Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Archive 14

Christian Wulff
There are a couple of discussions the talk page that some of you might be interested in. Kingjeff (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the discussions on the talk page is helping at all. Kingjeff (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

New portal - East Frisia
I have just added a new portal for East Frisia at this page. This joins other portals added since last October for:
 * Harz Mountains.
 * Lower Saxony
 * Schleswig-Holstein
 * Elbe-Weser Triangle
 * Saxony-Anhalt
 * Hamburg
 * North Rhine-Westphalia

All these portals (and earlier ones e.g. Bavaria) could use a couple of editors each to keep them fresh. Please feel free to join in. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg FAC
Siege of Godesberg has been nominated for Featured Article and could use reviewers. auntieruth (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ministerpräsident

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the poll. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the poll was no consensus to change anything. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am closing this debate/poll with a result of "no consensus". This means there is explicitly no authorization to enforce a change of anything away from whatever the current status quo is in either article titles or article text elsewhere, without local consensus on the article in question. This issue has used up far more time and energy than warranted by its objective importance. All participants are asked to consider stepping back from the issue and just leaving it be. There is no indication anywhere here that either the one or the other wording is factually wrong, against policy or otherwise damaging to the project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)''

Discussion
Since there are more than 2 options, does everyone agree with a Two-round system? Kingjeff (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Chl (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed Leicchaucer (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've decided to take part in the vote after all, though once more I'd like to add that I could live with either term and don't regard any of them as wrong. Bibfile (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. A vote that can do good on WP should be one based on opposition to certain terms but on actual positive agreement to one. Str1977 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't use voting at Wikipedia, we use discussion and consensus, see Voting. Furthermore, the topic of your proposed vote is a different question than the question previously being discussed at the lenghty Christian Wulff talk page and elsewhere. I do not necessarily agree that we have to use the same title for other states just because we use a particular title in the case of Lower Saxony, I think we would always need to look at what reliable sources relating to a particular office say, in any case this issue needs more discussion, not a premature vote not supported by policy on voting, discussion and consensus. Also, you cannot expect people to have read the Christian Wulff talk page in order to take part in a vote. Josh Gorand (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion was exhausted and I know at least 1 other editor is in agreement with me. What is the is the topic? Isn't this all about the most appropriate name for the Ministerpräsident? Simply put, I put down every suggestion that was mentioned. The whole reason why this is a discussion part right above the vote is to have a further discussion if any person feels they need further discussion. I don't expect people to read the Christian Wulff talk page. The reference to the Christian Wulff talk page is listed for 2 reasons. Firstly, it is there for any user who has been part of the discussion to go back and look at the discussions if they feel they need to. Secondly, any user who has not been part of the discussion can go see the discussion if they want to before they vote. Kingjeff (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the previous discussions, we only discussed Lower Saxony and looked at sources relating specifically to Lower Saxony. There may be historical reasons for Lower Saxony semi-officially using the term Prime Minister in English (it was part of the British occupation zone, and the British appointed the first heads of government in the area after the war). We haven't looked into sources relating to other states. Josh Gorand (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, hadn't thought to look there. Well, the Brits used the German Ministerpräsident (e.g. Ordinance No. 55 - Creation of the Land Niedersachsen, 1st November 1946). Meanwhile, the Americans used Minister-President (e.g. Bayerisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt Nr. 1/1946, p.2). --Dodo19 (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a shorter discussion at Talk:Prime Minister of Lower Saxony, relating to the title of the Lower Saxon heads of government. Two of the terms both have some merit, Prime Minister (being the common English term in official use in English by some German states) and Minister-President (being the literal translation, also in use in English by other German states, although not really an English term). Both should be included in relevant articles, like it was done here: Prime Minister of Lower Saxony. We have found ample evidence that the Germans use "Premier" as a less official short-hand term for "Prime Minister", and that the terms are frequently used interchangeably, I think we should primarily use the most formal term, while noting the use of short-hand terms in relevant articles. Josh Gorand (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Frequency Analysis

 * The Brandenburg Minister-Präsident Matthias Platzeck is one of the longest-serving, and thus has a relatively long history of press coverage. Here is a google news frequency analysis of the titles English-language news publications have used to describe his position:
 * Minister-president: 44 English-language hits (the last 8 are Dutch)
 * Prime minister: 56 English-language hits
 * Governor: 92 English-language hits
 * Premier: 100+ English-language hits
 * This is a "quick and dirty" analysis that includes occasional false matches, but from looking at it a small number of false matches occur in all four categories, and they don't seem to have a significant effect on the overall outcome. -- JN 466  23:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the sources (here and elsewhere) have established quite clearly that "Minister-President" is the most uncommon term in English of all possible terms, and I would say even Premier is better than Minister-President, although it's less official-sounding (it needs to be taken into consideration that journalists frequently are less precise, so Governor shouldn't be an option at all because it's formally incorrect (and unlike all the other terms, never used formally, i.e. by government publications), and Premier is frequently used as a short-hand term for Prime Minister, sometimes interchangeably as we previously established, so it's use doesn't mean Prime Minister cannot be used in more formal (like encyclopedic) contexts). But as I said before, it's not sufficient to only mention one term and ignore all the others, given the situation (multiple terms used), so I'm not really sure what we are discussing at this point. I think all terms in use that have some merit (=Prime Minister, Premier and Minister-President, but not Governor) need to be mentioned appropriately. I still think we should look at sources relating to specific states when determining which title to use. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A few points:
 * I think we can agree that it is OK to mention other names or descriptions in the article on the office, though not necessarily in the biographical article on one person who happened to hold the office. It may be sufficient to link to the article describing the office.
 * Since several German Länder have the same office, I think we really want to agree on a term for the equivalent office for all the Länder that use the term Ministerpräsident. Inconsistency would make it look as if the Länder used different titles. This should also be taken into account when looking at frequencies.
 * When it comes down to the title, I think we should ignore journalistic references and focus on established English titles in reference works or academic works.
 * President Obama might be referred to as "the President of the United States", "POTUS", "the American head of state", "the US head of government", "the commander in chief", or a number of other things. Which of these is used most often does not mean that term should be used as the article title. The same applies here. It has to be used as his normal title to count. I think "premier" may be one of the terms used to refer to the position without necessarily being used as the title for that office.
 * This straw poll may help us to reach a decision, but we need to reach a consensus not just that the chosen English term is the one used most frequently, but also that it has become established in English. If Google counts are fairly low and frequencies do not differ greatly, that would suggest that no single term has become established. In that case the German term should be used.
 * --Boson (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with several of your points here, but not entirely with all of them. While English sources seem to use at least three different terms for this office, virtually none of them use a German language term, so this shouldn't be an option in an English language encyclopedia.

As far as "premier" is concerned, I agree that it's a fairly common term referring to the position (similar to "governor") in journalistic sources, but I'm inclined to think it's not (the translation of) the formal name of the office for a number of reasons, but rather a short-hand term.

Here are some results from Google Scholar. The main finding seems to be the fact that premier and governor are both significantly less used by academic sources, compared to journalistic sources. Both Prime Minister and Minister-President are widely used by academic sources:


 * "Prime Minister of saxony": 77 results
 * "Minister-President of saxony": 56 results
 * "governor of Saxony": 21 results
 * "Premier of Saxony": 13 results


 * "Prime Minister of Lower Saxony": 80 results
 * "Minister-President of Lower Saxony": 68 results
 * "Premier of Lower Saxony": 30 results
 * "governor of Lower Saxony": 8 results


 * "Prime Minister of Bavaria": 177 results
 * "Minister-President of Bavaria": 156 results
 * "governor of Bavaria": 72 results
 * "Premier of Bavaria": 43 results


 * "Minister-President of Baden-Württemberg": 23 results
 * "Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg": 21 results
 * "Premier of Baden-Württemberg": 2 results
 * "governor of Baden-Württemberg": 1 result


 * "Prime Minister of Brandenburg": 40 results
 * "Minister-President of Brandenburg": 29 results
 * "governor of Brandenburg": 14 results
 * "Premier of Brandenburg": 10 results


 * "Minister-President of Hesse": 34 results
 * "Prime Minister of Hesse": 27 results
 * "governor of Hesse": 12 results
 * "Premier of Hesse": 11 results


 * "Minister-President of North Rhine-Westphalia": 69 results
 * "Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia": 44 results
 * "Premier of North Rhine-Westphalia": 14 results
 * "governor of North Rhine-Westphalia": 9 results


 * "Minister-President of Rhineland-Palatinate": 34
 * "Prime Minister of Rhineland-Palatinate": 15
 * "Premier of Rhineland-Palatinate": 6
 * "governor of Rhineland-Palatinate": 3


 * "Prime minister of Thuringia": 13
 * "governor of Thuringia": 8
 * "Minister-President of Thuringia": 5
 * "Premier of Thuringia": 4


 * "Minister-President of Schleswig-Holstein": 32
 * "Prime Minister of Schleswig-Holstein": 29
 * "governor of Schleswig-Holstein": 14
 * "Premier of Schleswig-Holstein": 13

These sources establish that overall, in academic sources, the most used terms are, in the following order:
 * Prime Minister (523)
 * Minister-President (506)
 * Governor (162)
 * Premier (146)

I think it's clear that Prime Minister is an established term, used by both academic and English language journalistic sources, as well as authoritive/government sources (as previously established).

Minister-President is also used by other authoritive/government sources (as previously established) and by academic sources, but less frequently by journalistic, English language sources, given the fact that it's not really an English term. Also, some of the academic authors using the term may be non-native speakers. I would like to stress once again that Prime Minister and German Ministerpräsident have exactly the same meaning, i.e. the one heading the government, the first of the ministers - Prime Minister just happens to be the common English term and Ministerpräsident happens to be the common German term, also used when referring to the PMs of foreign countries in German.

