Talk:History of Saxony-Anhalt

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

Early comments[edit]

Was this scanned in? Lots of words are missing in the middle, particularly at the beginnings of lines, while other words have strange letters in the middle. By the way, is it a grand ducry or duchy? Danny

Grand Duchy is the correct term. I'd be happy to clean this article - time permitting this evening Richhill

Baden, Germany[edit]

From History of Germany: After Bismarck provoked France, the Franco-Prussian War broke out in 1870 and the southern German states, viewing France as the aggressor, joined the North German Confederation.

From History of Baden, Germany: By the treaty under which Baden had become an integral part of the German Empire in 1871,

From German Empire: The German Empire (in German, Deutsches Reich) was the official name for Germany from January 1871 until the overthrow of the Emperor (Kaiser) Wilhelm II of Germany in November 1918.

It seems Baden was no longer a sovereign state after 1870 or 1871 (and presumably at times in the past) -( 08:40 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

I included something about this in the intro -( 20:15 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Baden[edit]

I think, its better to move the article Baden to Baden_Germany, because there's some Baden more. The main page of Baden, I mean have to be Baden (disambiguation) Then Baden-Germany is not more important than others. example Baden, Switzerland has got a big and very important history. And nobody can say this is more important than example Baden, Lower Saxony.

What you think about a moving? --Viperch 20:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I moved this article now, because nobody got a mind about this problem and I think there's got a many Baden, and no one is more important --Viperch 20:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move (2005)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Baden Germany" is a title that is not in line with normal Wikipedia naming and disambiguation conventions. The page should be moved back to Baden, which is a disambig page that now largely duplicates the content of Baden (disambiguation). The content at Baden Germany refers to the most important use of the name. Martg76 16:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. "Baden Germany" is bad, so is "Baden., Germany", the previous version. "Baden (state)" was OK IMO, but I agree that the state Baden is historically and culturally a lot more important than the other places, so let's move it to "Baden". Markussep 09:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose use "Baden (state)". avoid discussions about importance. If there are so many other things, its nice to see this. Also assures that links are correct in the long run. state links to state. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Actually I would prefer it moved to Baden (Germany), like the Australian state of Victoria is at Victoria (Australia). – AxSkov (☏) 07:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The state is not the only place in Germany called Baden, there's also a town near Bremen, and Baden-Baden. I'd prefer Baden (state). Markussep 09:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move, --Irpen 23:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support just about any move from this abomination of a title. I would prefer having it at "Baden", but wouldn't object to "Baden (state)", either. -- Jao 19:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coming to think of it, if it is possible to write two separate articles Margravate of Baden and Grand Duchy of Baden without needing to duplicate too much information, that might be even better. -- Jao 20:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Baden germany isn't more important than Baden-Baden today, or for the swiss history is Baden, Switzerland a very important city, then this was a capital for 1-2 years of switzerland. And there's many other Baden who has got a very important place in the history of this world. I think, every Baden must have the same important level. On a disambiguation page has to be a good description about the diferent citys. I think, a good disambiguation page is very important for the project wikipedia and not the question, which baden is more important! Example: Under River there isn't standing only about the mississippi. I think thats the same problem.
  • At last: Baden is a word in german, too! Baden in the german version of wikipedia: Wikipedia German Version (Baden) --Viperch 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments about Mississippi and the German verb "baden" are really irrelevant. And no, not every "Baden" is equally important. Baden-Baden already has a disambiguated name, so that's irrelevant as well. But, I think the old situation with "Baden (state)" for the region and "Baden" as disambiguation is preferable to most, so let's do that and clean up the mess. Markussep 11:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This title is an abomination. Support strongly. To be honest, this move was carried out on one person's say so. I'm going to move to Baden (state) so that at least we keep away from this nonsense. I still think Baden is the proper title, though. john k 21:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also strongly support this proposed move. The former grand duchy is by far the most likely topic to be meant by "Baden"; a quick look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Baden clearly supports this.
In outline, the articles should be something like:
I'm quite happy after any move to help go through all relevant articles and sort out the links.
Silverhelm 04:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support, although I have just made Baden (disambiguation) redirect to Baden, I think the best solution is to have Baden be about the historical region in Germany, with other places accessible through Baden (disambiguation). Baden is not just a now-defunct margravate and grand duchy, it's still very much a distinct cultural region in Germany. I suspect very few people from Baden-Württemberg think of themselves as Baden-Württemberger; they think of themselves as either Badeners or Swabians. (And woe betide the person who calls a Badener a Swabian!) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Baden disambiguation Pages has to deleted. But which? I think when somebody is typing Baden, has to come the Baden disambiguation Page. Baden is at the moment the newer one. --Viperch 11:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more history at "Baden (disambiguation)", but I don't think that's very important in this case. If the consensus is that the state should be at "Baden (state)", not "Baden", then "Baden" can be the disambiguation page, and "Baden (disambiguation)" a redirect to "Baden". But due to all this moving around we need admin assistance now, and someone who wants to fix all the messed up links. Markussep 12:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step, I'm merging Baden (disambiguation) to Baden (itself a disambiguation page), because having two disambig pages is unacceptable. Once consensus is reached, names can be moved around again if necessary. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seven votes to three, so there's a clear consensus to go back to Baden. I'd be happy to do the moves, but could someone else take care of the "What links here" for the two pages, fix the double redirects, etc? –Hajor 01:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, as Hajor said, seven votes to move vs. three not to looks like broad consensus. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Angr. Does Ryan Norton's "discision" have any formal meaning for the voting process? Martg76 07:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 has also agreed with the move, making it effectively 8 to 3, so I'm moving it now. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name change[edit]

