Jump to content

Talk:Chancellor of Germany

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Chancellor of Germany (1949–present) was merged into this article on January 23, 2020 as per result of this discussion. MorningThoughts (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salary

[edit]

In verifying the salary, the text in this section is a horrible mess nation-specific garbled notation and was a pain to verify. Will somebody who knows how to make the cite work without errors please give a link to the real source: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bming/BMinG.pdf

Naming the German state

[edit]

Small things can cause a lot of problems when searching for the good expression. The German state I am a citizen of was founded in 1867, see North German Federation. It continued in 1949 under a new name with a new constition (according to Bundesverfassungsgericht 1973). I hope I have found a suitable description now.--Ziko (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrifice class right to expression Geeraldmichael (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

[edit]

The user who put this page up for deletion did so in response to a debate concerning whether or not the Chancellor of Germany article should be split into a Chancellor of Germany (German Reich) and Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic) articles. The articles were split- rather unilaterally indeed but a strong support for the split has shown itself- aswell as opposition. Either way this article should continue to exist- as a merge of the German Reich/Federal Republic articles or as a disambiguation page between the two. There is absolutely no need for this page to be deleted. Gavin (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood, it's not a question of permanently deleting this article. The article history of the original article (located at Chancellor of Germany) was moved to Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic). This disambiguation page makes it impossible to move the article history back, which is necessary for license reasons. One cannot simply "merge" the articles Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic) and Chancellor of Germany (German Reich) - which isn't actually a merge, but the two articles with content from this article.
The article had been located at this title for 6,5 years and was moved after a discussion involving only two people. There is currently absolutely no consensus to split the article, and the article ought to be moved back to its stable title awaiting further discussion/consensus on what to do.
Also, the article Chancellor of Germany (German Reich) is a copyright violation (a violation of the GFDL licence), as a cut and paste move of parts of this article. The deletion of this disambiguation page, so the old article history can be moved back here, is necessary to fix that problem too. UweBayern (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, but again it is not necessary- especially not at this point in time- there is no consensus to revert the current format back to the one you propose ergo, this request is premature. The fact is the split happened and much work has gone into fixing redirects etc. Do you really want to revert that just so that possibly later we might decide to maintain the split? Why not maintain the split? It is going to happen anyway when the articles are expanded. There are also the factual arguments that the Chancellors of the Reich are not the same as the Chancellors of the Federal Republic. Oh and it is not a copyright violation. Gavin (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a consensus to split the article, not to maintain status quo of the last 6,5 years. As I pointed out at the other talk page, a split into one page on Chancellors of everything from the German Empire and the Weimar Republic to Nazi Germany, and one on the Chancellors of postwar Germany, doesn't make any sense. We've went through all that half a dozen times already. UweBayern (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems thought that multiple users disagree with you and have all r/v'd your're changes. However you were determined to push through your idea of how the article should be, breaking the 3/RR in the process. Fact is, the split has happened, it was not done with a sizeable consensus but it was not opposed either- for a long time. It is the status quo, let us discuss a merge rather than a merge to be split. Gavin (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? UweBayern (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put an edit comment into Chancellor of Germany (German Reich) addressing the history. I think that satisfies WP:SPLIT mostly, although it might not be enough for other interpretations of the GFDL. Further moves should go through WP:RM. Kusma (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you guys put this together? I cant believe it... there are actually shares & likes at Facebook about how funny that is and Merkel is - THROUGH THIS ARTICLE - equated with the last German Chancellor before the war, that is Hitler. It is unbearable that a search of "Reichskanzler" redirects to this article. You type in Reichskanzler and get Merkel! This is has nothing to do whatsoever with an encyclopedia. A real encyclopedia would never put this together. It's BUNDESKANZLER or REICHSKANZLER, there is no continuity between the different constitutions. Or will you also combine 2 articles "Democratic Germany" for the time 1918-1933 and 1949-now? Think about it... --77.1.37.105 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems especially strange as there are nearly no information about the Reichskanzler in the Weimar Republic (the Reichskanzler that is normally meant if you talk about it). However, the institution of the Reichskanzler in the Weimar Republic was the stepping stone for the Nazi party to assume power. A little more explanation at this point could do much to improve the article. --77.1.37.105 (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As our constitutional theorists have well observed, the words "Reich" and "Bund" are, in German constitutional theory, to some degree interchangeable. A translation into English as "Chancellor of Germany" seems appropriate to me, all the more since according to German theory again, the German state which was founded in 1867 has never perished and has now the name of Federal Republic of Germany. That we use the term "Chancellor" at all - which originally meant a position distinctly lower than Prime Minister, because to have Prime Ministers was considered a prerogative of the states of Germany who were not to be made anxious about a central German government - is btw an indication of that. After the Empire (yet before the Weimar Constitution), Philipp Scheidemann was "Prime Minister of the Reich" but the Weimar Constitution went back to the now traditional name of Chancellor (to the extent that in most history books he is simply called "Chancellor (1919)". Hence when an English royal addressed Dr Kohl as "Herr Reichskanzler" he was perhaps thinking to use a term of abuse, and maybe Germans less informed about history would agree to that, but nevertheless it was somewhat correct (and Dr Kohl himself was certainly not among those less informed about history).--93.135.57.193 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auli top Pass new news Geeraldmichael (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