Premier and Governor are both frequently used by journalistic sources, but seldomly by academic sources, and seldomly/never by authoritive/government sources. Josh Gorand (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Usage by the German state governments

 * Lower Saxony - the state government uses Prime Minister consistently in English (also note that the PM is a native English speaker)
 * Bavaria - the state government uses Prime Minister in English - also note that native English speakers are responsible for the contents of their English language website
 * Saxony - the state government uses Prime Minister in English
 * North Rhine-Westphalia - as we established, they use Prime Minister and Premier interchangeably
 * Baden-Württemberg - the state government uses Minister President/Head of Government on their English language website, although the material on the state government only comprises a few paragraphs and does not indicate it was written by a native speaker
 * Several states (like Hesse, Thuringia, Saarland...) don't seem to have English language websites. Josh Gorand (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Hesse and Thuringia don't seem to have English language websites (which surprises me a little, especially in the case of Hesse), but for most other you'll find that they exist:
 * Saxony-Anhalt : Minister-President
 * Brandenburg : Minister-President
 * Mecklenburg-Vorpommern : Minister-President
 * Saarland : Prime Minister
 * Schleswig-Holstein: : Minister-President


 * I would also like to point out that being a native speaker does not automatically qualify you as a translator (as Josh Gorand seems to imply for David McAllister, who may or may not have been marginally involved in the translation of his government's website), and in any case, even a translator who is a native speaker would very likely consult their customer about their preference if they come across a term that can be translated several ways, such as 'Ministerpräsident'. So what we've got here is essentially a list of the preferred translations of the respective governments for their promotional and service websites. However, this could certainly give us another hint which term to use, but it's rather inconclusive, isn't it? Bibfile (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not entirely inconclusive. It demonstrates that two terms, Prime Minister and Minister-President, are widely used by the German state governments in English, while terms such as "Governor" and "Premier" are (almost) not used at all. I'm fully aware that the usage of the German states alone cannot determine English language usage, but it's, inter alia, a factor in the decision. The fact that Prime Minister is widely used by them, undermines the previous, unsourced claim that Prime Minister is somehow "incorrect" (I wouldn't say any of the terms are "incorrect", except for Governor, this is a matter is which term is the best translation for the common term for a head of government).


 * Looking again at the journalistic sources: They demonstrated that Prime Minister was one of the widely used terms, while Minister-President was the most uncommon of all four terms (Prime Minister, Premier, Governor, Minister-President).


 * This means that Prime Minister is one of the two terms widely used by German state governments in English, in addition to being the most common term in academic sources, and one of the widely used terms in English language journalistic usage.


 * The other term, Minister-President, is used by some German states (but note that the oldest states, like Saxony and Bavaria, all use Prime Minister). However, this fact alone doesn't make it an established English term, and we did establish that it was the most uncommon term in English language journalistic sources. The usage of the state governments carries significantly more weight if the usage is also supported by other sources in English.


 * In short, Prime Minister and Minister-President are both supported by government sources to the same degree, but Prime Minister is supported by significantly more English language third party sources (particularly journalistic sources). Prime Minister is also the most common term in academic sources. This leads me to the conclusion that the term Prime Minister, as the most common English term, should be preferred per WP:COMMONNAME: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources". Josh Gorand (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

First round vote
Note: There is a discussion ongoing and no consensus on having a vote now. Josh Gorand (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Minister-President

 * 1) Kingjeff (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Dodo19 (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Bermicourt (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Jared Preston (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Bibfile (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) auntieruth (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister

 * 1) Str1977 (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Out of respect for the choice at the individual articles, but Minister-President should be included once parenthetically in the text to give readers the link. -Rrius (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) CGN2010 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC) (created the NRW list)

Premier

 * 1) Leicchaucer (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Judging from a short search on GNews, I think "premier" is used more often and as such we should use it as well (as the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME tells us to). Regards  So Why  08:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Chl (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Minister-President

 * 1) Kingjeff (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Jared Preston (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Bermicourt (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Bibfile (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Cs32en   Talk to me  21:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Leicchaucer (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Dodo19 (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As the first round of voting ended after one week (despite my protests), the second round must also have ended after one week (21 July). This vote is hence invalid. (I don't think the vote as such is valid at all for reasons stated elsewhere - for which reason I refused to take part in it). Josh Gorand (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister

 * 1) Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Chl (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) CGN2010 (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Str1977 (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) -- JN  466  20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments
You are welcome to voice your opinion, but there is no reason to unilaterally start yet another non-valid "vote" without any consensus while the discussion is ongoing (and in case we should at some point use such a non-binding poll (after we are finished discussing and looking at sources), we should give it more time). It would be better if people took part in the discussion. An opinion supported by arguments and/or sources carries more weight. We are really making progress in the discussion above. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I also note the repeated attempts to delete/move this comment to an irrelevant section, which makes this unilateral, premature and non-valid "vote" seem even more dubious. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no one correct answer so discussion will never produce one. There might as well be a vote. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But we are not finished discussing. We only recently (a few days ago) started looking at sources and documenting the actual usage in English and by the various states. Also, see Voting. We usually don't "vote" at Wikipedia. A "vote" doesn't carry any special authority over discussion. We may use a strawpoll as a tool in the discussion, to achieve a solution, but a unilateral "vote" (without any consensus to have a vote) before the discussion and documention of the usage is of little relevance. This "vote" was started in great haste before any discussion had taken place, and without any proper discussion and consensus to have a vote. Josh Gorand (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few points I would like to make:
 * 1. While it is true that one user only started looking into the actual usage a few days ago, others have done so before and provided links where discussion took place then.
 * 2. This vote arose out of our failure to achieve consensus at Talk:Christian Wulff and was briefly discussed there. One user only registered his opposition to the vote a few days after it had been started. Apparently he was too locked in trading insults with another user at the time to notice where the discussion was going.
 * 3. While a vote (or straw poll, or opinion poll, pick your own term) doesn't carry any special authority over discussion, it can serve as a tool for finding consensus. Still, discussion requires a number of people prepared to discuss and consider sources on their merits and not just whether they support their own argument or not.
 * That's that. Bibfile (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know who this alleged user should be. I'm the one who has contributed reliable sources the most in both this discussion and previous, related discussions, while certain other users don't seem to be concerned with reliable sources at all. The discussion at Talk:Christian Wulff has nothing to do with the subject of this alleged "vote". The Wulff talk page dealt with the title of the Lower Saxon PMs and didn't look into usage in other states to any particular degree. That talk page established that the title of the head of government was Prime Minister in the case of Lower Saxony per Reliable sources. The topic of the discussion was not the use of uniform titles for all states either. Wikipedia titles and terms are determined by reliable sources, not by the opinion of those who are not concerned with sources (WP:COMMONNAME and other policies). So a vote that has no regard for reliable sources, because it was started before the discussion and before the relevant sources were found, is basically worthless, and is certainly not a consensus-finding tool, but rather a tool to obstruct the discussion. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Few people but you seem to be convinced that the Wulff talk page established Prime Minister as the title of the head of government. There were a number of reliable sources establishing different terms and a difference of opinion remained which has not been resolved so far. That discussion did spill over into finding a consistent term for all German Ministerpräsidenten and led to the vote and discussion we have here.
 * From the beginning, I have been sceptical about the vote's chances to establish a consensus as long as there are editors who can only see their own side of the argument, who are only prepared to accept their own prefered term as the consensus, and who can only regard their own sources a reliable and valid, and unfortunately my scepticism seems to have been justified. Bibfile (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let me reiterate, and partially add some more sources:
 * The Lower Saxon state government consistenly uses Prime Minister in English.
 * Google News Archive returns 2,670 results for lower saxony "prime minister" and 470 for lower saxony "minister-president" – or, if you want, 114 for "prime minister of lower saxony" and 42 for "minister-president of lower saxony"
 * Google Scholar returns 1280 results for "prime minister" "lower saxony", 417 results for "minister-president" "lower saxony", or, if you want 80 results for "prime minister of lower saxony" and 68 for "minister-president of lower saxony"
 * In short: The situation is that one term is the term used officially and consistently in English by the state government, it is the term used by most English language third party sources, both journalistic sources and academic sources. Still, someone apparently insists on Minister-President? Wikipedia policies such as WP:COMMONNAME actually determine which title we have to use in this case, further discussion and votes wouldn't be needed after we established these facts, in this particular case. I wonder how it is possible to claim that these sources don't establish that Prime Minister is the title of the head of government in Lower Saxony in English per Wikipedia policies. It's similar to starting a vote on Barack Obama's talk page to have his title changed to Governor.
 * As I have said before, it's not sufficient to just say that you hold a particular position, you have to back it up with reliable sources that prove you are correct and that prove your position is supported by Wikipedia policies (such as commonname, and others). It's not the personal opinions of Wikipedians, it's the opinions of the (majority of the) sources, that matter. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for once more proving my point. You have conveniently (for yourself) neglected to mention a few sources that do not support your view, such as (just as examples):
 * the translation of the Lower Saxon constitution kindly provided to us by the Parliament of Lower Saxony []. Before you start again, I am aware that the constitution is originally written in German, but the translation being published by the institution which made that constitution gives it at least as strong a claim of being official as the government website you frequently cite as your 'official' source.
 * sources that document the term 'Minister-President' being used by native speakers of English in an official context, such as [], [] and []
 * I'm not going to mention all the sources that were used in the Talk:Christian Wulff discussion and which you have either ignored or tried to dismiss before. They are there for everyone to see.
 * And before you say that these sources don't prove that 'Minister-President' is the 'correct' term: I'm not trying to. I only want those sources considered as well, instead of somebody merely insisting that their sources and their interpretation are the only reliable ones. Bibfile (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The consistent, actual usage in English by the government (even by the native speaker Prime Minister) carries more weight than an unofficial translation of the state constitution, written by some low-ranking bureaucrat. If you don't see why, I don't know where to start. Also, the constitution is a primary source in any event. An unofficial and obscure translation of a primary source is even worse. Also, you continue to ignore the fact that English language reliable sources (secondary sources) overwhelmingly use Prime Minister. So what you've got boils down to an unofficial, obscure translation of a primary source document that few people have payed much attention to, notably the state government doesn't consider it important (the actual state constitution doesn't say anything about the English language title, so this is really up to the government and to the users of the English language). How about coming up with some reliable sources for a change? Josh Gorand (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Once more, all we get from you are assertions that you're right, everybody who happens to disagree with you is wrong, and that sources not graciously supporting your argument are worthless.
 * Are you sure you wish to call the translation of the constitution provided by the parliament of Lower Saxony [|here] unofficial and obscure, as opposed to the governtment's promotional and service website? And can you prove that that translation has been made by some low-ranking bureaucrat and the government website hasn't?
 * Quoting from WP:PRIMARY: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."
 * I should think that the translation can be regarded as reliably published, coming from the body which made the original constitution, and all that is needed for determining the term used for the head of government is the ability to read English, not any act of interpretation that requires specialist knowledge, so it should be in line with wikipedia policy concerning primary sources to at least consider said tranlation. You've got no monopoly on interpreting wikipedia policy guidelines, you know, and hauling them out at every available opportunity carries the distinct danger that other people might read them as well.
 * I am in no way implying that your sources are weightless and worthless, but if you were genuinely trying to build a consensus you would at least stop and consider before you dismiss anything that does not support your argument out of hand. Reaching a consensus does not necessarily mean everyone, or a majority, coming round to your view, but I think it still could, if you discussed instead of bulldozing over any source that doesn't support your view. Bibfile (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Listen, I'm not the only one who has pointed out (Talk:Christian Wulff) that the (unofficial) translation of the state constitution is of little relevance when it comes to the question of translating Ministerpräsident. Thanks for citing WP:PRIMARY, which points out why primary sources always need to be supported by reliable secondary sources - I suppose the same is true for approximate translations of primary sources. I have already proved that the Prime Minister himself consistently uses the title Prime Minister in English (both on the government website and in interviews) - so yes, I can prove that this title is not the invention of a low-ranking bureaucrat. Of course, you already knew this.