Okay, the article about the region in Germany is now at Baden. The disambig page is at Baden (disambiguation). Double redirects have been fixed. I also created a tiny stub called Canton of Baden because I didn't think that should redirect to either Baden or Baden (disambiguation), so if anyone knows anything about the former Swiss canton of Baden, please expand that stub! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pickles[edit]

Gundlsheim is noted for their world famus pickles. pickles should be included in the foodstuff that came from Baden 66.194.72.10 09:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EB1911[edit]

21:59, 16 July 2006‎ (UTC)

map[edit]

the geographical names are in french, cant that somehow be changed to german or english?--Tresckow 12:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did it myself--Tresckow 12:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article just for the Grand Duchy? Bad idea.[edit]

Since this article is simply entitled "Baden", it makes a lot more sense to use it to describe the whole length of Baden's history. That is, from the 12th century (Margraviate, or earlier if there was any other state in the area named Baden) to 1952 (South Baden (1945-1952) was legally declared to be the official "Baden" state). Using this article to describe only the grand duchy (and discarding non-grand duchy information) is misleading - if you want to make an article describing just the grand duchy, then use Grand Duchy of Baden. For an example of what I mean, see Prussia. - 52 Pickup 11:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the article title is simply Baden. But then the infobox title is misleading. As well, there is already an article Republic of Baden covering the state's history since 1919. Therefore I am not sure what is the best solution? Maybe to merge the articles Baden and Republic of Baden? Or to move this article to Grand Duchy of Baden and create a new one to cover the Margraviate? The status quo is redundant, because Baden should also cover the Republic since 1919. Do you have a suggestion, what to do? Blinder Seher 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the Prussia article, it covers all states from the Duchy of Prussia (established 1525) to the Free State of Prussia (abolished 1947). Each different state has its own more detailed article but still fits within the main article. I was thinking that the same should be done for Baden - which is why I made up the articles Republic of Baden, South Baden and Württemberg-Baden. Making the Grand Duchy of Baden article would eventually come next, then the Margraviate, and in the end the Baden article itself would be redone in a similar style to the main Prussia article, and similar to the German wiki article de:Baden (Land). I believe that breaking the articles down like this is necessary to prevent confusion, and the Baden article in its current form is confusing - which is why I've been avoiding working on it. For the moment, my suggestion is that the infobox currently here be removed. Then a Grand Duchy article be started up. Once that is done, a lot of the text in the current Baden article can then be removed, making it possible for us to start the article afresh - utilising the links to the more in-detail articles. - 52 Pickup 14:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your suggestion. I think, the first step would be, to create an article Grand Duchy of Baden. And the second step to consolidate this one. Afterwards there should be an article about the Margraviate as well. Blinder Seher 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the infobox over the weekend, intending this article to cover everything from the Margraviate through to the Grand Duchy (it never covered only the Grand Duchy, I merely needed to give the infobox a single title!). I didn't include the Republic, as it already had its own article. I definitely don't think this article should include South Baden or Württemberg-Baden, as those are not the same state (they are successor states, but not the sole successor state).
I'm not likely to be able to do a lot more on this at the moment, but should be able to do some more over the weekend. I definitely don't like that the article currently spans over into the 1950s, which doesn't make sense (not the same entity as the Margraviate), but would like it to go from the Margraviate through to the Republic.
I'm not sure I like all the changes that've been made to the infobox either, but I'll give them some thought and post about them sometime when I'm not at work ;o) — OwenBlacker 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the article didn't just cover the grand duchy - it covered a lot of versions, but the content was pretty mixed up. This is why I've been making separate articles, with the plan of coming back to this main article last to describe the entire length of Baden's history (similar to de:Baden (Land)). Even though your placement of the infobox was well-intentioned, I just wanted this article to not become solely concerned with the grand duchy, and I simply wanted to make my feelings known before a lot of information was prematurely deleted by accident.
Including the post-1945 articles in the infobox might not be right, so I've deleted them for the moment. Even though South Baden did rename itself "Baden" (and South Baden did declare itself to be the sole successor state, Württemberg-Baden did not), most Germans only consider the pre-1945 Baden to be the real one. I don't know yet.
For future reference, when covering different government types in a single infobox (monarchy+republic+etc), say "government_type=various" - this keeps the infobox clean without any error statements of funny categorisations. - 52 Pickup 15:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah cool, that makes sense.