[edit]

As for the accuracy, this article ignore the initial office of Chancellor (Bundeskanzler) of the North German Confederation. The history of the Chancellorship cannot be split into "German Reich" and Federal Republic only. UweBayern (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not, however that does not make the disambiguation inaccurate. It makes the North German Confederation Chancellor article inaccurate. Gavin (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If things should be added, it is rather the Archchancellor of the Holy Roman Empire. Kusma (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hang On 2

[edit]

An admin has already reviewed the case for speedy deletion and called it- premature. Gavin (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New structure

[edit]

This article is now turned from a disambiguation page (which reminds me strongly on those people who made "Deutschland" (Germany) a disambiguation page at the German Wikipedia some years ago) into a main article, with more detailed sub-articles on the Chancellery in different eras (as there is really no sense in having a monarchy, a democratic republic and a Nazi dictatorship in the same article if the articles shall be split anyway, however a general article providing an overview is necessary):

UweBayern (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)n[reply]

You don't give up easily, do you? Do you think if you keep trying this enough times, eventually the other contributors will give up? A very constructive attitude! --KarlFrei (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one being constructive. It seems to me that you are describing yourself. I will of course continue to uphold encyclopedic standards and consistency. You are welcome to take part in the discussion on how to improve the articles. UweBayern (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this new structure is good. Though, one might be able to argue that articles which cannot stand alone should be reorganised into a single article...clearly the Federal Republic article stands alone...but the other offices do not, I recommend we merge these stubs into one article until they can be expanded upon. Gavin (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think UweBayern is onto a winner with this layout. His methods are a little interesting, but this time I think its turned out good. Gavin (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are not exactly stubs, but I'm planning to expand them in the near future. UweBayern (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwe:

What is your article dealing with?

  1. The history of the head of governments of the several German states?
  2. The history of the term "chancellor" in Germany?

