Talk:History of German

message: Looking at the German article I wonder if Low Saxon should be included here, afterall Modern German is rooted in Old High German, not Low Saxon. 
I propose to move the Low Saxon bits, and make a new article out of them.
Rex 13:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The modern standard language is only one variety of German, and a pretty recent one at that - it doesn't provide any basis for deciding what is and is not part of the German language over the entirety of its history. A History of German page should cover all varieties of German. And there's no need for a new article - there's a Low German article already in existence. --Pfold 16:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Although the Federal Republic of Germany today is the country with the most German native speakers, I think it is not correct to use the German tricolor flag representing the language. It is like using only the Union Jack or the Stars and Stripes to represent the English language. German is also the official language of Austria and Switzerland (and Liechtenstein and Luxembourg), and recognized minority language in several other countries. An alternative would be this flag: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:D-A-CH_Flag.svg
Even better would be to drop the flag at all (it is not used in the German version of the article!). --El bes 21:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag is part of the  template, and it's appropriate there, and the template is appropriate here. —Angr 08:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, it is a technical problem, that would be complicated to fix. But I want to emphasize again, that the history of the German language is not only related to the history of Germany. As a comparison, there is no such template nor flag in the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language --El bes 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to slap the  template on this article. We don't sport a  topic at Sanskrit or a  one at  Gaulish language. --dab (𒁳) 05:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: It would be really nice if it were possible to see the phological development of German...  The Jade Knight (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonology 

message: The map "Sprachenkarte Deutschland1880.png" is currently used in this article. This 19th century map, made during arguably the height of (ethno-)nationalism in Europe; especially in newly founded Germany, is inaccurate. It shows Dutch as part of the German language; or rather, it shows German being spoken in the Netherlands and Flanders. Modern linguists, just like many contemporary French, Dutch and English linguists, have - in the past 130 years -  completely changed this image.
Let it be clear that I'm not trying to prove Dutch isn't German, which would be ridiculous as discussions involving "French is Italian" or "German is Dutch" would make about as much sense. I would like to see this map removed because it;
*Represents a biased (i.e 19th century German) point of view.
*Makes linguistic distintions which are completly obsolete and proven to be wrong.
*Offensive towards speakers of the Dutch language.
If someone would like to adapt this map to modern linguistics (which I think is possible as it seems to be in the public domain) then that's okay; but there is no reason, whatsoever, to keep this obsolete, inaccurate and offensive map in this article. I am removing it, until supporters of the map add their arguments in this section. Westbrabander (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is not inaccurate per se; it shows Low German (not "German", which refers to High German) being spoken in the Netherlands and Flanders, and one definition of Low German, according to our article, is: "the closely-related, continental West Germanic language family unaffected by the High German consonant shift, nor classifying as Anglo-Frisian, and thus including Low Franconian varieties such as Dutch". That may not be the most widespread definition of Low German nowadays, but it's a valid definition now, and certainly was a valid definition at the time the map was made. You say the map "represents a biased point of view". Yes, it does; but so would a map showing Low Franconian as separate from Low German, and so would any other map. There's no getting around it, so it's better to include a helpful and informative map and explain the map's POV in the caption than to remove it entirely. You say it "makes linguistic distintions [sic] which are completly [sic] obsolete and proven to be wrong". I think you mean it fails to make linguistic distinctions which are generally held to be correct (namely that Low Franconian and Low German are distinct), but again, any map has to make some overgeneralizations to avoid information overload. If the map distinguished Dutch from Low Saxon, someone could still come along and say it fails to distinguish the Dutch Low Saxon varieties from each other and from the Low Saxon of Germany. Or that it fails to distinguish the various Low Franconian varieties, or that it fails distinguish Limburgish, or something. No map can be perfect, and this map is not significantly less perfect than any alternative. Next, you describe this map as "offensive towards speakers of the Dutch language". I frankly don't see how any educated Dutch speaker could possibly be offended by this map, but if so, once again, the same thing would be true of any possible replacement. There will always be someone who finds something "offensive". Removing the map from the article removes the only map this article has of the territory of the continental West Germanic languages in the modern era, and for absolutely no valid reason. +Angr 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In modern, especially in material published by German linguists, Low German refers to Low Saxon and is no longer used as a term meaning  both Dutch/Low Franconian and Low Saxon which has no linguistic basis. The map is old incorrect, and has to go.Westbrabander (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect map 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of English which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of English which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 13:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: The second paragraph of the article is overly focused on the aftermath of the Second World War and contains political overtones that are inappropriate for an article on language.  It should be deleted in its entirety.
Particularly inappropriate is the use of the term "German catastrophe" without definition and without an acknowledgement as to its history and meaning.  This is a term invented by a particular historian, Friedrich Meinecke, who was anti-Semitic and supported the invasion of Poland.  The term cannot be separated from its origin, and should be removed.
:Agreed - I'll remove it. In fact the whole lead could really do with a rewrite.--Pfold (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph  too political