I think it's misleading to consider South Baden to be the sole successor state, as a considerable chunk of the Republic of Baden ended up in Württemberg-Baden; I think it's worth breaking the longevity of this state at 1945, so we have this article covering everything from the Margraviate to 1945 (with {{main}} links to each of the individual articles on the Margraviate, the Grand Duchy and the Republic (I'd suggest the Electorate should be considered the same article as the Margraviate, given (a) it only existed for three years and (b) Electoral dignity isn't the same as the territory having been raised to a Grand Duchy — the monarch was the Margrave-Elector, rather than ceasing to be a margrave). Dontcha think? :o)

government_type = various is worth remembering; thanks! I assume that means I'd have to add the categories (for former principalities, republics and monarchies of Europe, in this case) manually then, right?

Thanks again for your help tidying this one up, though; 's an awkward bugger, isn't it? *GRIN* — OwenBlacker 17:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only South Baden declared itself to be the sole successor in its constitution - although this was done 2 years after the division of Baden, so yes, it is probably best to say that Baden lasted until 1945. I wouldn't bother with placing extra monarchy/republic categories on this page - better to leave that to the separate entries where the infobox will do it anyway (otherwise, the articles will appear twice in each category). You are right: having a separate article for the Electorate makes little sense, so putting it with the Margraviate article would be the way to go. Having a series of {{main}} templates between articles has proven a good way to organise things (see Prussia). I just noticed that there is also a rather length article History of Baden, which should not be forgotten. The "various" value is not advertised in the infobox instructions because I can see that it could be abused, but if used in measured doses it can be very handy. - 52 Pickup 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it is right that there is no state with the name Baden anymore since 1945, the region still identifies itself with that name. For many people in Baden-Württemberg, it is very important to know from whihc side of "the border" you come from (where Baden is identified by the borders of the grand duchy). There is a lot of rivalry and political friction between the two parts of Baden-Württemberg. With this in mind, Baden as a cultural entity is still very much alive today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.54.62 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms[edit]

The coat of arms of the Duchy of Swabia shows a crown and three lions - this is wrong, but I don't know how to change it cld somebody edit the pic and replace it with a pic showing the coat of arms of the Duchy of Swabia ( a yellow coat of arms with three lions, no crown)? The crown is part of the coat of arms of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg and symbolizes the souvereignty of the people - this was definitely not the case in the Duchy of Swabia in the 10th and 11th century. --Johnny2323 (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective?[edit]

What is the English word for the adjective of "Baden"? For some reason, I don't think that it is "Badische" or "Badener" but I can't find an alternative. - 52 Pickup (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective?[edit]

I think badish would be right, but it's my creation - sounds like bad + ish, you only gotta make shure that the "a" is spoken like the first "a" in narrator.

Alternative:

The Latin Name is Badenia and the adjective would be Badenian - like Bretonia and Bretonian.Johnny2323 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badisch/Badish[edit]

'Badisch' redirects to here. Shouldn't it be a separate article to distinguish the differences between Swabian and Badish? MathiasFox (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badish redirects here, but the proper adjective would be Badenian. The differences between Swabian and Badenian are not subject of this article. Both words are adjectives and refer to two different states/territories of different periods. (Swabian -> Swabia; Badish -> Baden (proper adjective would be Badenian). Why don't you start an article containing the differences if you think it's important?

What you are writing 'bout seems to be the dispute between the people living in the German Federal State of Baden-Wuertemberg. A friend of mine lives in Bavaria and all he told me was that Baden was a Catholic region while Wuertemberg was Protestant.. The second difference I can remember is that people in Wuerttemberg speak a dialect called Swabian and people in Baden speak (prior to 1925) various different dialects. Since 1952 they live in the same German federal state, but the different dialects and religions are still a source of disputes.Johnny2323 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress (2012)[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Baden (disambiguation) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

eh?[edit]

What the hell is going on here? Did I step into the middle of something? What has GD Baden got to do with Anhalt?! —Tamfang (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Kaiser Kitkat (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Saxony-Anhalt&oldid=1207554528"