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your premise is false. There were not "several German states". The article is dealing with the office of head of government (mostly known as the Chancellor of Germany in English, except for some brief periods, like the revolutionary period after WWI) in the nation-state of Germany, which has legally been the same state all the time (legally (in terms of German constitutional law and international law), it was founded as the North German Confederation in 1867 and continues to exist to this date[1]). It's a general article for the office of head of government in that very same state since its foundation, with detailed articles on the office in different periods (I will expand some of these articles in the future). The origin (pre-1867 use) of the title is briefly addressed in the historical overview. UweBayern (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring all other conversation, it think it is completely unnecessary to have five articles on the same thing. Really, if I were a random reader wanting to have a list of German Chancellors, I would want them all together in the same place, not split up so I'll have to go to five different pages to get what I want. I find it especially bad that they are only 2, 5, 4, 3, and 15 kilobytes long! Even if you could add a fair amount of more information, that's still way too short. It's rediculous to have a whole article for the Confederation when there was only Bismarck!! Plus, I think that this could be WP:FL worthy if it weren't so short. I think the best thing to do is too keep all the related information together in one place, not spread out to five. If you think that the multiple names are still too different, then how about two: 1867 to 1945, and the Federal Republic 1949 to present? Reywas92Talk 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Reywas, we used to have the articles split between the Reich and the Federal Republic (as you suggest at the end of your contribution) however Bayern has been so offended by that solution that he pops up now and then to introduce a new change to the articles. Are you moving Reywas that we restore the German Reich and Federal Republic- two article plus disambiguation split? If you are, then I support that move. Gavin (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We used to have one article, that was the stable solution for 6,5 years until someone split the article into two a few months ago. The split into two failed to gain consensus. The solution with having a main article with detailed sub-articles is a compromise. I do, in any case, believe it's much more reader-friendly to have an article instead of a disambiguation page at Chancellor of Germany, providing a general overview.
Personally, I also believe one article, like we used to have, would be fine. However, if we are to split the original article based on how different the office was in different eras, we cannot split it into two because it doesn't make sense having a monarchy, a democracy and a dictatorship in the same article if we accept the argument for splitting the article in the first place – Germany during the Weimar Republic, as a liberal democracy, is way more similar to present-day Germany than to Imperial or Nazi Germany.
I agree with you when it comes to the lists of chancellors. I suggest the chancellors are moved from the articles on the office to a separate List of German chancellors – this seems to be the preferred solution elsewhere on Wikipedia (POTUS, List of heads of government of Russia - note the very different titles and political regimes, btw.). UweBayern (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We just shouldn't have five articles for it. Two pages with a dab could work, but the offices are still essentially the same. It would be fine to have one page mainly for the history of the office and another for the list (without dab), like other countries, though that isn't necessary. Since there is not too much information yet, a single article would still only be 27kb long, not even requiring a split. When it's lenghthened, as UweBayern has said he'll get to, then a split will be necessary. Basically, I want a single article/list with all the related information together unless we absolutely have to have two. Reywas92Talk 01:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with merging the other articles (German Empire, North German Confederation) with this article again. How about, for the time being, having one main article Chancellor of Germany, one sub-article on the chancellory in the Federal Republic (the most lenghty of the sub-articles) and one list of Chancellors? (the list also could be included in this article, but it seems to be the usual practice to have lists in separate articles and I do believe the list can be a stand-alone article). The problem arose because someone wanted a separate article for the chancellory in the Federal Republic and made Chancellor of Germany a disambigution page, a solution with no precedent at Wikipedia that is extremely unfriendly to the reader as well as ahistorical. UweBayern (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have just one reference that a historian considers Angela Merkel holding the same office that Hitler and Bismarck did? A vast majority of the German population considers these offices to be different offices (and btw would consider mixing this up as an insult against the current Chancellors), and I never heard of a German or British or American historian who would oppose to this. See also here. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through all this already. I don't think you'll be able to find a single historian disputing that Chancellor Bismarck and Chancellor Merkel were heads of government of Germany. We have already established that it is the same state, but even with very siginificant changes (more significant than in Germany), there is a clear precedent at Wikipedia to cover them in the same article, because they are all heads of government of the same country. That is the reader-friendly solution. UweBayern (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back to my very original position. To support the ONE Chancellor of Germany article which deals with all Heads of Government of Germany. As it was before the split. Gavin (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to hear that, although I wouldn't have a problem with having Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic) as an in-depth article with more details and legal technicalities of the office since 1949 (in its present state, the article is maybe too short to be a separate article, though). Do you suggest the list of chancellors should be included in the main article or in a separate list? List of Chancellors of Germany is modelled after similar lists for other countries (List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, List of heads of government of Russia, List of Prime Ministers of France and so forth). UweBayern (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Chancellor of Germany and List of Chancellors of Germany should remain separate. As the former article becomes larger it would become unwieldy to also include a List of Chancellors. As for the Federal Republic article, I believe that it does have the material to be a stand alone article, summarised in the Chancellor of Germany article. Technically all of the offices could be standalone articles if there was substantial material in them, as yet that is only the case with the Federal Republic article. Gavin (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never track with us and questions Geeraldmichael (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never track with us and questions Geeraldmichael (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Chancellor a Minister?

