Talk:Unification of Germany/Archive 1

Refactor

Right now the article says "For a more detailed look at how German unification occurred see German Empire." I haven't really looked, but if there is more detail there than here, we should be refactoring that detail out to this article. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to have one comprehensive article on the German Empire, including how it came into being, and leave this article as a sort of "soft redirect" (if that is the appropriate expression) to German Empire#Bismarck's founding of the Empire. Alternatively, one could make this article into a disambiguation article pointing to German Empire and German reunification. --Boson 23:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Having thought about it a bit more, one could expand this article to cover the process leading up to reunification in detail, say the period of about 1864 to 1871. This would probably neeed to be coordinated with the articles on the Danish War of 1864, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, and Bismarck, perhaps also with some of the German Wikipedia articles. Is there any forum for discussing such coordination issues? I couldn't find a project on German history (only military, which might be OK in this case).--Boson 21:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge sections from German Empire

As a start, I suggest merging sections Bismarck's founding of the Empire and Constituent states of the empire into this article. --Boson 14:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking some information from the German Empire article is alright, but the German Empire article should remain. - 52 Pickup 09:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged

I believe I've done an appropriate merger/refactoring. This still needs a lot of TLC in terms of citation. - Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

acceptable revision?

I'm not sure how to approach this, but I've read the comments and tried to address some of them in a revision of the article. I have students who thought it would make a good source for their papers, which caused me to take a look at it, and I agree with everything that is up here -- it needs some work, probably not highest on some people's priorities, etc. So I've taken a stab at it, and a revision is posted in my user page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Auntieruth55 I didn't know where else to put it. I hope I haven't stepped on any toes -- this was not my intention.  :) Cheers. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Auntieruth55

Boldly posted to article instead of user page

Upon advice of another user, I have boldly posted my revision. Sundry folks have fixed a few broken links...I'm a nwbie at this and foolishly did http links in my drafts in word, rather than using wiki markups. duh. Anyway, I appreciate your help, and look forward to a new and improved version. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with one of the maps

One of the maps in the original article shows German colonies, and lists one as "Little Venice" in northern Venezuela. Although there was a colony of about 8000 Germans in San Paolo, it was not long-lived. In the 1840s, another wave of migrants went to V, but I think the map is misleading. However, I don't know how to change it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange

I find it highly strange that such an important event of the European history finds only few words. Some one familiar with the matter should expand the contents. --Bhadani 16:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See my above comment. I checked and there is, indeed, more detail in German Empire. We should refactor. - Jmabel | Talk 04:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Unifacation"

In the unlikely event that there is anything useful at the oddly spelled Unifacation of germany, could someone please merge it? Otherwise, just put it on WP:AFD. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The mis-spelled article may contain some additional information but this article refers to "German Empire", which contains details of how it came into being. At first glance, it doesn't look as if there is any additional information not in German Empire , so I would support the AfD proposal. Perhaps the author could check if there is anything left to add to "German Empire. --Boson 22:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete-tagged as content was moved to this article here. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       21:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kleindeutsche Lösung

Kleindeutsche Lösung was translated as "Little German solution", now "Smaller German solution"; I believer that "Small German solution" is actually more common, but there are so few online references to any of these other than our forks and mirrors that the Google test is useless. - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't one normally talk about "Greater Germany" and "Lesser Germany", and by analogy "Lesser German Solution". Annoyingly, I can't find any references to the English terms in books (though I haven't looked very thoroughly). I would tend to put it in parentheses, but without implying that it is a literal translation (like Small German solution). If we are going to use the German word Lösung, I think we should regard it as a proper name and capitalize Solution. Presumably, we should maintain consistency with the Kleindeutsche Lösung article (which currently has "Small German Solution").--Boson 09:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. Obviously, though, since all nouns are capitalized in German, capitalization in German does not necessarily indicate a proper noun. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of states

In the merged article, we have a somewhat confused situation with a reference to "39 previously independent states" and 25 states of the empire. I assume that many of these previously independent states were annexed by Prussia.

