Talk:New states of Germany

message: Stupid name: new laender
first word english [new], second german [laender]- why not :de:Neue Bundesländer or ??
ciao--Ot 06:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Neue Bundesländer isn't often used in English.  However New Länder does seem to be more often used than New Laender, so I'd propose moving to the former.  Any objections? --Delirium 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As no objections surfaced, I've made the move. --Delirium 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO according to the general guideline to use English, it should be called "New states" or if that's ambiguous "German new states". I'm not sure which term is used more in English; there are about 5 times as many Google hits for {germany "new states"} as for {"new länder"}, but these results are inconclusive since the former might catch lots not related to Germany (e.g. the first hit is about Yugoslavia). Hairy Dude (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I would suggest a move to new federal states (or New Federal States?), with new states and neue Länder as redirects. Using Google searches (adding "Germany" to exclude German sources), new federal states gets 23k hits , while neue Länder gets 11k . New Laender gets 21k , which is only slightly less than new federal states, but WP guidelines would suggest a preference for something less linguistically mangled. Rd232 talk 23:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked for an opinion so here is one- and as this is a request- I feel totally free to be outrageous. None of the suggestions above makes any sense. If I were looking for information on the Neue Länder- I would look in a dictionary not a encyclopedia! If I persisted I would goto de:wiki, and read it in the original. The concept is just too parochially German to feature in an English article. I may click on the language link and find the English page- and read it to check the translation. Imagine the target reader- what would they search for? German Lands in former East Germany? Would they know that the plural of Land is Länder? May they think that they are looking for a region? German regions in former East Germany?  ClemRutter (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well obviously the article isn't aimed at people who don't enough about the topic to find it. (I'm not sure how many WP articles are.) Nor is it aimed at German speakers... this is English WP. But people may come across it wikilinked from elsewhere. Or they may come across the term (or one of the various synonyms which redirect here) and want a definition. Rd232 talk 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: At this point, there are no refences in the article for the use of the concept under any term in English. As far as I know, most English works just refer to the region as the "former East Germany" or "eastern Germany" (both including Berlin/East Berlin), and as such are covered by several other article on en.wiki. However, if reliable sources can be found for the use of an English language term that is the direct equivilent of the German term in meaning, then the article should be at that title, per the guidelines.  Otherwise, the article should probably be at the German language title, since the use of the German term is what the article is actually descibing. That would be either Neue Bundesländer or Neue Länder, whichever title an English reader would be more likey to see. If that can't be determined clearly, then the de.wiki title, Neue Bundesländer, would be the best one to use. - BillCJ (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it's not the most common reference to the area - but it's common enough for an article, I think: eg a shade under 2k hits on Google Scholar for "new federal states"+Germany , a shade over for New Laender . "Neue Bundeslände" gets on 300 English-language hits . Rd232 talk 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with others who have queried the validity of this article on what is obviously a back-translation. In Anglophone countries the term would be simple "former (states of) East Germany". For an example look at this BBC new item. IMHO an alternative name to "New Länder" is needed somewhere near the top. BuzzWoof (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That link doesn't refer to the constituent states of the former East Germany. I take it that was your point. But there are occasions where people can and should refer to the present-day institutions, the 5 states on the territory of the former East Germany. As illustrated above, "New Laender" is sometimes used and should be mentioned, but should it be the article name? Rd232 talk 17:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Ok, if for formal reasons it's important to retain the article name, so be it. But what about making a mention in the opening paragraph to the fact that these states are commonly called "former (states of) East Germany" BuzzWoof (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a single common phrase along those lines? isn't it usually just "former East Germany"? Which I've just made a redirect here, but on reflection maybe it should be moved there. Rd232 talk 13:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I think that's a good idea to solve it with a redirect, and as there is no uniform phrase I've just set up a redirect here: Former States of East Germany. Despite that, lots of people would come here without redirecting, so imho some mention should be made. And as BillCJ says above: most English works just refer to the region as the "former East Germany" or "eastern Germany" BuzzWoof (talk) 08:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Aritcle name

message: :New Länder → New federal states of Germany — (or just New federal states): it's fully in English, returns a similar number of GHITS once you remove Wiki results, ( ) it's used by der Spiegel , BBC , NYT  and by the German government  --Nero the second (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving to New federal states after four days without a comment.--Nero the second (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I just checked this article out from the talk page. I've never been to Germany so I don't know so much about it, but the article seems kind of one sided. Isn't there anything nice to say about former East Germany? Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For instance this sentence: "A 2004 poll found that 25% of West Germans and 12% of East Germans wished reunification had not happened.[1]"  Why doesn't it say that 75% and 88% do like it, rather then mentioning the negative? (I guess some were undecided, but still.)Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because 12% is what the reference says, I can't just make up a figure to make it look more positive. Also, I don't think Deutsche Welle would ever portray Germany in a negative light without a reason. IMO there's plenty of good stuff on the subject, just see transportation  and economy. The only part of the article that I believe biased is the one about politics, because the NPD is not that important politically, yet most of the section is about it.--Nero the second (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reacted to this too; it seems strange that 80-90% of the "Politics" section should be devoted to the far right. Lampman (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Point of View