[edit]

According to the article: "Due to the title, but also due to the fact that the Chancellor is the only cabinet member elected by the parliament, the Chancellor is not considered to be a minister"

It is correct that the title Chancellor was originally chosen because the Chancellor was not a Minister (unlike the Prime Ministers of the federal states, like Prussia). But this had nothing to do with being elected by Parliament or not.

I didn't find any sources confirming that the Chancellor today is not considered a minister. Obviously, the title "minister" is not used, but the German federal government has, since the Weimar Republic, been considered a government in the proper sense (and the other members of the government have been known as (federal) ministers and not secretaries of state, like in the German Empire), and as head of that government, I believe the Chancellor can be considered a minister in the broad sense. The title Chancellor has been used after 1919 mostly because of its tradition, and I find it hard to believe it's used after 1919 to imply that the Chancellor is subordinate to "ministers" or something else than "proper" ministers. UweBayern (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is because the Basic Law says: The government consists of the Chancellor and the ministers. He is, by the way, not the head of a ministry (although there are sometimes ministers who are not, too). But it may not be necessary to have this information at this prominent place, inded.--Ziko (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's better to deal with this question somewhere below. I'm still not sure if "The government consists of the Chancellor and the ministers" is actually meant to indicate that the Chancellor is not at minister-level, as was the case at least before 1919. It's only natural to refer to the cabinet as the Chancellor and the ministers because that's their titles, it doesn't necessarily have to imply anything as far as this question is concerned (whether the Chancellor is a minister-level position like the Prime Ministers of the states or the rest of the federal cabinet). UweBayern (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, things become much more clear if we use the word minister-level. The Chancellor before 1919 was not a minister-level position, Germany didn't have any minister-level positions at the federal level. With the Weimar Constitution, Germany got a federal government with federal ministers, and I would assume the Chancellor as well could from then on be described as a minister-level position (albeit not with the title minister). UweBayern (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Chancellor is certainly a minister in anything the word means, if we are not, pardon!, twisting the Constitution. He even heads his own ministry, the Chancellery. Yes, there is a distinct "head of the Chancellery" who, due to the importance of the Chancellery, gets at least the title of minister and is often made an actual minister of his own right. But that is nothing special, only "of higher rank": other ministries also have their own heads to run the office, and these are not the ministers but the state secretaries. There is, thus, a clear chain of command from the Chancellor down to the lowest levels of the Chancellery - while the Chancellor is not in this sense a superior over the other ministers (principle of ressort autonomy), only chairs the Cabinet and can at times claim his "competence of decision in principals).--93.135.57.193 (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the Federal Chancellor ist not a minister. You can see that in the three political principles of German government Kanzlerprinzip (chancellor's principle), Kabinettsprinzip and Ressortprinzip (departmental principle). By the chancellor's principle he has the right to formulate all political directives. A minister heads his portfolio but is not authorized to give directives to other departments as the chancellor can do. So the Federal Chancellor ist the head of government while the Federal Ministers are members of the government.