Rather than just have a list of states here that duplicates the list at States of the German Empire, could someone possibly rework this article to name all of the states predating the empire and indicate which were incorporated as states of the empire, which were absorbed into Prussia, and which met other fates? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that request. —Nightstallion (?) 23:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unattributed opinion

From the article:

One problem with this constitution was that it was designed for certain types of people to hold the position of chancellor and king. Bismarck was extremely powerful and William I was only a figurehead. The constitution fails to consider the scenario of a powerful king and a chancellor who is a figurehead.

I think the factual part of this is accurate (though it should still be cited) but the value judgment that a constitution should allow for a powerful king seems to come out of nowhere. I'll give a few days for someone to work out if they can do something with this, preferably involving citation, but if not I am inclined to remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 22:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Zollverein

Why is there no mention of the Zollverein in this article. The Zollverein was an important early factor in the growth of national feeling and it also led to the rise in Prussian influence in the German States, which undoubtedly helped with unification in some ways. Ixistant 20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Geez, that is missing. Yes, someone should work on this. It won't be me anytime soon, though. Can someone take this on? - Jmabel | Talk 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Small German

This course outline, issued at University College, London, refers to Bismarck and 'small German' unification http://www.ucl.ac.uk/German/undergrad/Courses/1101.htm The use of inverted commas suggests that there may be a wider problem. Incidentally, the notion that Lesser German is used by analogy with Greater German attributes a logic to language use that is often lacking. Norvo 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The first author in that section of the reading list has used the term lesser Germany (David Blackbourn: History of Germany, 1780-1918: The Long Nineteenth Century: The construction of a Prussian-led lesser Germany was completed four years later., but Breuilly uses ‘small Germany' solution (John Breuilly: "Nationalism and the State": the ‘small Germany' solution of pro-Prussian liberals . . . Clearly the dispute over ‘small Germany' and ‘large Germany' . . .. I suspect most historians tend to think of the German term and merely provide an ad hoc translation for readers, so it's more a matter of the logic of historians as translators rather than the logic of language. In the above example, even Breuilly seems to shy away from "small German solution", perhaps because small could also qualify "solution" rather than "German". He also seems to use the contrasting terms "small" and "large". I would also tend to contrast either "small" and "large" or "lesser" and "greater". I also now tend to agree with his use of "Germany" rather than "German" when translating "kleindeutsche . . .", as opposed to "kleine deutsche . . .". Personally, I think English tends to contrast "lesser" and "greater" where German uses "Klein-" und "Groß-", when the size is regarded as being small or large mainly in comparison with the alternative (rather than in absolute terms). I don't think any of the alternatives are wholly satisfactory --Boson 06:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Louis XIV or Mazarin?

in the Founding a unified state, last few lines it talks about Louis XIV gaining land in german speaking territory durring the 30 years war. my problem is, though louis was king, Mazarin was the de facto ruler until louis was 20 or so (which was well after the 30 years war). could someone please clear this up? i maybe wrong... Klimintine (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Bismarck's rise to power

The beginning of this article has a name that implies some legacy naming. Instead of "Bismarck's rise to power", the section tries (and fails) to cover all the historical development up to the start of the Schleswig war. Why did I say it fails at that? What bothers me is that the display of the Revolutions of 1848 is confusing and may well give a false impression. The revolutions were in large parts of Germany driven by a craving for unification and only the restauration after the revolutions cemented the fragmentation of Germany where there may possibly have been some unification attempts even among the kings and princes of the German states. Someone who is an expert should expand this, I fear I may accidentally let some false claims slip in and I am lacking citeable sources. 141.76.40.160 (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"the European balance of power was restructured with the creation of the German Empire as the dominant power in Europe." Germany was by no means the dominant force in Europe at the time, it was still industrialising- output of important materials such as coal and iron were well behind those of Britain and even France. Not mention the fact Germany didn't even have a Merchant navy at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.34.195 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Violation of international obligations made by Prussia at Congres of Vienna

By forcefully integrating Duchy of Poznań into German Empire Prussia violated its international obligations made at Congress of Vienna[1] --Molobo (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Footnote gone awry?

