Talk:Germany (terminology)

Factual accuracy of map

Regarding the caption of the map File:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG, used in this article: it should be pointed out to readers that the factual accuracy of this map is heavily disputed (see here). In my opinion that overrides any wish to keep the caption "short and simple", as is stated in the summary of this edit. An encyclopedia should provide correct information. Wutsje (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The discription is simple and correct. The map shows the German language at a certain point of time, and in a different color the Dutch language is shown too.--Ziko (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The map itself is not correct, as has been been clearly demonstrated on Commons. It shows a point of view on the use of German at a certain point of time. The Frisian languages are omitted and Dutch and Flemish are not (and were in 1910 not) considered to be German dialects. This map is politically motivated and readers should know that. Wutsje (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The map does not say that Dutch is a dialect of German. Ziko (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC). PS: You claim that the author of the map had political intentions. Please prove that, by finding out the author and indicating that in an original description or other works he showed the political intention you are talking about. Ziko (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The map does indeed not say that Dutch and Flemish are dialects of German: it suggests that, which is even worse. By the way, you ignore my remark about the Frisian languages. Regarding the original author of this map: that was Postmann Michael, who in 2006 was banned indefinitely on de:wiki for "POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia" ([1]). This fact, combined with the clearly noticeable linguistical and historical inaccuracies on this map (please, read the RFD discussion) and his way of "defending" it on Commons, certainly does not show a clear intention on his side to describe the 1910 reality. Wutsje (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are just claiming something. You see a "suggestion", I don't see it. It is unimportant who uploaded, and what other languages are omitted on the map. The map simple shows the spread of two languages, in two different colors. Ziko (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote earlier: an encyclopedia should provide correct information. This map does not do so. The title of the map is "Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet" and it supposed to be based upon a 1910 German national census. But of course the German authorities did not conduct a national census in the Netherlands and Belgium, so the "data" upon which this map is based simply can not be correct. German is not (nor was in 1910) a commonly spoken language in the Netherlands and Flanders. Frisian languages are spoken in areas which on this map are claimed to be areas where German is spoken. This article is about Germany (terminology) - Dutch, Flemish and Frisian languages have nothing to do with that subject. This map provides false "information" and you know it. By the way: you brought up the identity of the original uploader - and now he's suddenly not relevant? Wutsje (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep this short and sweet: I agree with Wutsje. Entirely.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC) In my opinion, a linguistic "map" that operates with solid blocks of color is a problem, especially in the ethnic/cultural/linguistic patchwork of Europe. No such map should be used. Instead, a multi-layered set of differently colored transparent overlays may be appropriate, or perhaps an animated gif file.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The map is inaccurate on multiple fronts, and, though still present on commons, has been removed from (nearly) every Wikipedia project. It's use is now limited to talk pages, in which its accuracy is disputed/proven wrong and on a Spanish Wikipedia article on the German people; which was fully protected from editing due to the controversy the said map is causing there. So let there be no discussion on that. No excuses a la "it's differently colored", because the maps caption clearly states it pretends to show the German language in 1910. As to the intentions of the creator; in his first legend he remarks "(striped color) Der niederländische Sprachraum (der bis 1945 von der Wissenschaft überwiegend noch als Teil des deutschen Sprachraumes angesehen wurde)". Something which is historically, but especially linguistically (in whatever way imaginable) blatantly untrue and incorrect.

In reaction to the maps inaccuracy, I've made a linguistic map myself; based on actually published material. Though the map is factually (more) accurate, much more clear in its scope and legend, it raises the question whether a map of the German language ought to be used here at all. This article is supposed to explain the use of "Germany"; not German. Germany is a state founded in 1871. I really do not see what the Germanic tribes, the Holy Roman Empire or the German language have to do with the particular use of that states name. Does anyone else?HP1740-B (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to offend good-faith editors present here, but why is this even a WP article? German language and its sub-articles already cover the topic of geographical distribution of German speakers, now and in the past. If I nominate this article for deletion, will anyone here co-nominate? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just make it a redirect to Germany (disambiguation).HP1740-B (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Every encyclopedic article is about terminology, of course. So this article is unnecessary, and also potentially evolves into a POV fork. For this reason, "terminology" is not useful as the name of a sub-article for Germany either. However, the article may contain content that is correct and should be integrated into other articles. Therefore, I would support transferring this content first, and then nominate the article for deletion. — Cs32en (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it into a redirect to Germany (disambiguation). The advantage of a redirect is that no content is lost, unlike a deletion following an AfD. If my redirect is challenged and later overturned by a consensus of editors, it will be very easy to restore without needing the help of an admin. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this a good idea. The average user will probably not be able to find this content, and people who have worked on the article might think it has simply disappeared. It's probably better to leave a message at the top of the article that explains the problem. — Cs32en (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wutsje and GMW that this map is a problem. In addition, this article is very poorly referenced (and badly written in places) which would make any merger without addition of sources highly problematic. I'd support the straightforward redirect. Verbal chat 07:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See also: Map of the Fischer Informations-Atlas Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1990), P. 63 (ISBN 3-596-24556-7). --Hardcore-Mike (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This map says that, while there are German dialects present on the territory of the Netherlands, the standard language in this area is Dutch, i.e. is not a variant of German.  Cs32en  21:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct :-) But the blue color means “Low German”. The “Slash-area” means “Niederländische Hochsprache” --Hardcore-Mike (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Lower Franconian and German are both Germanic languages, but have separated quite early. German dialects have (and those of other languages) have contributed to a continuum of dialects in the Netherlands. Insofar as German language has influenced a dialect, it is the Lower German that exerted this influence. This influence is probably quite substantial in some parts on the eastern border of the Netherlands. But the main language in the Netherlands, which has evolved from Lower Franconian, is Dutch.  Cs32en  21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. This map shows the old "Family Tree-theory" aka german "Stammbaum-Theroie". Today is this theory as outdated. --Hardcore-Mike (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on merging this article