And another issue: the Chancellor ist not the same as a Prime Minister, because a Prime minister is the de facto head of government in a parliamentary democratic monarchy while the de jure head of the government is the monarch himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.203.231 (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What to call Hitler's regime

[edit]

Until recently, this article called it "the Third Reich". Now it is "the Nazi Germany", which sounds wrong to me. Shouldn't it simply be "Nazi Germany" (no "the")? And is "Nazi Germany" really correct, since it was never formally designated this? Perhaps we should say "Germany under Hitler" or "Germany under the National Socialists". Opinions? ubiquity (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the state was 1) North German Federation 1867-1870, 2) German Federation (1870-1871, often forgotten and not to be mistaken for the German Confederation, in original German with the same name, of 1815 onwards), 3) German Reich (1871-1945, arguably in the last years, but no earlier than 1943 or so and certainly not for the whole Nazi time, replaced by Greater German Reich), 4) Germany (as a whole, 1945-1949, with the Control Council being its supreme power), 5) Federal Republic of Germany.
Which means that Empire, Weimar Republic and Nazis used the same name.
Let us use a grammatically correct English expression which conveys what we mean, while not putting too much importance into formal designations or the like.--93.135.57.193 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles?

[edit]

see my user page for my question --Luthermütze (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. --Luthermütze (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chancellor 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German chancellors and numbers

[edit]

Numbering is a simplistic American tradition that we have never used for German (or any other European that I am aware of) politicians. Simply stating that Merkel is the "8th chancellor of Germany" (or something similar) is outright misleading and adds absolutely nothing of value to the article, while adding a great deal of ambiguity and confusion to the lead instead. In English the title chancellor of Germany refers to every chancellor since Bismarck (who by the way held both the title Bundeskanzler and the title Reichskanzler in German), so the description "8th chancellor of Germany" could just as well refer to Prince Maximilian of Baden. It would only be correct to state that Merkel is the eight postwar chancellor, or the eight chancellor since Adenauer took office, or something like that. But this doesn't belong in the lead, doesn't add any informational value and is an American thing. It is covered adequately in the body of the article. While Americans tend to refer to their presidents as "44" and things like that and place massive emphasis on their president's number, nobody goes around referring to Gerhard Schröder as "7" (or "34"; other numbers are also possible depending on definition) and people, government institutions etc. don't obsess over the chancellor's number. Counting is also far less straightforward than for American presidents, for the reasons mentioned, with different numbers possible depending on who you count, not just related to prewar chancellors, but also whether to count East German heads of government, and whether to count late WWI-era heads of government whose title wasn't chancellor.

There is probably just as much justification for starting counting only in 1990 as there is for starting counting in 1949, if we were to disregard historical chancellors starting with Bismarck. Merkel could potentially be described as the 35th chancellor, the 33rd chancellor if disregarding those whose title (in English) wasn't chancellor, the 8th postwar chancellor or the 3rd post-reunification chancellor. It is not self-evident which number that is more relevant, so it's best to leave this out of the lead and discuss the material in a more nuanced manner in the article. --Tataral (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck held the title "Bundekanzler" in his capacity as chancellor of the North German confederation (1867-1870), after the "German unification" (1870/71), the office was called "Reichskanzler". The problem can be solved by stating: "The 8th and current Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany is...", so it is clear, that only the office under the current 1949 constitution (Basic Law) is meant (the German reunification of 1990 is irrelevant here, because it was achieved by the six states of the former GDR joining the Federal Republic which continues to exist. No new state was therefore created. The US Presidents are not counted from the top every time a new state joins the Union ;)).
I (as a german living in Germany) agree that "numbering" is no quite as common as in the US, but would argue that it is not "uncommon" either - as always, there is more than black and white here (I can and will not speak for other european countries, but would ask you to keep in mind that Europe is not a homogenous bloc in any respect...). It would go to far, to seek any reference to an officeholder with numbering in the media (for example), but I will give a few examples, that will show (1) that numbering happens at least from time to time (admittedly, to me it seems to be a bit more frequent with respect to former officeholders than to the incumbent) and (2) that numbering always refers to officeholders under the current constitution (from a german standpoint, it is quite "clear", that numbering begins with "1" in 1949 and the modern chancellorship is not seen in a continuity with the Reich Chancellors: Note for example that the chancellor-gallery in the Federal Chancellery shows only the officeholders from Adenauer to Schröder, https://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/bkin-de/mediathek/fotos/kanzlergalerie-867606.)
In his speech at the swearing in of Angela Merkel's first cabinet in 2005, President Horst Köhler explicitly referred to A.M. as the 8th Chancellor of Germany (Federal Republic): "Der achte Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist eine Bundeskanzlerin." (https://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/DE/Horst-Koehler/Reden/2005/11/20051122_Rede.html) This is "intranslatable", as it only works with the term "Kanzler" not beeig gender-neutral in german (~"The 8th Chancellor of Germany is a female Chancellor). I'm too lazy, to scan all the recent articles, in which Angela Merkel is mentioned and maybe numbered (as you can imagine, there is an abundance of articles to go through, as A.M. is the current officeholder)- I'm sure there are some, maybe even a lot. But for now, I will give three recent(!) examples for each of the former Chancellors:
Gerhard Schröder is referred to as the 7th Chancellor of Germany for example here:
Helmut Kohl is referred to as the 6th Chancellor of Germany for example here:
Helmut Schmidt is referred to as the 5th Chancellor of Germany for example here:
Willy Brandt is referred to as the 4th Chancellor of Germany for example here:
Kurt Georg Kiesinger is referred to as the 3rd Chancellor of Germany for example here:
Ludwig Erhard is referred to as the 2nd Chancellor of Germany for example here:
Konrad Adenauer is referred to as the 1st Chancellor of Germany for example here:
These are only examples, I could give more, but for the start this should be enough. Is this evidence sufficient that numbering german chancellors, while maybe not beeing as common as numbering US-Presidents, is not really "uncommon", let alone "irrelevant" either? Alektor89 (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not evidence that numbering is the normal/usual practice, as compared to not numbering the chancellors, to such an extent that it justifies being in the lead section. For every instance of someone mentioning something looking like a number, we could find a thousand or more articles mentioning the chancellor without a number. In the vast majority of English language reliable sources, Angela Merkel is referred to as the Chancellor of Germany without any number; if any number is mentioned at all, the most likely number to occur is "first" female chancellor, again illustrating how many different numbers are possible depending on what we are counting.
Also, all of these examples are in German, tend to specifically discuss history, and use very specific terminology that is difficult to translate into English. They are not really evidence that the number is treated almost like a part of the title, how the chancellor is normally referred to as (as is often the case in the U.S.), but tend to include it as a factlet when discussing history and specific time periods rather than the whole history of the country.
The legalistic argument that the reunification was a mere continuation of West Germany and that Germany didn't change at all from a legal point of view isn't very relevant here. The exact same thing could be said, and has been said by German jurists, about 1949 ("so ist doch die Bundesrepublik Deutschland identisch mit dem Deutschen Reich"; "Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist also nicht ‚Rechtsnachfolger‘ des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat ‚Deutsches Reich‘;" "Weder das Grundgesetz selbst […] noch die auf seiner Grundlage gebildeten Staatsorgane der Bundesrepublik Deutschland haben diesen Vorgang als Untergang des deutschen Staates bewertet. Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland betrachtete sich vielmehr von Beginn an als identisch mit dem Völkerrechtssubjekt Deutsches Reich"; all from different opinions of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (see de:Rechtslage_Deutschlands_nach_1945).
For our purposes here on the English Wikipedia, and for the issue at hand here, it is more relevant to consider the practical implications, the realities on the ground; in 1990 what we have a separate article on, West Germany, ceased to exist for practical purposes and was replaced by a "reunified Germany" with its own article that Merkel is chancellor of; Merkel's biography is closely linked to that event, the reunification, and she is frequently discussed in the light of the reunification in English sources. Hence, in English, there is a case for highlighting Merkel as the third post-reunification chancellor (and the first female chancellor) that is most likely just as strong as the case for highlighting her as the eight postwar chancellor (Merkel's biography as an East German who became chancellor of reunified Germany is more linked to the reunification than the 1940s). This is not a matter of disputing the legal continuity from 1949, or from the 1871 Unification of Germany, but is simply a matter of conventions when discussing modern German history, and of what kind of information that is most relevant to readers of this article and that should be included in the introduction.
While it is normal to introduce the U.S. president as "the 45th President of the United States" regardless of the occasion, it is not the normal way to introduce, discuss, address or describe the German chancellor, and numbers are only mentioned when discussing history, in specific contexts, as an exception. It is not self-evident which number that should be included in the introduction: first female chancellor, third post-reunification chancellor, eight postwar chancellor or 35th head of government since the current German nation state, as a subject of international law and according to its own jurisprudence, was originally founded. --Tataral (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tataral :), it is me who is providing evidence here, while you are only claiming "that's not so" - this is, by the way, a very convenient/sophistical point of view, since you can't prove or falsify the non-existence of something anyway. I could name as many sources as I like - your closed world view ("it's like this in the USA, like this in Europe. Full stop"). I could also go and say that at least in the German WIKI the US presidents should not be counted anymore, because in the vast majority of German press articles there are no numbers. But I don't know if such questions are relevant either. It is quite logical that the articles are mostly about historical matters: I tried to mention recent(!) articles about former chancellors (what else would it be about). By the way, my sources are not only press articles, I also refer to a speech of the Federal President, the "Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung" ... I am not convinced by your view on the matter and would insist on re-including the numbering. We can discuss further (no irony!), but if we don't get any further here, we need the ArbCom.
PS.: The thing with 1990 in contrast to 1949 and 1919 is that no new constitution was introduced. Literally no one in Germany would count Helmut Kohl as the 1st Chancellor. And once again: To write "the 8th Chancellor of the Federal Republic..." would solve the problem neatly anyway. Alektor89 (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are the editor who wants to introduce a change, so you are the editor who needs to demonstrate that that change is warranted. What you have provided is anecdotal evidence of some occasional and context-specific (mostly related to history) instances in which German chancellors have been discussed as the first or second chancellor etc. But that is not evidence of numbering being the dominant convention, so that it justifies being included in the lead. I could easily cite thousands of articles that mention German chancellors as "chancellor of Germany" without any number, but I don't see much point in doing that. Let me illustrate why: A Google Scholar search for "chancellor of Germany" returns 8,810 results. If numbering was a common practice, surely we should find a fair number of examples of Merkel being referring to as the eight chancellor. But both "8th chancellor of germany", "eight chancellor of germany" and "8th chancellor of the federal republic of germany", and even "8th federal chancellor of the federal republic of germany" and "8th federal chancellor", return exactly 0 results. "8th Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany" is clearly not a common way to describe the current Chancellor of Germany in English; "Chancellor of Germany" is.
A headline like "Konrad Adenauer – erster Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland" when discussing the first postwar chancellor is not evidence that German chancellors are systematically and usually numbered, which is how American presidents differ from most political offices in Europe. Neither is a list of chancellors (lists are frequently ordered).
In the U.S., Trump would typically be introduced as "the 45th President of the United States" when he is about to deliver some racist remarks or do something that isn't specifically related to the history of the office of president itself. Merkel is typically introduced and referred to as the chancellor (die Bundeskanzlerin), not as the 8th chancellor, and the only time people would mention a number would be very context-specific, such as when writing about the office of chancellor in the postwar era, or the post-reunification era, or in the context of gender equality (her as the first female chancellor). --Tataral (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Selecting "Deutsch" from the languages list will lead you to the German Wikipedia's article on the term 'chanchellor'. Is there a reason why their article on the office of the chancellor of Germany isn't being used instead? Profile One1 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is because the German Wikipedia, since it deals with chancellors of historical German states, differentiates between each office and has separate articles, e.g. Reichskanzler (Weimarer Republik), Bundeskanzler (Norddeutscher Bund). The English Wikipedia, on the other hand, has only one article. Essixt (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.I have to apply for a visa in German Please help and help 188.50.141.30 (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a topic for a talk page, but here is information from the Foreign Office. Essixt (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chancellor_of_Germany&oldid=1263776920"