 * I have no problem with "considering" the translation you have provided, but considering also means taking the other sources into account - such as the actual usage by the government, and usage in English. The translation is provided by the administration of the parliament (it's not in itself an act of parliament) as a guide to English speakers who want to familiarize themselves with the structure of Lower Saxon politics. But it is not an authoritative document, the only authoritative document is the German original. The translation didn't aim at establishing an English language title for the Lower Saxon Prime Minister - in any case a bureaucrat working for the parliament administration would have no authority to do so. We are discussing the title of the head of government. The parliament has never said anything about his English language title The head of government (and his administration) himself uses the title Prime Minister consistently. This is the actual usage. It's also supported by most third party English language sources. It carries much more weight than a translation that is both unofficial and obscure (proven by the fact that not even the government is aware of it). You are saying that a bureaucrat working for the administration of the parliament (low-ranking or not) has more authority than the elected Prime Minister of the state and the state government, and the majority of English language sources. Josh Gorand (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And once more you made it clear that you are not prepared to consider any sources that do not support your view.
 * Yes, you haven't been the only one who has denied the validity of the translation as a reliable source, but neither have I been the only one who has dared to disagree with you. The translation has apparently been commissioned by the Lower Saxon parliament and is officially available on its website. And, if you had read WP:PRIMARY, my quote, and what I wrote afterwards, closely and with an open mind, you would have found that interpretation of a primary source requires a reliable secondary source. Could you please explain where interpretation comes into reading the article where the head of government is mentioned?
 * And no, you cannot prove that the government website has not been translated by a 'lowly bureaucrat'. All you can prove is that David McAllister, who is bi-lingual, has used 'Prime Minister'. As Mr McAllister is not a translator, is unlikely to have been involved in the translation of the page before he took office, and hopefully has better things to do than getting closely involved now, he may have actually just been following the usage that has been coined in the translation that already existed (which may have been made by a 'lowly bureaucrat' or a qualified translator). I am not denying that 'Prime Minister' may be an acceptable translation, but its usage by the state government is no proof that it is the best translation for our purposes, which is what we are looking for here.
 * I am not denying that the mass of sources you have assembled to back up your argument could point us in the direction that your preferrence might be the best possible translation. However, mere mass isn't everything, there are still other options available, and there remain a number of other sources which should be considered and evaluated (and which a number of editors have attempted to do against your resistance) before we can reach a consensus, though I doubt that anything like that can be achieved as long as one editor makes it abundantly clear that he is not prepared to accept any solution but his own and who seems to think that consensus-building is the same as brow-beating everyone else into coming round to his point of view, and be it it only because his stubbornness is driving them into exasperation.
 * Given that I am obviously trying to argue with a wall, I will try to it a rest now, for the moment, but that does not mean that I am going to quit this discussion. Bibfile (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just spoke to the administration of the Parliament of Lower Saxony and pointed out that the State Chancellery prefers the term Prime Minister as the English translation of Ministerpräsident. They said they will correct the English translation of the state constitution shortly, to use the term Prime Minister. As I have said before, this translation is an unofficial document, and when the literal translation was used initially, it was not the result of a political or very thorough decision. The parliament administration completely agreed that the translation should use the same title in English as used consistently by the state government. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but still not a match: You have presented no proof whatsoever that you HAVE actually spoken to the administration in the Lower Saxony Legislative Assembly. Do you have any names? If so, how can we contact them? Unfortunately, without any proof, your statement is just that: a statement, an assertion - not backed up by any evidence. So for all we know, you may be economical with the truth. That is probably one of the most insidious tactics I've seen on Wikipedia.Leicchaucer (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion has established the following facts in recent days:
 * Prime Minister is the most common term in English language academic sources (when referring to German states), followed by Minister-President, Governor and Premier, in that order
 * Prime Minister and Minister-President are both used by German state governments to roughly the same degree, while the terms Premier and Governor are almost not used at all
 * Prime Minister is far more common than Minister-President in journalistic sources and other general sources (Minister-President was the most uncommon term of all four terms)
 * Relevant policy may be found here: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources" (not "we ignore the sources and just start a vote, without looking into the sources"). Relevant policy regarding voting is found here: NOT. This is a clear case of the use of a poll that "impedes rather than assists discussion". A non-binding straw poll could be ok as a consensus-finding tool after we were finished discussing and had looked into the sources, not before. Straw polls cannot be started unilaterally (who decided we should have a straw poll? who decided each round of voting should last only one week? these matters need to be agreed upon by consensus first. The proper procedure would be to propose a straw poll, then wait at least a week for consensus on this to be achieved (you cannot expect people to read this discussion every day). I would of course have opposed such a proposal until we were finished with the discussion and until we had looked into relevant sources - like the usage by the various state governments (not just Lower Saxony) and the academic usage/other relevant frequency analyses). Josh Gorand (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we agree that there is consensus on the following?
 * Both "prime minister" and "minister-president" are possible candidates, though we do not have agreement on which of the two is the best choice.
 * Other English alternatives need not be considered further.
 * --Boson (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the sources have, in the last couple of days, established that Premier and Governor (and other terms than Prime Minister and Minister-President) are not supported by the sources to the necessary degree. The sources have also established, though, that Prime Minister is supported by more sources (particularly third-party English language sources) than Minister-President. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Josh Gorand has forced us to pick one or the other. Kingjeff (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And in doing so, we need, of course, to look at the sources and what they say. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Josh here. Where we have a choice between two equally common "official terms", we should pick the term that is more common (1) in scholarly and (2) in journalistic sources written in English. -- JN  466  14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is exactly right, JN.
 * What Kingjeff says is wrong - it is not Josh who has "forced" anyone "to pick one or the other" - it is necessity. Everyone seems to agree that it is better to use one term for the office throughout WP and not content ourselves with using one term for the Lower Saxon office alone or to leave it up to individual articles or sentences to chose. The discussion is merely about which term to use, not about whether to pick one term. Str1977 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually talking about Josh Gorand POV pushing. He wants it his way. Kingjeff (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are others who want it just as badly their way. Str1977 (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. Josh Gorand tops the list in this discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At this time I think we are all aware that you are unable to contribute productively and civilly to the discussion. I have no interest in listening more to your pathetic personal attacks, so I'm going to ignore you from now on. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (@Kingjeff) Er, speak for yourself. And please stop moving other editors' comments around in a manipulative way that changes their meanings. You are not authorized to touch other people's comments in any way. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And you can be an authority? Kingjeff (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please both stop your quarrelling?
 * I grant you, Kingjeff, that Josh has a certain obstinacy that can be hard to deal with so far as he very strongly sticks to his views and doesn't let go. (And I can say that, I have been opposite him on other issues.) But he still doesn't deserve all that demonising he gets. He is not forcing (as you first claimed) anyone to pick one or the other - the issue does that - and he isn't the biggest POV pusher by far (as you then claimed) - FTM it wasn't Josh who created a POV fork in favour of his own preferred English term and he also is not engaging in nonsense arguments about alleged substance reasons for this or that term (but he has been the victim of many) - that he doesn't participate in the vote is his right and choice as long as he sees fit.
 * Nor did he claim any special authority but simply complained that you, Kingjeff, moved around comments. Str1977 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He didn't need to directly say it. His conduct I think makes this clear. The moving around of comments is justified. We have both comments and a vote going on. Nobody needs to go fishing for comments. I think he is forcing. I never said he had to participate in the vote. But he's trying to convince others not to vote which I don't think he has that right. Each user on Wikipedia has the right to choose whether he/she decides to cast a vote. Kingjeff (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You did something, he complained. That has nothing to do with special "authority". Everyone has the natural authority to complain. And yes, Josh also has the right to convince others not to vote - his attempts seem unsuccesful to me - just as others have the right to persuade others otherwise. And actually the right to persuade others is part and parcel of their right to decide. Str1977 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I know it doesn't give him any special authority. I just don't think Josh Gorand knows that. I don't think he has a right to convince others that they shouldn't vote. I am under the opinion that Josh Gorand is a trying to manipulative. Kingjeff (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But still you keep on beating your drum. Telling you off (right or wrong) does not give Josh special authority nor does it involve claiming such an authority. He never made such a claim and hence insisting that he thinks so is both pointless and uncivil. So are your accusations of him being "manipulative". I don't see Josh scheming anywhere but rather very forcefully beating his drum (as misguided as you think it might be). A manipulator would act differently. Str1977 (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving on, a summary of my point thus far
The discussion has thus far established that Prime Minister is supported by more sources than Minister-President, both scholarly and journalistic English sources. This is uncontested. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagreed. We have done a google survey which shows Prime Minister and Minister-President are used equally (within statistical error). And how credible are those sources anyway? A more accurate summary might be that both Prime Minister and Minister-President are commonly used and that opinion here is more or less equally divided between the two. So we need to agree a different logic (other than statistical usage) in order to select which Wikipedia will prefer. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. And there is also the question of whether Minister-President should have a hyphen. Usually we don't transfer the hyphen from German to English because it's a product of the German spelling reform; wasn't the original German word Ministerpräsident? After all Prime Minister doesn't have a hyphen! --Bermicourt (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Josh Gorand, this looks like a summary of your opinion on the topic. Not of the overall discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a summary of the sources produced in this discussion thus far (and not of the unsourced "opinions" of various users). If you believe it's not what the sources say, then show us the sources that prove your claims. Without sources, your arguments don't carry any weight. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. We've been asked to stop bickering and you come up with this latest comment. If the summary you provided was the actual summary like you led others, who are not familiar with the discussion, to believe, then none of the current participants would be here right now discussing this. Kingjeff (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are your sources? My summary stands until you come up with some sources. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Google showed that Prime Minister was significantly more used than Minister-President in journalistic and general sources. For instance:
 * "prime minister" "lower saxony": 27 900 web results
 * "minister-president" "lower saxony": 4 990 web results
 * "lower saxony" "prime minister": 1,010 Google News Archive results
 * "lower saxony" "minister-president": 240 Google News Archive results
 * I looked at other states which showed the same pattern. So instead of making unsubstantiated claims, come up with some sources and some links. We are not looking at "opinion here", we are looking at the sources, which show three things:
 * Prime Minister and Minister-President are used by academic sources to roughly the same degree (Prime Minister received slightly more results)
 * Prime Minister and Minister-President are used by government sources to roughly the same degree
 * Prime Minister is used by significantly (X 4 in the case of Lower Saxony, similar results for other states) more journalistic (News Archive) sources (and web sources, although the web search is less reliable - the News Archive search is pretty reliable though).
 * In determining English language usage, the English language journalistic sources are very helpful. Unlike many of the government sources and even a good proportion of the academic sources, they are all written by native speakers and the archive is also much bigger. Josh Gorand (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My "unsubstantiated claim" and "opinion" was in fact based on your own post above which gave the results of your google survey as follows:

Prime Minister (523) Minister-President (506) Governor (162) Premier (146) But these are only google hits - a very unreliable method. Nor do I agree that journalists - especially non-native-English speakers - are an authority on translation. Like I said you need to find a better logic or leave it alone and get on with more important things as Knepflerle suggests below.--Bermicourt (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You left out the sentence immediately preceding these results, that said: "These sources establish that overall, in academic sources, the most used terms are, in the following order". If you want to take part in this discussion, then read the discussion carefully. These are not "Google hits" and especially not "only Google hits" or a "Google survey" These are Google Scholar results (and very reliable btw.). I have already explained time and again that the terms are used to roughly the same degree in academic and government sources, while Prime Minister is far more common in journalistic and other sources. Please cite some sources to back up your claims that Minister-President is equally common in general and journalistic sources, you haven't cited any, only misrepresented the sources I cited. My summary of the sources cited so far still stands. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You contradict yourself. I make no claim. I am simply quoting your figures which show the 2 terms as equally common (within 3% - hardly statistically significant) - so you are arguing against yourself. That said, I am not convinced that a simple hit count is sufficient, nor that Google Scholar is yet as authoritative as you claim - see Google Scholar. Recognise that both terms are sufficiently prominent that there is no clear consensus and either drop the debate or find a better argument. This one is going nowhere! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it you have no sources then. No, I have not said, and the sources have not shown, that the terms are "equally common". This is utter and complete nonsense. The sources have shown that in 2 areas (scholarly and government usage), the terms are equally common, while in the third, equally important area, journalistic usage (note that Wikipedia articles are based primarily on secondary sources, such as journalistic sources), there is an overwhelming preference for Prime Minister (like X 4 compared to Minister-President in the case of Lower Saxony). So the sources show that overall, Prime Minister is far more common than Minister-President in English. I concede that Minister-President is a possible translation (and that both Prime Minister and Minister-President are "correct"), but note that Wikipedia articles use the most common English term. In this case, we have two "correct" terms (supported by scholarly and government usage), of which one is much more common in the English language (English language secondary sources). The basis for the conclusion is found here: WP:COMMONNAME. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to be very careful when using Google statistics, particularly for journalistic sources. For instance, I don't think we should look at statistics like Google results for "prime minister" "lower saxony". 27.900 looks impressive but includes texts referring to the the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the former Minister President of Lower Saxony, Gerhard Schröder, i.e. texts that actually support the opposing view. When you discount the irrelevant statistics I don't think the Google statistics are sufficient to decide between "prime minister" and "minister president". We must also be increasingly aware of journalists copying Wikipedia usage. It is probably no longer sufficient to use "-wikipedia" and use the plus-sign for the actual text. --Boson (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very well aware of these concerns. Therefore I have included (see above) searches like "prime minister of lower saxony", which also showed that Prime Minister was much more popular than Minister-President. I.e., the pattern was the same. The sources cited on this page have so far demonstrated that Prime Minister is significantly more common than Minister-President in the English language. If someone disagrees, he needs to cite sources. It should be unnecessary to point out for the 100th time that we are not relying on "a Google search", we are relying on searches in 1) Google Scholar, 2) Google News Archive (these are both among the leading databases in their fields), 3) Government websites. All these sources are very reliable when it comes to 1) academic usage, 2) journalistic usage and 3) government usage. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know which google search is more reliable but both yield that "Prime Minister" is more common than "Minister-President". Granted one has a tiny margin and might very well turn out differently but the result of the other is overwhelmingly clear. Put together, this points us towards using "Prime Minister". Str1977 (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is the results of thorough searches in three different areas (scholarly literature, government usage and journalistic publications) together that establish that Prime Minister is the most common term. When the terms come out as roughly equally common in scholarly literature and government usage, the overwhelming preference for Prime Minister in journalistic usage becomes the deciding factor (Google News Archive is an enormous database of quality reliable sources spanning decades). Josh Gorand (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Overkill
What utterly disproportionate overkill this discussion and voting is for the translation of one word - just scan back through this discussion, then read colour of the bikeshed.

Look at it from the point of the reader, which is always the most important viewpoint to consider. Writers use both terms frequently, on the assumption they are both understood by readers. Readers are, to a good approximation, pretty much equally likely to come across either, and understand either. So whichever term we use, roughly the same number of people will understand it. If it doesn't make an appreciable difference to our readers' understanding, there's no point arguing about it whatsoever.

Use either, or both, or whatever the respective Land's website uses - whichever you pick, it'll make next-to-no difference. Carry on arguing at length if you wish, but don't deceive yourselves that it's for the benefit for readers. Knepflerle (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have a problem with just using the terms used in English by the state governments. I never said we needed a uniform term and a "vote". Josh Gorand (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving on, a summary of my point thus far 2
The numerous sources cited in this discussion have thus far established that Prime Minister is supported by more sources than Minister-President. While the terms were used to roughly the same degree by government and academic sources, journalistic sources (WP:RS secondary sources) in the English language showed an overwhelming preference for Prime Minister. These facts are uncontested (in order to contest it, it is necessary to produce sources that prove these findings wrong). Nothing in the previous summary section challenged these results. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's just nonsensical. Just another personal theory of yours. First of all, there is no overwhelming consensus (contrary to your suggestion). Secondly, the term "Premier" is equally preferred - Wikipedia does not distinguish between "official" and journalistic terms. That's an artificial divide you have chosen to create. All you do is avoiding the reality that the facts are against your theory. As it happens, most sources contradict your ridiculous and, frankly, obnoxious claim. Prepare to be contradicted some more, my dear. Are you even a native speaker of English or at least bilingual? If not, I suggest you defer to the judgment of those who can fluently speak both languages and are familiar with both terms. Leicchaucer (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@Josh Gorand. Looking through all the above,you haven't provided any credible evidence at all for that claim. Your so-called scholarly sources are Google Scholar hits (and note Google Scholar) that show the 2 terms are used equally. The "sources" you are now relying on for support simply link to google searches, which are of dubious value as Boson clearly articulated above. Anyway I thought we were voting on this and the votes so far are pretty evenly split. I suggest we can this futile debate and accept for now that both terms are acceptable. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have created the original NRW list (as Prime Ministers) and thats how I got note of this discussion. I havent gone through all the arguments, but I have seen someone's thought on the reason for this discussion: people being unhappy with the wikipedia translation (one way or the other). To me it seems, that some people regard "Minister-President" as a sort of a downgrade (to the level of a Belgian language Region: to me, the article Minister-President has no real value other than that). "Prime Minister" on the other hand seems to be sort of an upgrade (to the level of a sovereign state), a fact other people dont feel happy with. Dont know if this helps, but i think this discussion shouldn't be about which translation is more offical. CGN2010 (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. There is neither an upgrade nor a downgrade in either term, there is however a downgrade in continuing this pointless discussion, which had died down but which you now have revived, as Kingjeff and Leicchaucer immediately jump to the fray. Str1977 (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

CGN2010, where in the world is a Prime Minister a head of a government that is not a national government? This is one issue I have with Prime Minister. Kingjeff (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "prime minister" has nothing to do with national governments, there national governments without prime ministers, there are state governments with prime ministers. Please stop! And also, please stop your personal attacks!! Str1977 (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you give examples? Are there actually any Prime Ministers anywhere in the English-speaking world, or are the Prime Ministers you refer to approximate translations of their titles in other languages? The only example for a non-independent state I can think of is the (historical) Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, otherwise I only know of Premiers, First Ministers, Chief Ministers, etc., anywhere with English as an official language. Bibfile (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the English-speaking world? Or in the English language?
 * In the English-speaking world I have found any sub-national offices that had Prime Minister as an offical title but a. I haven't really been looking, b. you have found one (Northern Ireland), c. that is not the point. You have claimed that PM would suggest national sovereignity - a big claim - and have produced zero evidence. (And and "First minister" is the exact translation of "prime minister", so is "premier".)
 * As for the English usage in reference to non-English-language offices (actually our topic here), there is evidence. And actually, Josh has already provided it for the exact same office we are talking about.
 * No matter whether English or non-English, our article [|Prime minister] at least suggests that the term can be used for the position quite widely. Whether it's the official term or not, the list includes the Isle of Man (English-speaking and not a sovereign state). Since the official term in our case is obviously German, we cannot use it and have to settle for an English equivalent.
 * Str1977 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I have never made the sovereignty argument. But I've read it several times, and I've seen you refute it several times, without giving any sources, either. I was asking for English-speaking countries, because practice in English-speaking countries could actually be relevant if we want to find an unambiguous title translation for use in the English wikipedia. It is generally avoided to use Prime Minister for the heads of government below the central level, the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland being the exception to the rule, but I would have liked to know if you knew of any more exceptions. I am aware that 'first minister' and 'prime minister' actually mean the same, but they are used in a way to denote a difference between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, for example.
 * By the way, the article you mention does actually suggest any number of terms for the head of government on a sub-national or sub-central level, but not Prime Minister. If you look at the article for the head of government for the Isle of Man (your example), you'll find that it's called 'Chief Minister of the Isle of Man'. Bibfile (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you might not have made the argument, but you gave it credit. And you want an example from an English speaking country. But that's exactly the point: What titles English speaking countries use is no argument in how to translate the titles of non English speaking countries. If English speaking countries feel the need to avoid titles used by souvereign states, that doesn't mean other countries have to do the same - and in fact, Germany does not, on the contrary, Germany (and one may assume it's intentional) quite pronounced uses the nomenclature of souvereign countries with respect to it's states, with calling them "countries", and using the same title "Ministerpräsident" for the heads of their governments it uses for the heads of gouvernment of foreign nations, uses the same title for the Ministerpräsident of Bavaria as for the Ministerpräsident of Russia, of Spain, of Canada, or of the UK). And Belgium goes even farther, in having the same title for the heads of the national and the regional gouvernments.
 * The point is: that the English speaking countries use different titles subnational, is a political decision, not a matter of linguistics. They don't do so because "Prime Minister" is linguistically bound to a natioanl gouvernment, but because they have made a political decision to use different titles on the subnational level. So the fact that argument refers to does not reflect a linguistic trait, but said political desicion. Now the question is: should the translation of the German title reflect a linguistic chimera that "Prime Minister" cannot be used subnational (despite the fact it has been used), or the political decsiion of the English speaking countries to not use the title (and the moment any English speaking country chooses to use it, the translation changes? How can the translation of a German title depend on the constitutions of the English speaking countries?), or should it reflect the political decision of the country of origin to use the notion of a souvereign country (in which case the argument would on the contrary demand the the translation as "Prime Minister") - or should it only take into account the pure linguistic fact, that all three terms are valid translations (in which case one might question why there has to be a decision at all, why one can not use any of the terms, as long as it is consistently used within a single article) --Caballito (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly! Josh Gorand doesn't give a ... about other people's opinions, the fine nuances of constitutional law or ordinary English language. He's holding up the entire process of moving on and trying to game the system by raising irrelevant and poorly-supported objections. As stated previously, this is the user who used a sectarian fringe group's website as a news source! His attitude is more reminiscent of authoritarianism than acceptable democratic and consensus-oriented conduct that formed part of the Wikipedia tradition. I don't care if we keep arguing about this for the next 10 years - but I shall not stand for one man's erroneous and totalitarian idea of "persuasion" forcing the rest of us to accept a "translation" which is inaccurate, unsupported by any serious sources and advocated with the charm of a refrigerator. Leicchaucer (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These fine nuances are a figment of your imagination and nothing more. Oh, and please, everyone could do without your vendetta on Josh. Str1977 (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. is this personal? @Kingjeff: comparisons always lead to pre-occupations. Who else head of government calls him/herself "Chancellor" (outside the German speaking world)? German PM/MPs are no heads of nation, but they are heads of state - where in the world has a head of government that is not head of a fully sovereign government, such a status? CGN2010 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I asked it as a ligitmate question. Every position of Prime Minister that I know of is a head of a national government like the Prime Ministers of United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Japan, France and Ukraine. I am unaware of any Prime Minister that isn't head of a national government. There was nothing personal about the question. Kingjeff (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I will ignore comments/personal attacks that are not backed up by sources. Produce sources, or accept that Prime Minister is the most common term, supported by scholarly, government and journalistic usage, to be used per Wikipedia policies, as evidenced by the above discussion. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem is, Josh, that not everyone accepts that "Prime Minister" is the most common term. Unfortunately, when sources have been produced contrary to your belief, you ignore those too. Jared Preston (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That PM is the most common term has been amply demonstrated. Str1977 (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that those who disagree refuse to cite their sources. So unless I see some sources, there is no valid objection to the findings of the sources cited in the discussion. Where are the sources that demonstrate that Minister-President is used to the same degree as Prime Minister in journalistic sources? Josh Gorand (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Josh Gorand, where was the personal attack? Kingjeff (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kingjeff: the personal was referred to "doesnt give a ..." (do you want to talk more about it or shall this be about the original topic?). I shouldnt have answered your totally ligitimate (even still pre-occupative) question by making counter-questions. All I meant to say was, that there is not a good understanding of politics within certain federal states, especially if it doesnt fall in line with the the system of the most-average national government system. I dont think this is the right approach, but here's the answer to your question: Politics of Russia, e.g. Chechnya or Tatarstan and these are titles also found in the wider public. I know politicans in Greenland, Scotland or Catalonia have similar translations. I am out of this discussion. Have fun everybody. CGN2010 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Interpretation of Google hits necessary
It is not just a matter of selecting whatever term gets the most hits on Google. The Google searches performed show that Google finds a very slightly higher number of "scholarly" sources, but the numbers and the differences are inconclusive. They also show that "prime minister" is used more often in journalistic and other non-academic sources, but there is no consensus on the interpretation of these results, particularly since the difference between journalistic and scholarly results differs greatly.

It is not sufficient to know that journalists most often refer to a person as "prime minister"; we need to be convinced that the term is used with the same precision and specificity and in the same (encyclopaedic) register.

For instance, when translating the name of a cultural or political institution, we can use a calque (such as "minister president" for "Ministerpräsident"). This retains the specificity and refers to the particular office in that particular polity. We could also use a cultural equivalent, such as "governor" for "Ministerpräsident" (for an American audience) or "prime minister" for "Kanzler"(for a British audience), or perhaps "First Minister" for Ministerpräsident (for a Scottish readership); this really works only when the readers all belong to the same "culture"; the "translation" does not really refer to the same thing, so it is not a candidate in an encyclopaedia.. Another approach is to use a wider term such as "premier", head of government", "leader", "premier " etc. At least for a Commonwealth readership, "prime minister" fulfils this purpose of designating the head of any parliamentary government (at least of a sovereign state). This is not specific, and is not necessarily the term used for the specific office, but a more general term  especially if extended to apply to the head of a non-sovereign ("federated") state. Using "prime minister" in this way, we could say "the prime minister of Ireland is called the Taoiseach" or the prime minister of Germany is called the chancellor (but that does not mean that those articles should have "Prime Minister" in the title); with slightly less justification (because we are not talking about a sovereign state in the usual sense) we could say "the prime minister of North Rhine-Westphalia is called the minister president. So it is not sufficient to show that journalists most commonly use a particular name to refer to a particular person or office.

Like the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia has an article on Elizabeth Bowes Lyon. But if we Google, we get the following results: but the German article is (quite rightly) not called "Queen Mum", however many Google hits that name gets. Similarly, if Sarah Ferguson is commonly referred to in the British press as "Fergie" and North Rhine Westphalia is commonly referred to in the German media as "das bevölkerungsreichste Bundesland", that does not mean that these are candidate names in Wikipedia. The French lower house is often referred to by that name, but that does not mean the Wikipedia article should be so named. You cannot simply count the Google hits. Interpretation is required. --Boson (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 411 Ghits for site:de –wikipedia ''Elizabeth Bowes Lyon"
 * 11500 Ghits for site:de –wikipedia "Queen Mum" (a few of these are not relevant)


 * May I recommend this article: Strawman. I have no idea who's simply "counting Google hits". I, for one, have made detailed searches in databases such as Google Scholar and Google News Archive (which are entirely different from the Google web search), and spent a good deal of time analyzing and interpreting them, as well as looking at other sources such as government usage. The Queen Mum example and the other examples (Fergie, NRW) are textbook examples of logical fallacies, and utterly irrelevant. There is a very big difference between "Governor" and "Prime Minister": Prime Minister 1) means the same as Ministerpräsident (the first of the ministers), which is simply the generic German term for a Prime Minister (of both souvereign states and semi-souvereign states such as German states) 2) Prime Minister is used officially by many German government sources - unlike Governor. Translating terms literally is not what we do in English (and most other languages). The Prime Minister of Denmark is universally referred to as such in English, although the Danish language title statsminister means Minister of State.


 * This case is really only a matter of following Wikipedia policies. The sources that have been cited are considered reliable by Wikipedia policies on sources and widely used (if you don't think journalistic sources should be used in Wikipedia, bring it up somewhere else, not here). They have demonstrated that the common English term is Prime Minister, as one of two widely used terms in scholarly and government sources, but much more used by reliable secondary sources in English than the other one. So unless someone soon comes up with some sources that prove these findings wrong, we have a conclusion per Wikipedia policies and the refusal to acknowledge this has no support in Wikipedia policies. I have now asked for such sources to be produced multiple times, and I take it they don't exist. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I unintentionally misrepresented your arguments; I actually understood your arguments as to English usage to be based on a count of the Google hits (particularly the non-scholarly ones). Since you are not addressing the interpretation issues I raised, (Struck out because Josh probably did attempt to address the points he thought I was making and might therefore regard this as confronational.) I think it is time to call it a day and close the whole discussion as no consensus. Boson (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it's time to call it a day for now. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Boson is probably right that it seems unlikely that we can reach a proper consensus. Some parts of the consensus article are quite interesting, by the way. Bibfile (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Infobox: Sorry, i couldnt help: as Boson was insisting on addressing his interpretation issue, i had to put the interpretation infobox next to it. "Consensus" would mean nether nor but something like "Head of governmment of ..." CGN2010 (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As funny as it may be, there seems to be little doubt about Obama's official title in English, and it doesn't seem necessary to find a consensus about an English translation for the English Wikipedia. At least, I've never seen Obama or any of his predecessors referred to as 'Prime Minister' in any English-language source (or as 'Kanzler' in any German source). However, for German Ministerpräsidenten, there are a number of valid translations (or descriptive translations) that are used, and some of us have tried to discuss which one is best used on Wikipedia. Boson's examples referred to cases where the name of an article might not be the same as the name the subject is most commonly referred to in the press, as he seems to have interpreted Josh Gorand's argument as being built very strongly on journalistic sources.
 * 'Consensus' does not necessarily mean finding a compromise or a solution that nobody wanted at the beginning, and that everyone is personally agreeing with it at the end of the discussion, but that the discussion went in a way that they are prepared to accept the outcome, even if it is not their preferred one. Unfortunately, as we are looking for an English term for the title, and not for the function (where 'Head of Government' would be appropriate for many people, whatever their actual title may be), it doesn't seem that that suggestion paves a way to consensus for us. Bibfile (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My argument is some degree built on journalistic sources, mainly because Wikipedia articles are based primarily on secondary sources such as journalistic sources (WP:RS). But I would never dream of building an argument exclusively on journalistic sources. The two other areas, scholarly sources and government sources, both used the two terms to roughly the same degree, thus being inconclusive when it comes to choosing one of them, while ruling out other alternatives such as "Premier". Prime Minister hence was the only term that was supported to a large degree in all three areas (scholarly, government and journalistic sources in English). Josh Gorand (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A consensus is a solution, that everyone agrees upon (no matter if it has been initially suggested or not). A compromise is a solution that no-one really wants, but for lack of finding a consensus, one has to go with. - In this case, maintaining the status quo (despite reasons been given against pre-possession, frequency of public and/or offical use) is not even a compromise, but simply the enforcement of one of the parties' opinion (not even with a reason given, other than "you please back out"). You cannot justify this as a "consensus". CGN2010 (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Josh Gorand is the only one who doesn't want a consensus. We, more likely than not, would have had one if he wasn't involved in this discussion. Kingjeff (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd be happy with the definition given at WP:consensus: "Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach consensus." That doesn't have to mean that I regard the term that emerges as the consensus as necessarily the best one, but that I can live with the outcome (at least for a while), because the decision has been arrived at in a fair discussion, and not because one or more editors flatly refuse to even consider sources and opinions that do not support their own argument.
 * I can't remember having told anyone to "back out", as you put it, as I wouldn't regard that as very constructive, but I have come to think that any consensus is increasingly unlikely, given the hardened attitudes on several sides. Bibfile (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Kingjeff, please dont revert my edits. The infobox is to respond to the issue, that people of different political backgrounds may call a political post by a different name - i could have put Hannelore Kraft into the box - the point is: potentially different translations do not help in the discussion here, as everyone is looking for one title to be put into infoboxes, navigation bars etc. - Again Kingjeff: did you read my previous post? You do not need a consensus if everyone is of the same opinion. I dont know about the total lenght of the discussion, but if there are two or more opinions, you cannot decide unilaterally, but instead need to discuss and give reasons for why things are the way they are or should be. Just because it is 5 against 1, that is no justification. Reasons count! If there is no convincing reason for and against one or the other, it has to be a compromise. I wonder if people would prefer a consensus to a compromise? CGN2010 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kingjeff has been told repeatedly to stop deleting or moving around other editors' legitimate edits. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was about to give you the benefit of the doubt until I looked at President of the United States and found that the template in that article doesn't use all the names that are used in the template that you have provided. It only uses "President of the United States of America". All I think that was proved by adding those extra names was that the template is capable of using more than 1 name. What are you trying to prove by adding the template and those extra names in the template? Kingjeff (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I regard CGN2010's template as nonsensical, he has never claimed that it was the template in actual use, but seems only to have tried to show what it could look like. So I don't think it's a bad faith edit, and removing is not really helpful. Bibfile (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I interpreted it as a reasonably successful illustration of how silly the result is if you try to use a cultural translation or the most common term used in the press (which is the point I was also trying to make - though more seriously).--Boson (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In articles that refer to, say, Christian Wulff and other places where we do not need a formal title, we could consider using descriptions like "head of government [uncapitalized] of Lower Saxony". I see the main problem where the reader expects the formal title (article names, posts held, infoboxes, etc.), e.g. the article Prime Minister of Lower Saxony, created by Josh Gorand on 1 July 2010, after the dispute started at Christian Wulff. On the other hand, if we have a solution for the formal title, the problem with the other articles goes away.
 * No, we could not use "head of government of Lower Saxony" as we do not use merely descriptions in other cases. No matter whether we settle for Prime Minister or Minister President, the actual office may not be avoided just because we cannot come to an agreement. Str1977 (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I may have expressed myself unclearly above. It is somewhat difficult to express this without using Linguists' jargon. My main point is this: we need to differentiate between the real world entity (the referent) and different concepts which may refer to the same real-world entity. For foreign people and institutions we need to use the exact English name for the concept, not the most common way of referring to the real-world entity.
 * The exact English term is the same as the most common way of referring to the office. Your claim that PM means something else is entirely your own. Str1977 (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia policy on common (English) names also applies to institutions in English-speaking countries, but it applies to the specific concept, not the most common way of referring to the real-world entity.
 * This is why we have articles on:
 * Foreign and Commonwealth Office
 * United States Department of State
 * Elizabeth Bowes Lyon
 * National Assembly of France
 * President of the United States
 * Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten (German Wikipeida)
 * Vietnam People's Army
 * People's Republic of China
 * People's Chamber
 * State Council of the Russian Federation
 * European Robin
 * Bearded Reedling
 * etc.


 * You will probably find that many of the real-world entities behind these concepts are usually referred to by different terms, particularly in the press and general sources. You will also note that, despite assertions to the contrary, many of terms for foreign institutions are indeed calques (through-translations, or literal translations if you prefer). This is one of the normal ways of referring to foreign institutions (possibly the normal way). Most contributors to Wikipedia understand this intuitively, without necessarily being able to articulate the linguistic reasoning behind it. This may, I believe, be one reason for confrontation.
 * I hope I have clarified why using the most common term for the real-world entity is very often not correct according to Wikipedia guidelines because it is not the common name for the correct, specific concept.--Boson (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't even know why we're even still considering Josh Gorand's patently frivolous and trivial objections. The "Prime Minister of Lower Saxony" page was created only after he staked the claim for the name - therefore, he tried to make the point. Why Wiki admins haven't deleted that page remains completely obscure to the neutral observer. The problem here at Wikipedia is the consensus culture. The Wiki rules are not the Ten Commandments or even the German Basic Law. They're merely guidelines. Surely, Jimmy Wales didn't want one recalcitrant user with his/her pedantic and, frankly obstructionist, unhelpful attitude to social skills, to stop the progress of this project by gaming the system, as Josh has been doing since the start of this conflict. Why do we even care about what this particular, ill-informed, legalese-spouting, ill-advised and manipulative user has to say? He falsifies facts, uses straw men in his contributions, claims a consensus that doesn't exist, blatantly ignores sources. By having this discussion, we are blatantly rewarding this guy for his recalcitrance. It's appeasement of the worst kind. I suggest that we ignore his objections and totalitarian attitude, as they are not founded on any tenable facts and think about proper alternatives. When deciding on the correct term, we also need to pay heed to linguistic use in the English-speaking world. "Prime Minister" is only used for national governments, but not sub-national entities such as a Canadian province or a German Land. Therefore, "Premier" would be the best term. In the absence of consensus of this term, the original term "Ministerpräsident" should be given preference over any artificial terms such as "Prime Minister". Overall, I'd like us here to come to a final decision as to how we should proceed, create a swift majority decision and enforce it. Consensus in itself is not a virtue. Otherwise, Wikipedia is nothing but an ineffective talking shop - the way certain people would like to see it, no doubt. Leicchaucer (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose we still consider Josh Gorand's objection because there are others who agree with his position (though not necessarily his attitude to discussion). Those others are hard to notice alongside Josh Gorand's attempt at proof by verbosity, but they are there nevertheless. None of the sides can really claim that a consensus has been achieved, the chances of doing so any time in the near future seem slim, and with numbers being as close as they are, I am sceptical that a simple majority decision could really be enforced. Bibfile (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already come to the conclusion that Leicchauser is not here to write an encyclopedia, and at this point, I'm just ignoring his many personal attacks against me and his obstruction-only behaviour (that includes creating POV forks of articles that I've created). His dishonesty and strawman attacks have already been pointed out by other users.


 * Unlike what he might think, Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not upon his personal beliefs that are not backed up by sources.


 * I could have reverted his many personal attacks, but they bring far more discredit to himself than anyone else. So I'm going to let his own words shame him.


 * I am, as is well known, the one who has contributed the most to the actual discussion and contributed actual sources the most as well, unlike some other users who show a very different attitude to discussion and sources. So the question would rather be, is there any reason to still consider the opinion of users such as Leicchauser? Josh Gorand (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, don't try to be Mother Theresa here! Playing the sympathy card, are we? Poor you! First of all, maybe you should learn to read properly. It's LEICCHAUCER! Not LEICCHAUSER! Get it? It is somewhat funny that you accuse me of the conduct that you have exhibited time and again. After all, you're the one not willing to engage other users in constructive, meaningful debate. You are the one not willing to consider any sources other than your own. You are the one who cannot back up his many assertions - and when called on it by the wider community, you insult, obstruct and spout legalese. It seems to me, Josh, that you're the one not willing to write an encyclopaedia in a consensual fashion. It would also seem to me that you willingly ignore clear facts and sources that contradict your own. You're the one who uses expressions like "It has been established..." and "It is proven" with a degree of finality that (in this context) I can only find laughable. Laughable just like your POV-infested article on the "Prime Minister of Lower Saxony" that you created to make a point. You are the one who should be ashamed of your incredibly dishonest, totalitarian and socially limited attitude towards the writing of this encyclopaedia and complete intellectual vacuousness. Your "sources" include an extremist "Jehovah's Witnesses"-like sectarian organisation newsletter from Philadelphia. Once again, you fail to mention that I produced quite a source collection in support of "Premier" as well. I quoted several English-language news sources referring to the head of the Lower Saxony government as “Premier”: Reuters, the BBC, the Financial Times, the Deutsche Welle, The Guardian, Agence France Presse, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Independent, Bloomberg, Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, The Times, Fortune, the Sydney Morning Herald, The Straits Times, the Irish Times, The Scotsman, The Economist, Time, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Daily Telegraph, the English language edition of Der Spiegel Your reliable news sources have been comprehensively rebutted. In fact, I have provided the editors with a greater number of reliable news sources than you have. You will also find that corporations such as Thyssen Krupp, RWE, Deutsche Telekom and the Deutsche Messe AG (with its seat in Hanover and merely the organizer of the world’s largest computer fair, namely Cebit!) and even the German federal government refer to Christian Wulff as the “Premier of Lower Saxony”! There was also the small matter of the Lower Saxony state constitution calling the office “Minister-President”. The prime legal document of the state, the English translation of which was published by the Lower Saxony Parliament for the perusal of (among others) diplomats and international jurists, does not refer to the office as “Prime Minister”. That’s a clear fact. Plus, as Lower Saxony is not an independent nation and comparable to an Australian state or a Canadian province, the term "Premier" strikes me as the most appropriate. In addition, I cited press releases by the federal government and leading German corporations. All of your previously presented sources were comprehensively rebutted - yet you fail to acknowledge it. I am sick of you constantly claiming that I haven't provided real sources!!! This article would make for excellent reading for you!

How you (a neophyte compared to all users here) can even dare to consider these sources "unworthy" of serious consideration is frankly beyond me. For you to ignore this shows the extreme intellectual shallowness that defines your "contribution" to Wikipedia discussions. You should be ashamed of yourself and apologise to us for this childish, immature and, frankly, pre-democratic behaviour. I will call you on it - and if you can't stand the heat, maybe you shouldn't be in the kitchen, eh? I'm not impressed by your permanent stream of insults, half-truths and inventing facts. And I meant it: If it takes 10, 20 or 30 years to solve this question - then so be it. Unlike others on here, I will stay in the discussion and fight your logical fallacies every step of the way.

One final word to everyone else: Prove your fidelity to the facts and real sources. Don't let yourself be whipped into submission by someone who (as is often the case in life, it'd seem) tries to railroad his interpretation of an important term through by sheer lack of courtesy or basic civilised behaviour.

Cheers! Leicchaucer (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think someone spewing personal attacks in every posting and suggesting that we do not consider the points raised by one editor should complaing about typos in his editor name? Str1977 (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And who are you to decide who else is here to write an encyclopedia? And how have you contributed to discussion beyond stating your sources and dismissing out of hand or simply ignoring everything that disagreed with your opinion? Attempting proof by verbosity is not the same as taking part in a discussion constructively.
 * While I agree that personal attacks do nothing to further the discussion, you have shown that you are not beyond making them yourself.Bibfile (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Leicchaucer, I think we all should just ignore Josh Gorand. We all know where Josh Gorand stands on the issue and there is no need to pay anymore attention to him. We all know he wants to get his own way on this topic and he will just continue with obsessive arguements by all of us paying attention to Josh Gorand. As we can see from previous statements, Josh Gorand will try and manipulate the situation and as far as I'm concerned, this is justification for everyone to ignore him. But we have to make sure we don't ignore others just because they agree with him. Kingjeff (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we should simply ignore Kingjeff? These constant proclaimations of ignoring are the bottom of the barrel of incivility. Str1977 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm already ignoring both Leicchauser and Kingjeff. They have both proven that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, also, they have harrassed and heckled me constantly. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One more time from my side: I dont want any more comments on my talk page, regarding this discussion. Even though not my intention, the revision history for the infobox above has shown that people take titles of their respective heads of state serious, so everyone please be more sensible about this. As far as it looks to me, there are (next to the original German name) three English language translations in use. None can convincingly persuade that one is more suitalbe than the other, (in fact, i think if two versions share a 35% to 65% use, you already have no non-ambiguouity). The reference to the notion about the "concept" of the post doesnt change this, nether does the supposedly preferred "instinctive" use of one against another: there are three forms of translation in use! MP and PM made it into the second round of our so representative vote, but also seem to be the titles with the strongest opposition from both sides. "Premier" seems/is less used than the previous two, but could in my eyes work as a not-so-hard-fought-against "compromise"-version (still, the actual real-world-reference has to be checked). To find a solution to this all: I would be fine if the 13 lists would be moved to "(List of) heads of government of ..." (similar to Category:Lists of heads of government (in fact some lists like Bavaria already include several titles and would justify such a move). All versions but "Governor" get redirects to those 13 pages. Now, for the infoboxes, - I dont know. "Premier" might be a "compromise". Another option would be a template-box inside those 13 lists, that explains the difficulty of the translation - ala Template:U.S. diplomatic terms (just two sentences on the translation). Each line of heads of government could then get its individual redirect from MP/PM or Premier (This might be inconsistent, but that's the reality). CGN2010 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Premier" was defeated in our voting, so it is not a feasible candidate. Using one that is rejected by most is not a compromise.
 * "Governor" is untenable as it suggests province, administrative unit (which might be okay for a state of a federation if they in their language also use province-like terminology, e.g. the states of Austria).
 * It is "Prime Minister" or "Minister President". I am for either now applying the result of our vote (without knowing what actually got more votes) or to keep everything in the original state (which means the "list" article keeps "Prime Minister"). Str1977 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing new here now. If we were to start at, say, Category:Ministers-President in Germany, then we wouldn't have an awful lot to do or change by sticking with Minister-President. I think the summary here for German Ministerpräsidenten is quite fine. Jared Preston (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the cats add up now, just some links in the articles will need to be corrected over time. But this was never going to be an easy job. I really don't want to annoy anyone here though. I hope everyone has a nice, easy weekend. Jared Preston (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A possible compromise could be "head of government", with articles that list both titles (PM & MP) prominently in the lead (List of heads of government of (state) and so on). In the case of the oldest states (Bavaria, Saxony and some of the city-states), these titles have changed several times over the course of the centuries. Josh Gorand (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Six Families of Berlin
Hi. We need some German speakers to help us with this AfD. Thanks in advance. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Oskar Kuhn
FYI, Oskar Kuhn has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Necati Arabaci
FYI, Necati Arabaci has been nominated for deletion. I think a few German-speaking/reading editors might be able to help things out at Articles for deletion/Necati Arabaci. Location (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A Class Review of Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) now Open
Hi, This article predominantly focuses on the Organizational structure of Luftwaffe during WWII and not its history. An honest effort has been made to cover all aspects of the hierarchy including Ground elements part of Luftwaffe, such as Paratroops and Flak regiments. I will appreciate your feedback. Thanks for the time invested. '  Perseus 71  talk 03:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help translating
VA Tech Wabag needs to be improved using information found in the German Wikipedia article VA Technologie. Also, that article and the German article Siemens VAI will be helpful in fixing some problems with the English article Voestalpine. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 15:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed
Was the Courante published in the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (The Netherlands)" or in the "Dutch Republic (The Netherlands)"? See Talk:List of newspapers by establishment date Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Migration Period
I have written a comment on the introduction to 'Migration Period', and also tried to submit a rephrasing, which unfortunately got reverted. I hope to attract some attention here, since I can see that the Germany portal has rated the article as High-importance. The comment is at the talk-page, and a draft is here -> User:Sechinsic/migration01. Sechinsic (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

proposed move at Johann/Jan Dzierzon
There is a proposed move over at the Johann/Jan Dzierzon article which may be of interest to members of this project .radek (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Important template listed for deletion: Template:Infobox Bundesstraße
Template:Infobox Bundesstraße has been listed for deletion. This is a major template, supported by numerous sub-templates that enables route information in potentially hundreds of articles on German federal roads to be displayed or hidden in the infobox as desired. Someone has converted the existing articles to Infobox Road and, because it is incapable of handling the route info, has clumsily moved the latter into the articles themselves where they fail to display correctly. This is a major setback to the project to translate federal road articles into English Wikipedia. Please register your views at Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 24. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The infobox can handle the collapsible junction section by using Collapsible list, see Bundesstraße 243. I can change route 1-9 to match if needed, but when the routes are long, it's not really appropriate to include them in the infobox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't split this discussion to more locations. There is already the TfD nomination and a discussion at the Transportation task force talk page. If your desire was only to notify the larger WikiProject about the nomination, you should have only stated that the TfD existed, not rendered an opinion on it. That could be construed as canvassing or forum shopping, both of which are highly frowned upon. As it is, you have only included one side of the issue in your posting here.  Imzadi  1979   →   04:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For information. This issue has been satisfactorily and amicably sorted. The template has been kept for now, but converted to use Template:Infobox road. This achieves the aims of aiding translators, whilst providing a correctly displayed infobox with a collapsible section. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about translating articles
I'm new to wikipedia but I'd like to help out by translating some of the German articles into English. I looked through some of requests for translations and noticed that most of the German articles had very few or no sources. Would it be helpful to translate articles that lack sufficient sources or would they just be just be deleted. --Deutschgirl (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I came across this too - I simply looked up sources to corroborate the translated text, but of course most of these sources were in German. Citations are also missing in many Germany articles. Hohenloh + 16:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * German Wikipedia seems more relaxed about inline citations and often happy with a just source or bibliography at the end. I have translated lots of such articles and have rarely had a problem. However, where I have original sources, I often cite them, especially in support of a key fact. So sometimes the English Wiki article is better referenced than its original. Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Teufel
Lots of redlinks - anyone want to take a look? Exxolon (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ruhr
Anybody who is interested in the Wikipedia article on the Ruhrgebiet may leave a commentary on Talk:Ruhr. Wikiwiserick (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

How to translate ?
"nur noch gut 100.000 Personen Beiträge an den ... entrichten" - "only 100,000 of the members contribute financially" or rather we are talking about obligatory member fees?Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to the latter, though "Beitrag" can mean a voluntary fee/service too. But since you are talking about "members", I assume you are talking about an "eingetragener Verein" (association according to German association law), where the "Beitrag" fees are fixed in the respective association statute. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See Federation of Expellees.Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Complicated, and not possible to unravel with the given source. On the one hand, it reads "Der BdV ist föderalistisch organisiert, die Landesverbände bzw. Landsmannschaften verfügen über die Finanzhoheit." (The BdV is organized as a confederation, the subordinate member associations are souvereigns of their finances.) On the other hand, it reads "Tatsächlich aber belegen interne Aufstellungen, dass nur noch gut 100.000 Personen Beiträge an den BdV entrichten." (In fact, internal documents prove that only 100,000 persons still pay fees to the BdV.) Which is somehow contradicting the first statement, according to which the members pay their fees not to the BdV, but to the subordinate associations. Probably, the 100,000 sums those people up, but I would not want to back that up with the given source. Especially as the paragraph just above the second statement says that the subordinate associations have some kind of subscription system for groups of members, but does not detail that any further. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC Review for Organization of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) open
Hello,

The FAC review for this article is open open. Your comments are welcome. All editors are invited to participate. TIA   Perseus 71  talk 00:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt
I would like to see comments on that situation.

After a Polish user reverted to an obsolete, thoroughly discredited version on 28 June - a version that I later reverted -, a few biased left-wing editors and IPs chimed in (the one from the 78... range has been POV-pushing there since 2009). The article as it stands is now more of an ideological lampoon than an encyclopedic article. Opinions of political opponents are presented as undisputed facts, with some recently inserted 'pearls' of mud-slinging having apparent traces of the use of machine translation: "In rejecting the findings of historical research, the ZFI in using Pseudoscience based on ideology, created a 'parallel universe' isolated from scholarly discourse." What they have developed there is a mess based on cherry-picked quotations. What can be done is unclear, since the constructive comments of an uninvolved user have been ignored so far by our hongweibings (not to forget the comments left there by our German expert Molobo ). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Some necessary background. According to the German Wikipedia article the ZFI is a "geschichtsrevisionistischer Verein" (revisionist association). Nothing about research. It was founded by Alfred Schickel, a revisionist historian who has published several books with Grabert Verlag, an extreme right-wing publisher (which specialises on revisionism including holocaust denial, which is illegal in Germany; at least two authors have been convicted for that). According to Schickel, WW2 was Roosevelt's fault. Hans Adler 13:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny, if Schickel is Holocaust denier; Hoocaust denial is criminal offense in Germany, why has Schickel never been convicted of that offense? I can't think of a more neutral source that the Bayern Verfassungsschutz in German context, and their opinion is clear: ZFI cannot be classified as far-right.


 * Unlike some people, I'd rely on their findings, not the ideas of the anonymous contributors to German Wikipedia, a site notorious for its New Left bias.


 * Additionally, German government has been asked (by ex-communist MPs) to clarify their opinion of the ZFI. Their opinions can be found here (in 1992, they saw "bisher kein Anlaß, die Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt (ZFI) als rechtsextremistisch einzustufen, da keine tatsächlichen Anhaltspunkte dafür vorliegen, daß die ZFI Bestrebungen verfolgt, die gegen die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung gerichtet sind", but it seems they noted in 1996, that Schickel has expressed opinions that 'partially' coincide with those expressed by the far-right, still without classifying the organization itself as extremist.


 * I see no reason why the POV of the Ulla Jelpke (PDS, member of their far-left Anti-capitalist Left faction) group should have complete hegemony over the views of the German government and Verfassungsschutz. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When you take your political compass to calibration (don't postpone it much longer!) perhaps you can also ask for advice on what to do about your reading comprehension. I am assuming good faith here, i.e. I am assuming that you are not intentionally setting up a blatant strawman.
 * In Germany people can be convicted for denying the holocaust. They can obviously not be convicted for publishing history books with a publisher that also publishes holocaust denial. Hans Adler 16:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for enlightening me on Schickel. I hope I could also give you some food for thought on the one-sided POV classification of the organization that I was actually disputing. You can't get much more mainstream than the VS. Unless one presumes, the left wing of the PDS was the mainstream. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Most viewed articles on German Wikipedia?
Where can I find a list of the most viewed articles on the German Wikipedia? Thanks, Hohenloh + 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Try this page - it's a bit old though, but I couldn't find anything more recent. --Quasimodogeniti (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Max Weber - Featured article review
nominated Max Weber for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Germany geographical stubs
There has been a recent proposal here to split Category:Lower Saxony geography stubs up by using district stubs. This means that most stub articles currently marked with will have that stub replaced by a district one e.g.  . I gather this system is partially replicated in other states.

This begs the wider question for the Germany WikiProject of what level of stub is most useful? Do we want German geographical stub articles broken down by state (which can make the stub category quite big) or by district (which may cause confusion with multiple stub categories and district names that most English speakers don't know)? Bavaria, of course, could be broken down by 'province' i.e. Upper Franconia, Lower Bavaria, etc. Whatever we do, we all need to use the same system for consistency.

The creation and categorization of stub tags is carried out by a band of dedicated Wikipedians, who help us manage the stubs, but they are not necessarily Germany experts. Do others have any views? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with using districts. As you say, this is already replicated in some states, so it seems fine with me. Jared Preston (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As someone who works on sorting stubs I would like to thank Bermicourt for inviting me to comment on this, as it was me who started the recent additions to Lower Saxony. I have been sorting stubs for quite a while on here and I think any category that is over 800 articles is at the point where there are too many to work with properly and splitting is useful, this is where Lower Saxony had got to and why I thought continuing the split that had been started three years ago was a good idea.  As to Bermicourt's question as to what level of stub is most useful I think that depends on the state very much like it does for countries.  Somewhere like Saarland would probably cause more problems than it solved by splitting it up where as Bavaria as 1 category with over 2500 articles would be unusable.  I would say in an ideal world all States would have the same level but then in an ideal world none of the articles would be stubs anyway. Waacstats (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's much point in discussing this further - the stubs have been created and are steadily being added to articles anyway. The project just needs to be aware so they add the right stubs in future. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wilhelm von Gottberg
Wilhelm von Gottberg was evacuted from East Prussia. An editor removes this sourced information replacing is with "expelled". Why a precize, sourced description is worse than a general one? Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't. I am watching the article now. Hans Adler 22:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

German (speaking) editor, language issues
Hey all. It seems there is an editor causing some issues in Football articles by inserting unsourced information. One major issues that exists is that this editor appears to only speak poor English and prefers to converse in German. I wonder if there are any German speakers here who would be willing to try and talk to this person and translate the issues/responses The relevant AN/I thread is here. Thanks! --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 21:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was done here (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zombie433&diff=374905578&oldid=374904428), what do you think happened? He removed the message, without answering the other user... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, fair enough :) Apologies for not grokking that before posting & thanks for the diff. --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 21:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)