There is a stray "[8]" in the section Unification of Germany#Founding a unified state. I'm guessing that it was meant to be a footnote (someone probably introduced it on a copy-and-paste from a scratch version). If someone knows what source this meant to cite, please do add in a proper "ref" element. - Jmabel | Talk 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was introduced in this major edit by User:Auntieruth55.-- Matthead  Discuß   18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that is for, that footnote gone awry. It is left over from the previous writer. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I boldly took it out. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"The Peninsula"

"The Peninsula" in the article is simply linked to the word "peninsula", which of course clarifies nothing unless one were unfamiliar with the word. I'm guessing this means Jutland, but hesitate to make the edit. If I'm correct, it should at least link there rather than Peninsula; probably it should say "Jutland". - Jmabel | Talk 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not Jutland, but Iberia. Clarified. Thanks for pointing that out. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah! In other contexts, I would have understood that Napoleon's campaign in "the Peninsula" of course meant Iberia, but in the context of talking about Germany, only one peninsula came to mind. - Jmabel | Talk 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There were actually quite a few German troops in the Iberian campaigns: King's German Legion, and a sizable contingent of Badeners among the Napoleonic troops. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Map

Copied from my user talk page - Jmabel | Talk 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still confused about how to do some of this stuff. But there is a problem still with the unification article. The map that includes some of the German colonies also includes a notation about "Little Venice" in present day Venezuela, and the dates are some time in the 16th century. This seems a bit (more than a bit) odd to me, and that map should be edited, or removed. I couldn't figure out how to remove it, or edit it. Possibly the map is in a template? How and who do I go to re that? Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
End copied

I've now dealt with it. Auntieruth, it's a bit abstruse: I had to download the existing image (from the Wikimedia Commons), edit it (with GIMP, my preferred tool to edit PNGs), and upload a similar file (to the Wikimedia Commons). Then I had to edit the image descriptions on Commons accordingly to link the two maps so that someone in the future looking at one will know that the other is available. This is reasonably advanced stuff, but now it's all done. - Jmabel | Talk 17:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks good. Much improved over the other, which Ithought was misleading, and possibly inaccurate. Thanks for dealing with it. I have no idea what you did, even though you described it, so clearly its clean up was well beyond my abilities Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Major editing incorporating other material and links

I've done a major edit here, incorporating a lot of other material and some links, etc. There is still much to be done, including a discussion of the Confederation of the Rhine, and expanding the Zollverein section. Plus other stuff. Your comments and assessments would be helpful. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

a thank you to those of you who looked at the article. I adjusted some areas where there had been comments, and added some citations. Any other comments and assessments are welcome! --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks to those of you who have gone through the article and fixed some typos etc. Could someone explain to me what is missing in the citations (they have a big red X in the box).--Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest citations with <ref> . . .</ref> (preferably with page numbers) for anything controversial and things like dates, especially things that are likely to get altered by vandals or jokers. Also, mentions of things like "recent scholarship" should provide names and references (as footnotes). I'll add a few flags to the article where I think citations etc. would be helpful (more than I would otherwise do, since you asked). Personally I like the use of templates like {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal }}, and {{Cite web}}. --Boson (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this before I left a note on your page. I did go through and fix some of the citation requests you left, and reworded, or simply took out some stuff that could be controversial. Maybe take another look? But now the system is telling me it is too long....? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the references are more than adequate for B class; so I've changed the assessment accordingly. Somebody with more experience might like to comment on higher assessments. The Germany project itself doesn't normally handle anything higher than B, though I believe projects can award "A" if there is a suitable process in place. There is also the possibility of submitting the article for approval as "GA" class, which is Wikipedia-wide. The length warning is automatic, based on a character count. I, personally, wouldn't worry about it being a bit too long, since it is an important article. If it became an issue, one could think about creating sub-articles. --Boson (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, and for helping point out where citations are needed. I know this stuff so well, I don't always see when it is confusing. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

German Civil War

I could not find a google hit for this term except on Wikipedia. I'm taking it out of the section heading but leaving it in the body of this section since someone somewhere may use this terminology to describe the war between Prussia and Austria-Hungary. Nitpyck (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

it would be typically found in German language literature, possibly not an American term. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)