message: The states of Germany are called states (Länder), not federal states. The discussion on the article name some years ago apparently didn't really reach a conclusion, except some doubts over whether this article is justified at all, because "most English works just refer to the region as the "former East Germany" or "eastern Germany"" as one editor said. Urban XII (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I don't see how the discussion dates back "some years ago" since the last comments were left in April. Second, the article was substantially expanded and rewritten (yes, by me) since. Third, how did you skip this?--Nero the second (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the previous discussion, no one commented on your proposal then, probably because you can't expect people to constantly keep watch on low importance articles and check this talk page every day (the discussion only lasted for four days). I was already aware of your opinion. You have not yet explained why you insist on "federal states" when even the main article on States of Germany explains why the proper term is "state", not "federal state". Also, your claim that the German Wikipedia refers to them as Neue Bundesländer is wrong, the German Wikipedia uses both terms. However, the correct one should be given preference. The previous discussion in which more than one editor took part didn't reach a conclusion, but the point made by one editor that "New states" (or "New federal states" or other variations) is not the usual term in English when referring to the former East Germany as a modern geographical area is in my opinion correct. This is mainly German, not English, usage. Urban XII (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I proved the contrary, here. Also, the German WP article is called :de:Neue Bundesländer and that's a fact.--Nero the second (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name - 2 

message: I see no reason for this section to be here, however perhaps It could be moved to the NDP party page. Also Calling them Neo-Nazi is purely ignorant. Considering that they do not directly denounce democracy and their few economic polices seem more third way then national socialistic. So it would be appropriate to call them nationalists or ultra-nationalists instead.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthehook (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the Far right

message: Sorry, I'm no expert on German history, but this seems a very strange title. At first reading the title seems to me to imply that these states were not previously in Germany. But I'm not aware of any territory being transferred from Poland or Czechoslovakia (as it then would be) at or around the time of the reunification of Germany. 
The article suggests that these states were previously in East Germany, which surely was always 'of Germany'. But the very first line describes them as 're-established states', which suggests that it not the state that is new. So what exactly does the new apply to?. 
-- Starbois (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "new" relative to the "old" states of the former West Germany. The term is less common in English, it's standard in German. Rd232 talk 20:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

text: What? --98.207.194.150 (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wierd title 

message: This section is not correct and needs work: e.g. "About 1.7 million people have left the new federal states since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or 12% of the population. A disproportionately high number of them were women under 35." That is only half of the story: Almost 3 million people moved from East Germany to West Germany and about 1 million moved from West Germany to East Germany or returned after years. So the balance might be 1.7 million people. Because of those who are moving from West Germany to East Germany is a higher percentage of older citizen and men, it appears as a result that less younger women are left in East Germany.
"Around 300,000 homes have been demolished in recent years. In parts of eastern Germany, wolves and lynx have reappeared after many decades." 
Both facts are true, but there is no connection in between. The population of lynx is due to very strong affords in nature protection, reintroduction programmes and the establishment of National Parks. The return of wolves can be rather associated with the fact of a greater number of abandoned military training areas where they found a home.--Zarbi1 (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depopulation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on New states of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091001213355/http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de:80/en/economy/content/background/aufbau-ost-economic-reconstruction-in-the-east.html?type=1 to http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/economy/content/background/aufbau-ost-economic-reconstruction-in-the-east.html?type=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090915215944/http://www.bmvbs.de:80/en/Federal-Government-Commissione/-,2577/Infrastructure-for-unified-Ger.htm to http://www.bmvbs.de/en/Federal-Government-Commissione/-,2577/Infrastructure-for-unified-Ger.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on New states 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:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6EW1MbdrZ?url=http://www.worldcrunch.com/why-eastern-germany-most-godless-place-planet/culture-society/why-eastern-germany-is-the-most-godless-place-on-earth/c3s5177/ to http://www.worldcrunch.com/why-eastern-germany-most-godless-place-planet/culture-society/why-eastern-germany-is-the-most-godless-place-on-earth/c3s5177/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525090448/http://deges.de/deges.html to http://www.deges.de/deges.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120702210847/http://www.ministerpraesident.sachsen.de/19116.htm to http://www.ministerpraesident.sachsen.de/19116.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091012230131/http://www.mdr.de/sachsen/wahlen/landtagswahl/ to http://www.mdr.de/sachsen/wahlen/landtagswahl/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090930054005/http://wahlarchiv.tagesschau.de/wahlen/2009-09-27-LT-DE-BB/index.shtml to http://wahlarchiv.tagesschau.de/wahlen/2009-09-27-LT-DE-BB/index.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: There are other reasons for not having a stated religion than atheism. For one thing, when the social pressure to attend church eases off due to changes in attitudes, and populations no longer have to be outwardly observant, they generally stop going to church in any significant numbers. Another factor often overlooked is the rise of the Welfare State: no longer reliant on churches to look after them when they are old or unwell, previously devout congregations tend to let their attendance lapse. Other (mostly invisible) social forces, such as people becoming interested in folk or "fringe" religions, or religions that are not formally organised, may make an impression on demographics of faith, without there being an easily recognised cause.
Nuttyskin (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism