Talk:Konrad Adenauer/Archive 1

Adenauer's revisionism according to User:Molobo
Lysy, you repeatedly reverted Cadorna's removal of the following statement by Molobo: "In line with traditional German policy, Adenauer refused to recognize the Polish western border and openly talked about changing the border with Poland after strengthening Germany's position in Europe." Also, you commented "Please, duscuss what bothers you instead of labelling it POV".

As anyone who knows the first thing about German history will be glad to tell you, this statement evokes a completely wrong impression. Adenauer was about the last person to be a threat to the territorial status quo per the Potsdam conference. True, he was talking about reunification within the borders of 1937 as much as anyone - but everyone in Germany and the West knew he was only paying lip service to the official doctrine; in fact, his left-wing opponents accused him of readily sacrificing the goal of reunification on the altar of integration with the West. Adenauer was a pro-Western Catholic Rhinelander who, according to a well-known cliché, couldn't have cared any less about the Asiatic, communist plains of Protestant Prussia, which, for him, started immediately east of Hanover.

If there was a "traditional German policy" refusing to "recognize the Polish western border", as Molobo sloppily calls it, then Adenauer's foreign policy was a fundamental departure from it, rather than its continuation. As polar as Adenauer and Willy Brandt may have been in other respects, Adenauer's uncompromising westward reorientation of Germany's priorities during the 1950s arguably paved the way for Brandt's renouncement of territorial claims against Poland in 1970.

Of course, Polish propaganda in the 1950s and 1960s could not possibly admit that Adenauer was harmless, as the communist government urgently needed a bogeyman in order force the restive Polish population into submission. Adenauer's image was thoroughly revised in post-1989 Polish historiography (see, e.g., the article in the new Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna).

I hope to contribute more to the article, including on Adenauer's image in Poland, before too long. For the time being, I propose to remove Molobo's statement based on propaganda vintage 1956, as it gives our readers a completely wrong idea of Adenauer's role in history and of his assessment by international historiography, thus making Wikipedia highly assailable. --Thorsten1 10:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining that. I would like to remove the POVish sounding "In line with traditional German policy" wording now. As to the rest of the sentence, I understand that you do not challenge it being true. Could it stay there until you have the time to expand the article in this (and other) aspects ? Otherwise I'm afraid it might get forgotten. --Lysy (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for accepting my explanation. "As to the rest of the sentence, I understand that you do not challenge it being true." No, I do not challenge it - but statements can be "true" and still not make much sense. To say that "Bolesław Bierut did not talk about recovering Lwów" would also "true", but about as nonsensical. "Could it stay there until you have the time to expand the article in this (and other) aspects?" Of course it can. On the other hand, if you asked my if I thought it was a good idea to let it stay I would probably say no. --Thorsten1 20:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How about adding "disputed" tag to the sentence then. Would it make you feel better ? As to whether I consider this statement nonsensical - no, I think it's quite relevant as it provides an aspect of Adenauer's profile that the Western political correctnes is not willing to accept. I have nothing agains putting it into the fuller context, though. --Lysy (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I overlooked your post due to Molobo's confused blustering. I do not think this is a case of "Western political correctness" not being willing to accept Adenauer's refusal to recognise the Polish border; it's just that the Polish border was a sideshow that few people cared about, as it was very much overshadowed by the main Cold War confrontation, both globally and between West and East Germany. From the Polish perspective, this looked completely different, especially as the unloved government was trying hard to keep the fear of revisionism alive in order to present itself as a knight in shining armour. Adenauer is certainly to blame for failing to recognise the Polish sensitivity on this matter; but accusing him of any territorial revisionism is far off the mark. Anyhow, let's see to that later. I will be glad to add a section on Adenauer and Poland that hopefully leaves nothing to be desired! ;)--Thorsten1 22:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring "traditional line". Neither Weimar Republic nor Nazi Germany respected Polish western border.--Molobo 21:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC) As to nuclear weapons: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,357281,00.html
 * Ironically enough, Nazi Germany did - if only from 1934 until 1938. Seriously, to equate the interwar border dispute, WW II, and Adenauer's foreign policy does not reveal much historical understanding. --Thorsten1 22:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Polish western border after WWII is a completely different issue than during Weimar Republic. It's difficult to spot any tradition here as these territories did not belong to Poland in the interwar period. --Lysy (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The United States brought its first nuclear weapons into the former West Germany in March 1955. The first weapons were aerial bombs, followed by artillery grenades, cruise missiles, rockets and mines. In 1957, then Chancellor Konrad Adenauer demanded that the German military also receive these modern weapons. German forces were then equipped with nuclear-compatible heavy artillery guns with a maximum range of 30 kilometers and missiles with ranges of more than 700 kilometers.

http://www.bits.de/public/policynote/pn05-3.htm "A couple of days later he went one step further by stating, that in the event of war the USA were willing to hand over nuclear weapons to the allies, for example Germany, for use by their delivery systems. Shortly afterwards Chancellor Konrad Adenauer publicly voiced interest in equipping the Bundeswehr with nuclear capable delivery systems.[13]" --Molobo 21:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

" Adenauer's uncompromising westward reorientation of Germany's priorities during the 1950s arguably paved the way for Brandt's renouncement of territorial claims against Poland in 1970." Not really. Adenauer retreated as soon as he could when he reached Moscow's ear and nothing came of it, he didn't reckognise border with Poland.I fail to see why the statement is wrong.Did any of Weimar Republic or Nazi Germany leaders accepted polish border ? And thanks for remainding us of the "Evil Polish Propganda".--Molobo 21:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Molobo, you need to work on your history as much as on your grammar and spelling. --Thorsten1 21:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thorsten are you able to refrain from personal comments ? I noticed however that history is still open for you, looking at your attack of my passage about Adenauer's pursuit of nuclear weapons.In future please check something before getting emotional. --Molobo 21:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Molobo, I am not being emotional at all. I already commented on your random Google search results on my talk page, where you dumped them first.
 * For a few weeks now, you have been disrupting, to the point of vandalising, a large number of articles on topics you obviously know little or nothing about, in a language that is often obscure and tedious to read, due to a large amount of orthographical and grammatical mistakes. You can hardly expect people not to draw their conclusions from your behaviour as a person.
 * On another note, you may want to elaborate on what you mean by the following: "Adenauer retreated as soon as he could when he reached Moscow's ear and nothing came of it, he didn't reckognise border with Poland." or "I noticed however that history is still open for you". I have no clue what you are trying to say. --Thorsten1 22:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "articles on topics you obviously know little or nothing about"Except of course knowing about Adenaur's pursuit of nuclear weapons of the Cracow trial(which you are so desperate to erase)
 * Anyway I didn't come for personal chatter, obviously you did.Excuse me but please find another partner for your games ok ?
 * --Molobo 22:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. As soon as you leave the playground. --Thorsten1 22:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Never entered it.So long and I hope in future I can discuss facts with you,not my background, personality or beliefs.--Molobo 22:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that your "background, personality or beliefs" strongly determine your selective approach to facts. That is the problem with you. --Thorsten1 23:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thorsten, please If you believe events, facts didn't take place please post so.--Molobo 00:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As I was trying to explain, the problem is not about the facts themselves, but that you use them selectively and apparently without any knowledge of their context and background. --Thorsten1 00:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As to my beliefs-I am a transhumanist,atheist and firm proponent of space exploration.I leave to your mind to connect my beliefs with my edits :) --Molobo 00:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems that being a "transhumanist,atheist and firm proponent of space exploration" does not really predestine you to work on articles about German history or Polish literature. Maybe you should try your luck with articles about transhumanism, atheism and space exploration? --Thorsten1 00:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Seeing that many articles lack basic knowledge(Wiking division for example or Adenauer) when I finish adding that basic information, I will move to those articles.So far I haven't seen much to be added in them though.--Molobo 10:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Section moved from User talk:Thorsten1
'Note: I moved the fragment below from User talk:Thorsten1, because it belongs here and where may be needed'' here to understand an ongoing edit skirmish. --Thorsten1 23:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * " he frequently inserts information that is either plain wrong such as the US giving Adenauer's West Germany "nuclear capable" weapons and Germany trying to produce nuclear weapons;"
 * Wrong info ? Not really:
 * http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,357281,00.html
 * "The United States brought its first nuclear weapons into the former West Germany in March 1955. The first weapons were aerial bombs, followed by artillery grenades, cruise missiles, rockets and mines. In 1957, then Chancellor Konrad Adenauer demanded that the German military also receive these modern weapons. German forces were then equipped with nuclear-compatible heavy artillery guns with a maximum range of 30 kilometers and missiles with ranges of more than 700 kilometers."


 * http://www.bits.de/public/policynote/pn05-3.htm
 * "A couple of days later he went one step further by stating, that in the event of war the USA were willing to hand over nuclear weapons to the allies, for example Germany, for use by their delivery systems. Shortly afterwards Chancellor Konrad Adenauer publicly voiced interest in equipping the Bundeswehr with nuclear capable delivery systems.[13]"
 * In future try to research something before attacking somebody--Molobo 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, Molobo, I do not feel the need to be lectured on German history by someone who so obviously lacks any historical training and knowledge. I'm afraid I must back down on my former speculation that you were studying at Rydzyk University. It's even worse than that: Apparently you are studying at Google University... Rest assured that West Germany has never been in control of any nuclear weapons and there was never any chance of the USA making any such weapons available to Adenauer. The nuclear weapons stored on West German territory were strictly under Allied control. --Thorsten1 20:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Lacks any any historical training and knowledge"
 * It is not me that claimed information about Adenauer pursuing nuclear capable weapons was wrong :)
 * "Rest assured that West Germany has never been in control of any nuclear weapons"
 * I see that you have problems with reading."Pursuit" isn't "control"
 * I advise you to read the report :
 * http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/cges/docs/Docs_Working_Papers_Page/Working_Paper_Carson_8-04.pdf
 * Going Nuclear: Science, Politics, and Risk in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1950'1 Cathryn Carson Department of History University of California, Berkeley
 * "During the first part of the 1950s, it is worth saying, Adenauer remained committed to a conventional defense, and in the sovereignty negotiations in 1954 he formally renounced the production of nuclear weapons on German territory. However, certain maneuvers by the government and some industrialists in siting the reactor station generated concern. Adenauer’s commitment to a conventional defense in Central Europe began to waver, we now know, around 1954 or 1955.43 With the Federal Republic then joining NATO, military and political leaders began to talk about providing nuclear-capable equipment to Bundeswehr units. Even more, after a 1956 crisis in GermanAmerican trust, Adenauer confidentially raised the idea that the Federal Republic might need to produce its own nuclear weapons. That winter, the new defense minister Franz-Josef Strauß, who had up until then been the atomic minister, negotiated a secret agreement with France on military (potentially including nuclear) cooperation.44 If military use had not been on the agenda when the nuclear venture was started, it became more problematic once it was a going concern. As much as Adenauer’s ill-famed allusions to “small” NATO nuclear weapons for the Bundeswehr, rumors of these other developments were the occasion for the nuclear scientists’ famous public intervention."
 * It seems you need to lecture this person about being wrong.He is part of University of California.Did Rydzyk open a branch there ? :)
 * --Molobo 12:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Molobo, I spent much of yesterday evening combatting your POV-stricken edits, something I have no intention of repeating today. I am going to comment on your shadow-boxing show later, however on Talk:Konrad Adenauer - as we should not scatter the discussion over too many different places. In order to enable other users to follow the argument behind conflicting edits without having to peruse the talk pages of the involved editors, any such discussions should take place strictly on that article's talk page. --Thorsten1 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

End of the part moved to Talk:Konrad Adenauer
 * Molobo, sorry for the delay. As promised, I am going to respond in more detail. "It is not me that claimed information about Adenauer pursuing nuclear capable weapons was wrong." Well, it is not me, either. After all this is a well-known fact that nobody has ever disputed. In fact, Adenauer's naive nuclear ambitions were one of the factors that caused his previously unassailable position of power to sway towards the end of his chancellorship - as it proved he was not only unaware of the implications of nuclear weapons (which he once poo-pooed as nothing but a "more advanced kind of artillery"), but also out of touch with the Cold War angst and anti-atomic consensus in German society. All this is perfectly well known in Germany, even though it may appear somewhat surprising to a young Polish student interested in space exploration and transhumanism. ;)
 * Therefore, it is not only unnecessary to post lengthy quotes, which really contain nothing beyond what is taught to undergraduates; it is also bad style. Talk pages are difficult enough to read, even without masses of text from outside sources posted to them. This is a bit like posting the Bible in full-text when you wish to refer to one of the Ten Commandments. In the future, please only add links to your sources and restrict quoting to a few key sentences or paragraphs that actually show what you are trying to show. Oh, and by the way, Cathryn Carson is a she, not a he.
 * "I see that you have problems with reading."Pursuit" isn't "control"" I don't think I have problems with reading. I think you have problems with writing, though. Let me remind you what we are actually discussing here. It is the following edit of yours: "However in line with traditional German policy he refused to reckognise Polish western border and openly talked about changing the border of Poland after strenghtening German position in Europe. [...] In 1957 Adanauer expressed desire for possesion of nuclear weapons by West Germany.An agreement was reached with USA, giving Germany possesion of nuclear capable weapons.Furthermore he pursued nuclear cooperation with other countries as a goal of being able to produce such weapons."


 * As I have already pointed out in detail, and will now point out for the final time, this edit is unacceptable for several reasons:
 * It grossly overstates the "threat" Adenauer posed to the territorial integrity of Poland. As I explained above, as far as Poland was concerned, Adenauer was a security guarantee rather than a threat - he was trying his best to establish West Germany as a country in its own right, to stall reunification, thus keeping the border issue off the agenda. In his foreign policy towards Poland, Adenauer merely echoed the consensus of the time: As per the Potsdam Agreement, a final settlement of the Polish-German border was pending until a peace conference, on which only the government of a reunified German state could have signed a binding agreement with Poland. According to the official doctrine accepted by all German parties, no border settlement could take place until an all-German government was formed. Adenauer did not push for an early reunification - which, as we know with the benefit of hindsight, was out of reach anyway, at least under conditions that anyone, including Adenauer's most vehement critics, would have been prepared to accept. Thus, he also protracted a final resolution of the border issue.
 * On the other hand, this course meant that the Polish-East German border was safely tugged away behind the Iron Curtain and never really on the agenda, until the West German public gradually "forgot" about it. This made it much easier for Willy Brandt to effectively sign away the lost territories in 1970. As I said above, the Catholic anti-Prussian Rhinelander Adenauer was definitely not "in line with traditional German policy [which] refused to reckognise Polish western border". The opposite is true - he personifies a radical departure from any previous German policy that matches your description.
 * Not only do you turn Adenauer's image upside down, you further exaggerate his anti-Polish bogeyman quality by cleverly conflating it with the issue of nuclear weapons - which brings me to the second reason why your edit is unacceptable.
 * Contrary to the impression you obviously seek to create, Adenauer did not aspire to obtain nuclear weapons in order to attack Poland, but to deter a Soviet-led invasion of West Germany, as well as to increase the overall prestige of his state. Note that the defining feeling within German society at that time was fear of a communist takeover and another war on German soil - not a desire to recover Silesia or Eastern Prussia. "In 1957 Adanauer expressed desire for possesion of nuclear weapons by West Germany.An agreement was reached with USA, giving Germany possesion of nuclear capable weapons." What are "nuclear capable weapons", then? What you are referring to were not weapons that could be developed further to become "real" nuclear weapons. We are talking about carrier rockets designed to carry American warheads in the event of an atomic war - at no point was West Germany given any independent discretionary power over nuclear weapons. That was far cry from anything that Adenauer may naively have dreamed of. In your wording, that crucial difference is conveniently ignored in order to overstate the "danger" of Adenauer.
 * The next part of your edit follows the same pattern: "Furthermore he pursued nuclear cooperation with other countries as a goal of being able to produce such weapons". The "other countries" you are mysteriously referring to were - France. Your awkwardly convoluted sentence implies that the German government actively pursued a programme to produce such weapons, and that "other countries" (i.e., France) assisted it in this. This is simply wrong: As Carson wrote (and you quoted) above, "Adenauer confidentially raised the idea that the Federal Republic might need to produce its own nuclear weapons". "Confidentially..." "raised the idea..." "might need to..." You obviously cannot know about this, as you have no clue of what Adenauer's style of government was about, but Adenauer was "raising ideas" that were never put into practice and often contradicting themselves all the time. One of the most famous Adenauer quotes is was schert mich mein Geschwätz von gestern - which roughly translates as "I don't care about the balderdash I spouted yesterday". Thus, vague ideas that Adenauer may or may not have "raised" some place, do certainly not constitute any purposeful "pursuit" of a nuclear weapons programme. And France would hardly have assisted West Germany in producing such weapons, even if, as Carson notes, there was a blanket agreement that could eventually have covered a nuclear agreement of sorts.
 * In sum, Molobo, you are showing a remarkable talent in misreading the sources you quote to bring them in line with your preconceptions, and to select and arrange single facts so as to convey an overall meaning that is not supported by facts. Many (not all!) of the things you say here or elsewhere could arguably be defended as "facts". But, as you as a student of journalism should understand, the crucial issue is how facts are selected and presented. By selectively taking some facts out of their context, and by deliberately concealing other facts, one can quite easily give the reader a completely wrong idea. This should not take place in Wikipedia, but unfortunately this is exactly what you are attempting to do. I hope now you understand better why I am not willing to accept your edits to this article and why I am generally pessimistic about our future cooperation. (I'm not the only one). --Thorsten1 23:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Lots of delusion Thorsten and conspiracy theories on your part(who knows maybe I am an agent of Rydzyk Moonbase :D) but in the end you were wrong, I was right(that he sought nuclear weapons).--Molobo 18:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC) " On the other hand, this course meant that the Polish-East German border was safely tugged away behind the Iron Curtain and never really on the agenda, until the West German public gradually "forgot" about it." Wow,what an ignorance.The question of Polish border with Germany was a hot topic throughout the postwar era, including high level meetings of USA administration...--Molobo 18:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR
I added Konrad Adenauer to  because of this reference, which talks about organizations and people who felt the Soviet Union would collapse:

Western statesmen from Adenauer to Reagan predicted the downfall of the Soviet empire.

p. 187

Signed:Travb 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links?
Should'nt there be a paragraph "External Links" in this article. The page where these come from has a large number of Adenauer related documents, as well as context documents for the time he was Chanselor.


 * Dismantling list for the western Allied forces (17 October 1947, Part of the second or of the third Industrial Plan)
 * Letter from Konrad Adenauer to Robert Schuman (26 July 1949) Warning him of the consequences of the dismantling policy.
 * Letter from Ernest Bevin to Robert Schuman (30 October 1949) Brittish and French foreign ministers. Bevin argues that they need to reconsider the Allies' dismantling policy in the occupied zones
 * Picture of demonstration against dismantling (7 June 1949) Workers in the Ruhr demonstrate against the dismantling of their factories by the Allied forces of occupation.
 * Picture: dismantling the Iron and Steel Industry ‘We want to work, we will help you to rebuild Europe' Workers at dismantled plant protest.
 * Picture: 12,000 factory workers demonstrate against the dismantling of German industry (19 August 1949)

And this teaching resource page has a number of short excerpts, such as:

Konrad Adenauer, speech in Berne (23rd March, 1949) from, Spartacus Schoolnet

 We live in disturbed times. New problems arise every day, developments never stand still. Despite the number and variety of problems, every responsible person must realize that for the present and coming generation there is now only one main problem, and it is this: the world has seen the formation of two power-groups. On one side there is the group of powers led by the United States of America and united in the Atlantic Pact. This group defends the values of Christian and Western civilization, freedom, and true democracy. On the other side there is Soviet Russia with her satellites.   The line dividing these two groups of powers runs right down the centre of Germany. Twenty million Germans live under Soviet rule, about 43 million in the orbit of the Atlantic bloc.   These 43 million Germans in the area of the Atlantic bloc possess the most important mineral deposits and the greatest European industrial potential. But this area, the three Western zones of Germany, is in a state of disorder that is in the long run untenable. Even today a very considerable part of these 43 million live in such abject housing conditions, such a state of legal bondage as may have been imaginable in the Balkans a hundred years ago but would hardly have been thought possible in central Europe for centuries.   It is impossible to understand the present condition of Germany without a brief survey of what happened after 1945. The unconditional surrender of the German armed forces in May 1945 was interpreted by the Allies to mean a complete transfer of governmental authority into their hands. This interpretation was wrong from the point of view of international law. By it the Allies in practice assumed a task which it was impossible for them to fulfil. I consider it to have been a grave mistake. They would have been unable to solve this task with the best will in the world. There was bound to be failure and this failure badly affected the prestige of the Allies in Germany. It would have been wiser if the Allies had, after a short intermediate state due to the confusion left by the war, let the Germans order their affairs and had confined themselves to supervision. Their attempt to govern this large disorganized country from outside, often guided by extraneous political and economic criteria of their own, was bound to fail. It brought about a rapid economic, physical, and psychological disintegration of the Germans which might have been avoided.   It also seems that intentions such as had once been manifested in the Morgenthau Plan played their part. This continued until the Marshall Plan brought the turning point. The Marshall Plan will remain for all time a glorious page in the history of the United States of America. But the change was very slow and the economic, physical, moral, and political decline of Germany which had begun with the unconditional surrender took great efforts to reverse.  Stor stark7 19:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Heinrich Lübke statement
Near the end of the article, it says,"Briefly considered running for the office of President in 1959. However, he instead chose a candidate (Heinrich Lübke) whom he believed weak enough not to disturb his affairs as Chancellor." Does Anyone agree or disagrees with the word weak? Kingjeff 02:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Biography - Early life
"finished his rips" - what does "rips" mean? I can't find it in Education in Germany or as an acronym. Whatever it is, please consider wiki-linking to it. --Emurphy42 18:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

IPA
Pronouncing his name doesn't seem right. Any native Germans (I only live here) concurring that the correct pronounciation would be ? clacke 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
On January 30, 2008, a user with IP 189.173.44.112 deleted an earlier picture and substituted it with a hoax, legend "Konrad Adenauer Executing Russian Partisans". The German soldier in the picture is not Konrad Adenauer.

I have never written nor edited a Wikipedia article, someone please remove this hoax. 91.64.205.164 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Last version prior to vandalism restored. 91.64.205.164 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Key Question
I had a key question not answered by this article: Was Adenauer originally put in his position by an election, by the occupation authorities, or by someone else? stancollins

He was chosen as leader of the CDU by that party's bodies (not sure of the details). He became Chancellor because the CDU and its allies got a majority in the first elected parliament. At least, that's my understanding. I think the British originally brought him out of retirement, though. john k 22:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He was elected by parliament (Bundestag) as every Bundeskanzler of the Federal Repblic of Germany did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.212.87 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Relations with Eastern Bloc Countries
This statement in the article is largely inaccurate:



The USSR was the only Eastern Bloc country that a reluctant Adenauer recognized, and then only because the Soviet Union forced the issue by refusing to release further German POWs, thus using them in effect as hostages. Until Brandt's Ostpolitik West Germany upheld the Hallstein Doctrine. In other words, it only recognized countries which acknowledged the Federal Republic as the sole German state internationally. Norvo (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Saris Marito and vandalism
This is something I do not wish to simply pass by for principal reasons. Saris Marito made some changes, he did not like to number ministries. Fine. But the edit summary "rv vandalism" is inappropriate, if not unpolite. --Ziko (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Biography introduction
Hi there,

It is absolutely normal to have birth and death dates in the first line of a biography of a dead person. But I have not found one single sample where also in the same area, the birth and death places are mentioned. I am not against adding the information, I am against the way it has been presented. Please check other biographies. If you said it is common, can you list three samples here?

I am asking the same question in the Wiki biographies project, for guidelines.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: the discussion in the wiki project biography project is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't common practice to put the places of birth and death in the lead sentence along with the dates. The infobox contains this material and generally, the first part of the early life sections will state where the person was born and the place of death will be in the portion that discusses the death. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I thought, but trying to deffend that common practice, I've been called vandal, troll, anti-german ... anyway, we are all humans! Thanks for backing me up! Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

'Chancellor of West Germany' section needs clarification
There are two claims in this section that Adenauer's rise to power came about because of historical events in East Germany and Community Hungary in 1953 and 1956 - but it doesn't say why they're connected to Adenauer. Can someone edit to clarify/expand on these claims? 205.167.180.132 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicken Tax
This anecdote had nothing to do with Adenauer. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation of surname
Isn't the final R pronounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends on where you live in Germany. Berliners as a rule always pronounce "er" as "a" (or, as you would write in English, "uh"), i. e. Adenauer becomes Adenau-a (Adenau-uh). Same with Wagner, Schnitzler, Hitler, Bellmer, Binswanger, Walter etc. --Insert coins (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Using German names
I understand the temptation to insert foreign (i.e., English) spellings into a German article, but I have learned from my studies in Wikipedia that this is not acceptable. For example, over on the Franz Josef Strauss article, the following editors—

Gryffindor

Haukur Þorgeirsson

C.Löser

Edinborgarstefan

Schubbay

Darkone

Sicherlich

Angr

Reinhard

Stern

Denniss

Carbidfischer

made it abundantly clear that using an incorrect spelling, simply because it is the "normal" English translation, is just wrong. We need to stick to correct spellings of proper names. They have been around a lot longer than me, and most of them speak German as their native tongue, so we need to listen to them. They know better than English speakers. 65.80.244.202 19:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is based on a misunderstanding of the opinion of myself (and many other people on the above list, I would guess). When there exist English translations of German words, such as Cologne which is very different from Köln, we use them. But when it is only the question of whether to use certain diacritics or transliterate them, as in Franz Josef Strauß vs. Franz Josef Strauss, we should use the diacritics as appropriate. Stefán 06:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am totally confused. You say—
 * "Cologne . . . is very different from Köln". Yeah, I can see that.  But how do you determine that "Strauss" is less different than "Strauß" than "Cologne" is to Köln? It seems quite arbitrary to me.  Demonstrate for me, please, how Strauss is closer to Strauß than Cologne is to Köln.  What quantity of differentiation is necessary for deciding whether you go with the English form or the German form?
 * One is a transliteration, the other not. And by transliteration I mean a rule such as: Take the German word and change every appearance of ß to ss, ä to ae, ö to oe, ü to ue, so that in the end only the 26 most common letters in English are used. Thus, Strauß to Strauss is a transliteration whereas Köln to Cologne is not but rather a translation. Stefán 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it could be argued that Strauss is even more different from Strauß than Cologne is from Köln, because at least the two versions of the town name both employ letters recognized in the traditional English alphabet (albeit with diacritical marks), whereas Strauß includes a letter that is not even part of the traditional English alphabet, and Strauss only uses letters recognized by English-speakers.
 * It doesn't really matter whether we say translations or transliterations result in a more different form, the point is that we can identify which is which and thus apply differnt rules to them. Stefán 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you're going to insist upon using some English forms, then why not switch it to "Joseph" instead of "Josef"? After all, German speakers do not recognize the "ph" combination as being pronounced the same way as the letter "f", do they? (I must confess, I'm only guessing about that—I don't speak any German at all.  But you get my point, n'est-ce pas?)
 * Sure, if we wanted to translate Franz Josef Strauß into English we would get something like Francis Joseph ... (I don't know how to translate Strauß). But this is not what we want to do, we want to use English translations only when they are in common use. Usually, the name Franz Josef Strauß is not translated in English texts, but it is sometimes transliterated so that Strauß becomes Strauss. The decision was to not use the transliteration. Stefán 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Cologne", I would argue, is even less suitable for usage here, since, if I am not mistaken, this is a French name for a German town that has been "adopted" into the English language. So sometimes, according to you, we must use the original German, sometimes we must use the English transliteration, and still other times we must use the French (and, I can only imagine, other languages as you come across them and mandate their usage).  Is there anywhere all these rules are explained?
 * You may have noticed that a lot of English words have the same form as French words, Cologne is one of them. The rule is to use the most common word used in English and if that is just the local word, or the local word transliterated but still in the Latin alphabet, then use the local but untransliterated. (I might add that there is a group of wikipedians who would say to use the local word but to do the transliteration first. However, if you look around on Wikipedia you will usually see the local word untransliterated.) Stefán 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, you seem like an intelligent person. I would have to believe that you're beginning to see how silly and arbitrary this compulsion of yours to use pseudo-English names in a German article really is.  I can't see any way out of this other than to use, on a consistent basis, the original German spellings of German names.  Anything else, as someone on that list said, is simply wrong.  Just as Strauß did not write his name "Strauss", people from München don't give out their address as "Munich".  65.80.244.202 06:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the English language is very arbitrary. It has just grabbed words from whereever with no real consistencey. Sometimes several words with different origin are in use for the same place. Eg. it wouldn't be very surprising to see someone speak about "friends from Köln" rather than "friends from Cologne", but probably the latter would be more common. However, it would be very surprising to hear anybody speak about "the reunification of Deutschland", the word Germany is in overwhelming use for this languages in English. Stefán 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stefán, I don't understand you. You state in your edit summary, "we should use English words when they exist and are commonly used".  Well, "Strauss" is perfectly commonly used in English.  Every book I ever saw used that spelling (though I admit, that was some twenty to twenty-five years ago that I was studying that stuff).  But don't you see?  It doesn't matter that "Strauss" is the common form in English.  It's not right.  That wasn't his name.  We robbed him of his identity by calling him Strauss.  This is our chance to change things, to set things right.  Wikipedia doesn't have to be bound to the asinine, Anglocentric rules of the past.  There is no reason that we cannot give people and places the names used by people who use them every day.  Why do you want to stand in the way of that?  I don't understand. 65.80.244.202 07:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Strauss is commonly used in English, but not because it is a translation into English, it is just a transliteration and the people who write texts perhaps don't know how to access ß on their keyboards. Of course 25 years ago it could as well have been a typewriter and then probably there was no way of producing ß. But this does not apply to Deutschland, that is not a transliteration, it is a proper translation. Therein lies the difference. Stefán 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But you are just plain flat-out wrong, too, Stefán. English spelling can and often does differ only in the diacritics.  It is a different spelling.  It isn't just Germany/Allemagne/Deutschland either.  Our Wikipedia article for another country, for example, is at Romania—no little squiggles in that article's name.  The different spellings also apply to a great many personal names which are different in English than in other languages; that is especially true for people who have lived in English-speaking countries, and for people who have published works in the English language, including translations of works from other languages—they are often best known in English, and properly so, by the spellings used in those books. Franz Josef Strauss is a prime example of the latter. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is any of the discussants German? If not, as far as I can do as a German citizen, I heartily give use permission to use English names for German cities where existing. The inhabitants of Cologne btw. are quite happily using the Latin form of their name in Carnival, singing: Da simmer dabei, dat is prima, viva Colonia, ... Sorry but I just can't understand the argument. --91.34.248.32 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Anticommunism
As far I see it,Konrad Adenauer was a anticommunist hypocrite who did not tolerate communist views in his democratic-capitalist Germany. Since 1951 he tried to ban the KPD and by 1956 he succeed in banning this political party. The KPD was no threat to the bourgeoisie democracy, yet they were banned because they supported the Stalinist GDR, and he hated the GDR.

It is wrong to see this man as pure democratic and tolerant. He was not genuine democratic. Only those who supported western style democracy and capitalism were allowed to oppose him. Left-wing people were prosecuted by his anticommunist government 1. Many were KPD members sentenced by Nazi era judges, their only crime? They were communists.2 --UDSS (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but what exactly are you ranting about? Adenauer was not fooled by Stalin, just as he had not been fooled by Hitler. This is the very reason why he became one of western Europe's major post-war figures, and the epitome of a healthy democratic understanding ( healthy meanin that you have to combat totalitarian germs somehow ). Insert coins (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

POV
I know nothing about Adenauer, but the introduction to this article appears a glowing endorsement of him. As I was linked to this page from this page from Denazification, where it says he pardoned thousands who were convicted of war crimes, I find the introduction with the (albeit sourced) 'He brought Germany prosperity, democracy, stability and respect.' definitely POV. --86.27.155.40 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * it's what the RS say. Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * However we should try to avoid it sounding like an endorsement from us. It is fair enough to say "He is generally recognised as a really great bloke", provided the refs really do support that, but we should never say anything that reads as "Wikipedia thinks he was a really great bloke", even if he was. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * well it's poor style to say "most experts think the sun rises in the east". The basic principle of Wiki is that editors report what the RS say, and the RS consensus is quite clear on Adenauer. Let's not put "Simon says" in every sentence.Rjensen (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense analogy. The introduction is clearly POV, as many articles about past leaders are.Riselikehelium (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Denazification section missing
He was opposed to denazification and integrated former Nazis as part of his government and political cabinet. He also issued amnesty for many Nazis involved in crimes during WW2.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Backup for these claims can be found within the sources cited on [Denazification] Riselikehelium (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Denazification
I added section on ending of denazification by Adenauer. This should expanded a bit with focus on government,military and business members that were endorsed or in close contact with Adenauer and who were former Nazis. One of the reasons for protests in Germany against him. German wiki btw has this information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing about pre-war and WW2 years.
There is little on pre-war years and his stance during WW2. For example the article doesn't inform on his resistance to Holocaust or Nazi atrocities in Poland-it might be useful to work on that. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Later Years Comments
From the Intro section: Removed POV, unsourced editorializing, repetition, and allegations with a pronounced leftist bent followed by non sequitur links. The subsequent points are proffered in support of removals:

(1) Adenauer was elected to govern on four occasions, he was not elected for a "willingness to abdicate." When he pledged to quit/retire/resign the chancellorship, it was forced on him because of political maneuvering and horse trading.

(2) Adenauer and CDU members of his cabinet had an antagonistic relationship with Der Spiegel (and its publisher Rudolf Augstein) - along with other media outlets critical of the governing coalition. "The Scandal" was resolved in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion (i.e., in the voting booth). No citation is offered that Adenauer gave "support for restricting the freedom of the press."

(3) Adenauer was under surveillance, was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned by the Nazis, endowing him with moral standing and perspective. His push for amnesty and integration of certain former party members had practical reasons as well as the broad consensus of political parties, officials in industry and the leading clerics of the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches in West Germany.

(4) Adenauer was a resolute anti-communist. He had no obligation whatsoever to consult East German or Polish communists over his commitments to NATO and the United States. The Western Alliance practiced business-like "alienation of the states of the Warsaw Pact” and “cool political relations” remained a fixture for essentially four decades, notwithstanding Willy Brandt‘s Ostpolitik. During his time in office, Adenauer was a solid player on the western team, and as it eventually turned out, the winning side.

TrinityGate (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing alledged POV with an agressive POV Standpoint is hypocritical. To respond to your points in question:

1) You cannot deny that there was a struggle in Adenauers later years where he vigourously prevented the rise of prospective candidates from his own party, most notably Ludwig Erhardt. That is established and generally not questioned. "Political maneuvering and horse trading" sounds POV to me and is also not uncommon in political matters. Of course he was "forced", because of his "unwillingness to abdictate".

2) Just because something was resolved in court does not mean it never happened. Adenauers involvement in the Spiegel Scandal cost him much puplicity and was very controversial. Unless you deny that the Spiegel Scandal was not restricting the freedom of the press or that Adenauer was ever in some way involved, the original statement is true.

3) Adenauer being arrested by Nazis has NOTHING to do with the stop of denazification. I get the impression you want to defend your idol from slander and want to show him in a good light. This article is not only about Adenauers personality, it is also about how he and his actions were perceived. I personally can understand Adenauers reasons for the end of denazification, and he was also supported in this by the USA. But you cannot deny that this led to a rift in German society. Politicians and industry leaders with a Nazi past alienated the German left, what among other things eventually led to the events of the German Autum, as the article correctly stated. That would still be true if Adenauer had been personally tortured by Hitler with glowing needles.

4)There you go again. "The winning team". Wikipedia is not about being right or wrong, it is about telling the truth. No one denies that Adenauer was Anti-Communist, it is just not for us to say if this is "good" or "bad". What is true is that his policies alienated the eastern states, and nothing other was stated. Relations remained cool until Ostpolitik, and that is a fact. That this does not matter because Western Germany was on the winning team is POV.

Personally i think that Adenauer was a great statesman who led his country from ruins to a great democracy that I am glad to be a part of. But this article is not about what we think of Adenauer. I will restore the content and hope this will not turn in some kind of edit war about who is "right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htews (talk • contribs) 17:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A few bullets:
 * Adenauer is not my idol, but I have immense admiration for “Der Alte.”
 * Wikipedia is not about truth, but verification.
 * I did not inject my POV into the Adenauer page - I removed the POV of others, without success it seems.
 * What appear to be the weasely “truths” here, “unwilling to abdicate ... support for restricting the freedom of the press ... apologetic attitude toward former Nazis ... generate animosity ... ” etc., are unverifiable generalizations. Some time ago, during interviews and discussions in pleasantly pleasing forums (with among others Klaus Mehnert), I cannot recall any such sweeping simplifications (my relevant notes are buried too deep to dig them out and would be OR).
 * No, I ain’t gonna start ‘some kind of edit war,’ even though I have this sneaking suspicion that I am verifiably “right.”


 * TrinityGate (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No I don't think we can say "What is true is that his policies alienated the eastern states". They were 100% alienated by the time he became Chancellor because of Stalin's opposition to the US/British policies .  The Ostpolitik was about ending that alienation, but that happened after he left office. Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * France was also part of Western block, but didn't alienate Poland for example as much as Germany did. Adenauer's appointment of people who for example praised ethnic cleansing of Polish territories to governmental positions, and didn't really change much after the war in their outlook, is a well known fact(Oberlander just for starters), even if not in line with his idolization as father of modern Germany.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A few additional points from myself:

The way I see it, Wikipedia is about verifiable truth, so lets just say we both got this point "right" :)

I would not say that the statement are unverifiable at all. I even added some sources. Look at some excerpts out of one of those sources. Its the online one, an article by the Deutsche Welle (hope you can read German, else you could google translate):

1) "Im "sozialistischen Bruderstaat" wird die Westintegration der Bundesrepublik scharf kritisiert, Adenauer gilt als "Erfüllungsgehilfe" des "US-amerikanischen Imperialismus"." "Das deutsch-deutsche Verhältnis gerät während seiner Kanzlerschaft in die schwerste Krise."

2) "Die Spiegel-Affäre um angeblichen Landesverrat einiger Redakteure führt zu einer schweren Regierungskrise, in deren Verlauf die FDP-Minister geschlossen zurücktreten."

3) "Und auch das Gerangel um seine Nachfolge wirft ein schlechtes Licht auf die letzten Amts-Monate des mittlerweile 87-Jährigen."

That was a press report from a reputable official German source that took me 5 minutes to find. As i said, i dont want to flame Adenauer, but a good article has to portray all sides, name controversies and have a neutral POV. And you must admit, overall the article portrays Adenauer s tenure in a mostly positive light, as it should be.

PS. I finally found those "signature snakes" on my keyboard, didnt know that before :)

Htews (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources have changed: Adenauer has been dead for decades; the 1989-91 eraopened eastern archives --many serious scholars have worked over the archival materials from E and W Germany, USSR, US, UK, France etc.  The listing from "Historical Abstracts" cites N=434 major scholarly books and articles in learned journals in German, English, French, Russian. New sources have become available (such as Adenauer: Rhöndorfer Ausgabe. Die letzten Lebensjahre 1963-1967. Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, Gespräche, Interviews und Reden. Bd. 1: Oktober 1963-September 1965. Bd. 2: September 1965-April 1967) as well as revisionist accounts (such as Holger LÖTTEL, "Geschärfte Wahrnehmung - Angst als Perzeptionsfaktor in der Außenpolitik Konrad Adenauers"  Tel Aviver Jahrbuch fur Deutsche Geschichte, 2010, Vol. 38, p 79-97)  Short newspaper stories by daily journalists who have not studied the new scholarship or the archival sources are no longer RS when it comes to high level interpretations of his era.  That is, he belongs to history now, not to the daily press. Rjensen (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what was your point? That the press article is lying because there now exist books? Deutsche Welle is no daily tabloid, it is Germany`s official international broadcasting agency. How on earth can that not be a valid source? Saying you cant use that as a credible source sounds like "restricting the freedom of the press" for me. Because there are already biographies and books? I would cite Deutsche Welle for an essay on Napoleon, and he has been dead longer, and there are more books about him. Honestly, I would like to see YOU come up with a reputable source that convincingly verifies your arguments, as i have done. Htews (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Major and mainstream newspapers and journals are perfectly valid Reliable Sources per wiki rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations ''News sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content. Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.'' That means they can be used-either as statement of fact or as information with attribution. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * News sources from the 1950s-1960s can be used and that is what is covered by the rule. However, news sources from 2011 are a different matter when they purport to cover events 50+ year ago. Unless there is evidence they are based on modern historical research, they are low grade resources that pale before the modern scholarship. How does the journalist know? In 1963 he could interview but in 2011 (almost) all the players are dead and so it is not a case of "reporting" at all. It is a case of popular history and the issue is whether it is based on the best scholarship or not. Rjensen (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These are your own views, not something that Wiki rules say.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki rules stress reliability and quality: WP:RS says "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible....Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." Rjensen (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

News sources from the time of the topic are very much more prone to taking sides than contemporary news, because the topic was maybe debated and fought over then, and a consensus can often only be reached later, when passion has passed. According to your logic, I could cite an press article from 1943 for a Hitler biography, but not a Deutsche Welle Article from 2009. But that is not really the issue here. I have yet to hear a clear statement from you. All you say is basically: That is not true! Your source cant be used! You never say something like: "There was no power struggle in Adenauers later years" or "Adenauer was not received worse in eastern Europe than other chancellors or other western leaders", and then find reputable sources to back such claims. We are, after all, not politicians here, and should not try to "win" :).Htews (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're assuming a free press, which was not the case in Germany under Goebbels. Current newspaper reports get their information from somewhere--but not from reporting and not from interviewing people who were there with Adenauer. Scholars tell us where they get their sources, and they critique each other if a source is misused. Further their books and articles cover much more depth than a short broadcast or clipping. That makes scholars them much better as RS on historical figures. Merkel is another matter--the full scholarship on her will take years to appear and until then we rely on journalists (who get their info from people who know what is going on.) Was there a power struggle in Adenauer's later years? Yes indeed, and we trust in the scholars to tell us because they read spend months and years reading hundreds of original documents on the matter. Was he ice cold toward the GDR and Polish governments-- yes indeed, as were people like John Kennedy. Rjensen (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Kennedy had territorial demands against Poland nor Nazis who formed ethnic cleansing plans towards Poland in his cabinet Rjensen. You are basically avoiding simple and oft described fact-that Adenauer's reinstitution of high ranking Nazis often involved in crimes in the East was harshly criticised in countries which suffered from attempted genocide by German nazis.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do not dispute the things stated in the article, what is your problem? That they are not displayed in the historical context? This is about Adenauer and how he and his actions were perceived, not about the cold war and that other leader were equally tough. The things stated generated considerable controversy, and that is why they must be named. No matter which source you use. And about the Hitler biography, non-German sources would have been equally unfitting, because it was a world war, and many countries had a clear position and a clear leaning to one or the other side. Htews (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * this page is about how to improve the article. I am suggesting the best secondary sources are available in abundance and should be used--as the Wiki Rules say--in preference to light-weight ephemeral stuff. Rjensen (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that the disputed topic has improved the article. I say that the statements written there are true. Unless you contest this and have sources to back that, I think we both reached the objective of improving the article. If no one denies that what is written is true, the source does not matter. I must add that an "Interview of people who were there with Adenauer", which you named earlier as a reliable source, would often not be of neutral POV, especially one concerning controversies. Htews (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the assertion "If no one denies that what is written is true, the source does not matter." violates Wikipedia policy, which is "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Sources do matter. sloppy low quality sources might indeed be true, but they degrade the quality here and the confidence readers have. Rjensen (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The way i see it, i write "The wall is two meters high" and cite a newspaper, and you respond with: "The wall may be two meters high, but it has to be written in a book." Sloppy quality for me is: POV, false information and ommitted critical information. I would rather have a unsourced true statement than a well sourced article that states false information. Books are written by people, people have opinions. Some bookwriters have a neutral POV, others dont. Experts can be wrong, too. A literary source is not a holy grail.Htews (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * we're dealing with nuanced politics and international diplomacy. Stuff some journalist heard in class 20 years ago many indeed be true, but we need to do better to be credible. "I would rather have a unsourced true statement"--oh?  but how do you know it's true? that's the issue.  Rjensen (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

How do i know its true? You look at the information, the different points of view, the context and then you use the method described by Clausewitz in his book to find the truth: "Hier ist es also zuerst, wo ein feiner, durchdringender Verstand in Anspruch genommen wird, um mit dem Takte seines Urteils die Wahrheit herauszufühlen." Of course everybody has a opinion, and you better have good sources to back up your claim. But if the wall is two meters high and no one doubts that, why should you measure the height of the wall? Htews (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * we don't measure the height walls here--we deal in much more invisible, subtle and complex issues with (in foreign policy) numerous different countries involved, each with its own secret reports and documents. "you better have good sources to back up your claim." indeed--and the better source is the one who has studied the material in depth AND been subject to peer review criticism. That's scholarship and Wiki emphasizes the need to use it when it exists. It exists for Adenauer (I mentioned over 400 scholarly books and articles in one guide by Historical Abstracts). Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We agree on that with sufficient research time invested, better sources could be found for the claims made. But my point is, unless someone contests the claims and is supported by reputable sources, I see no need to invest that time. If you do want to invest that time, kudos to you. I wont stand in your way if you do. Htews (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * well i think we agree that when better sources are found they should replace weaker sources. Rjensen (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Partly. When better sources are found they should join weaker sources. One strong and one weak source saying the same are stronger than one strong source. Htews (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)