up in response to the horror, shock, disbelief, and disavowal of fascist politics, and ethnic cleansing. This framed the way that the Basic Law was created, with regard not only for human rights, but to ensure that no part of society has, or could ever be allowed, to operate in any way that could possibly disregard, or subjugate citizen's human rights. 
But the Basic Law had another purpose: namely, to ensure the democratic, and constitutional order of the Federal Republic of Germany. It was not just a document of remorse, and apology for the atrocities of the war, but a working constitution as well. It guarantees elections, it redistributes funds between states, and many other functions. It is not simply a declaration of human rights.
2: The Basic Law in practice
The Basic Law was the constitutional law of the Federal Republic for 41 years, until the unification with East Germany, and thereafter, of the united Germany. The way in which it was drawn up meant that federal and state institutions had to comply with it, or face action, by the constitutional court, which is a duty of every German citizen, as previously pointed out.
Where is there any information within the article to describe how this is achieved?? Why no information about the fact that power for education is completely handed down to the states?? Or broadcasting, for the same reason?? For example, when the DDR was wound up, its national state broadcaster had to be broken up into local state broadcasters, because anything else was unconstitutional.
3: There is too much historical content in this article
The German Wiki has a separate article called 'History of the Basic Law (of the Federal Republic etc.)', which explains better the historical background to the drafting of the Basic Law, and the reason why that process focused on human rights. This article is trying to combine both sets of information into a single article. It focuses too much on the historical detail, and reasons for the creation of the Basic Law, and not enough about the Law itself, and how these clauses work. 
Why is there a need to have the Preamble and Article 1 quoted separately, for instance?? It does not contribute anything extra to the article. We know all the states approved the Law, otherwise it would not have been adopted.
The article used to have a v. clear outline, and made objective points about the Basic Law. But currently, the article is muddled, and buries information within repetitive detail about the drafting of the Basic Law.
I hope this explains how I feel about the conduct of this article. I would also like to apologise if anyone feels I have criticised their contributions towards it, but I believe this article needs a thorough overhaul right now, and to bring itself back on track. (RM21 05:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of the article, particularly references to the legacy of WW2

message: Dear Mr. Wales,
I assume the removal of the part „1.5 The most important peculiarity of German Basic Law“
has been made in accordance to your order as chairman, see my E-mail to you of 06 October 2006??Eugene87.160.228.43 10:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of the part 1.5

message: ::"The Basic Law was adopted in the aftermath of World War II while West Germany was still under allied occupation. The first stage of the creation of democracy in the western areas of Germany was that the individual West German states, or Länder, were given constitutions. The new constitution for West Germany was originally to be drafted by' a constituent assembly (the Herrenchiemsee Convent) and submitted to a plebiscite for ratification.
::However, for the same reasons that the document was ultimately called a 'basic law' and not a 'constitution', the leaders of the Länder insisted that the drafting body be called the 'Parliamentary Council' and that plans for a referendum be abandoned. When it assembled, the Parliamentary Council consisted of delegates elected by the parliaments of each State (Land, plural Länder).
::After being passed by the parliamentary council and approved by the occupying powers, the Basic Law was submitted to the governments of the Länder for ratification, it having been provided that the document would not come into effect until it had been ratified by at least two-thirds of the states. After meeting these requirements, the enactment of the Basic Law was proclaimed on 23. May 1949."
::Eugene 87.160.213.145 09:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal - lack of the neutrality and factual accuracy 

message: I have shortened the comments to Article 146 of the Basic Law by the part 
:“The usual word for 'constitution' in German is Verfassung but Grundgesetz was chosen for the title of the document adopted in 1949 to state that both the new constitution, and the West German state it created, were merely provisional and shall serve only until the day on which a constitution freely adopted by the German people takes effect (Article 146 [Duration of The Basic Law]).” 
because of  inallowability of  the original researches on the pages of English Wikipedia  - cp. 
original research
Eugen Pfo 87.160.239.137 07:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortening of comments to Article 146 

message: "Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany" is not exactly right. The German title is "Basic Law _for_ the Federal Republic of Germany".
-- JensMueller 12:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Law _for_ the FRG 

message: I don't feel this section should be here. If we have to have it, shouldn't it be included in Section 3 as subsection 3.3?
Also, I believe it has some very questionable lines, such as "because this demand makes (sic) on the entire German people the memory of the 62 million casualties". It's poorly written and seems totally out of place. I suggest we simply delete them for lack of neutrality.
*??? is the lockout  for my shares removed?
Eugene 85.178.198.188 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 1.5

message: The links providing the full text of the basic law don't work. Could someone fix this pls?--84.57.241.205 18:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken links 

message: Hi, Sparks1979!
thank you for your introduction on your personal page,  I assume the lines below  "I would like to ask this whole article to be checked through....." are yours.
I am German by birth and without particular tendencies and proficiency,  yet I am sure I`ll be able to convince you of the necessity of the  presence of the part 1.5 in the article “the most peculiarity of Basic Law”
Eugene 85.178.239.203 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment (moved from the assessment comments subpage by [[User:Kusma|Kusma]] [[User_talk:Kusma|(討論)]])

message: The main thought of Wikipedia is the imparting of information worth knowing that´s why the part 1.5 of the article “Basic Law for FRG” belongs in it.
The principle in Article 1(2) binds all Germans without exception and imposes them the duty to resist any person ( not to mention association of persons as a political party) seeking to undermine or to abolish that fixed constitutional order by all legal means without exception.
Eugene 85.178.241.252 19:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The main thought of Wikipedia