Hello, in this way the article is practically deleted. Why so? There is also an article about the terminology concerning the Netherlands, and the subject is certainly relevant as such (due to the complicated German history). --Ziko (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The subject is relevant, it's just not a good idea to have it in a separate article, and to separate terminology from content. — Cs32en (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at Netherladns (terminology) and it's nicely done. Not so for the article Germany (terminology), in my opinion. Here's an idea: create an article on the names that other Europeans give the Germans: in Italy they're i tedesci, in France les allemands, in the U.K. the Germans, in Switzerland die Schwaben, in Poland (niemecki) (sp?), and so on. (No neighbor calls them Deutsche). A discussion of why there are so many names given to Germans by their neighbors could turn into a delightful little sub-article. There is ample justification because Germany is unique among European countries: no other nation-state has so many next-door neighbors.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging any useful content from this article (I don't think there is much) into History of Germany is a good idea.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The ethymology and name section in Germany: it would make that article even longer. And the names of Germany in other languages are a different subject. Could you make your criticism about the article more specific? Ziko (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"More specific"? Look, I already said that I agree with Wutsje's, very specific, criticism. Not to put too fine a point on it, Ziko: the article is crap. I want it gone. Your conduct in the discussion above was a shining example of willful obtuseness = failure to get the point. I do not want to see a POV fork as a vehicle for German nationalism. Clear enough now?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, no. What do you mean by German nationalism, and how is it realised in the article? Ziko (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We should make sub-articles of History of Germany, but on the basis of content, not on the basis of other categories. For example, we should treat the terminology of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation in the article Holy Roman Empire, and the terminology of the Wehrmacht in World War II and of the Waffen-SS in Nazi Germany.  Cs32en  00:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support (Redirect) As I said above I support a redirect. Merging is problematic due to lack of references in this article. Verbal chat 07:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect and Merger are not mutually exclusive. The article can be turned into a redirect, yet any salvageable content can be merged into appropriate WP articles at the same time or later.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but anything that is merged would require sourcing, so merger is a bigger job. I support redirect now, with a talk page link to the last version so people can source and merge at leisure. Verbal chat 12:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait a couple more days and then, if no new opposition emerges, turn the article into a redirect and make it stick.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. By now I meant the redirect should happen before the merge and sourcing, not now as in right this minute! Sorry for being unclear (again). Verbal chat 15:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing tendentious and unsourced speculation

I've just removed a number of unsourced elements from the article. Other information might also be inaccurate, but these were things that were clearly tendentious and unsourced.  Cs32en  22:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You have also deleted sourced elements, without explanation. You yourself have not added one single reference to the text, and don't back your assertations. --Ziko (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You have inserted text that read: "Germany was divided into", followed by a list that included regions that were part of Poland at the time (and are still today). Even if your source would state that these regions would have been referred to by some people as "Ostdeutschland" ("Eastern Germany"), which I would doubt, as the common term was "Ostgebiete" ("Eastern regions"), that would not make them part of Germany. So the list you have inserted was original research (and it was wrong, in addition to that).  Cs32en  16:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with original research. It is simply what I have found in Koening. I would welcome proposals for a better wording, but I am not very happy with your harsh accusations of "tendentious". --Ziko (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a complete quote from this source? By "tendentious", I did mean selective sourcing, where a variety of different sources are available, or characterizing a term as vulgar, where it is simply considered as a pejorative expression (but readily acceptable as such in all forms of language).  Cs32en  18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean "Sekundärliteratur", not "Quellen"? I did not find much except Koenig, so there is no variety. He says (p. 123): "Mittelduetschland ist erst in den 50er Jahren in der Bezeichnung DDR in Gebrauch gekommen. Vorher bezeichnete es den Teil Deutschlands, der zwischen Nord und Süd gelegen war. Es erschien aber auch in den offiziellen richtlinien des Ministeriums für Gesamtdeutsche Frage als für den 'allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch' geeiegnet. Es erfüllte alle anforderungen der damaligen Ostpolitik: Westdeutschland, Mitteldeutschland und Ostdeutschland (als Name für die Gebiete jenseits von Oder und Neiße) bilden ein Begriffssystem. Neben der Vermeidung (und damit Nichtanerkennung) der DDR blieb der Anspruch auf die 'Ostgebiete' erhalten. Trotzdem wurde dem Wort ein neutraler, nicht propagandistischer Charakter zugeschrieben (im diametralen Gegensatz z.B. zur sowjetischen Besatzungszone), gleich bewertet mit Ostdeutschland, das vielfach auch mit DDR in einen Topf geworfen wurde." --Ziko (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)