Talk:West Germany

Willy Brandt section is too large?

The Willy Brandt section is under the History section of West Germany. This person ruled for 4 years only yet there are so many details about what happened while he was Chancellor and most of that are not historical events just legislation that was passed. Bly000 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Amusingly at almost 7000 words the Willy Brandt subsection is almost half of this article, and over half the length of the Willy Brandt article. Certainly seems some could be merged into the main article. CMD (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the sections were copied from the main article so I think no actions are needed there.

I replaced the whole subsection with a modified part of Willy Brandt's lead section which talks about his chancellorship. Probably more improvements can be done there as there are no references Bly000 (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

How did west Germany repair ties with east Germany

I thought that they were always enemies Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

NO: Entspannungspolitik, friedliche Koexistenz etc.Nillurcheier (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Usydydjwhxyxhx: Please note that Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for general discussion about the topic. Yue🌙 23:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

What was "West Germany" anyway?

I agree with @Alisperic's that "West Germany is a term used to describe" is problematic. But so is "West Germany was a country". The country we called "West Germany" still exists – it's now called "Germany". Mind you, can't offer a good alternative. Perhaps somebody else can? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Isaac Rabinovitch Yeah, I was a bit troubled by the phrasing that I submitted too; it appears to be quite difficult to encapsulate the fact that the article is not about the term, but also the nuance that it remains a country. But here's an alternative that I've come up with today based on the Weimar Republic article:

West Germany (German: Westdeutschland, pronounced [ˈvɛstˌdɔɪ̯t͡ʃlant] ^ⓘ) was a historical period of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG; German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland [ˈbʊndəsʁepuˌbliːk ˈdɔʏtʃlant] ^ⓘ, BRD) from its formation on 23 May 1949 until its reunification with East Germany on 3 October 1990.

Still, this presents itself with its own issues. I don't know whether it's entirely accurate to describe West Germany as a historical period. Also, I feel that there should be a link to Germany somewhere in the sentence, seeing that West Germany was essentially the same state. But linking the bolded Federal Republic of Germany is problematic due to MOS:BOLDLINK, and adding another mention of "Germany" in the sentence seems to make it quite wordy. Maybe this could work better:

West Germany (German: Westdeutschland, pronounced [ˈvɛstˌdɔɪ̯t͡ʃlant] ^ⓘ) was a historical period of the Federal Republic of Germany from its formation on 23 May 1949 until its reunification with East Germany on 3 October 1990.

But then its official name Federal Republic of Germany isn't bolded or properly addressed in the 1st sentence, which again feels problematic.

Let me know what you think of these and/or if you come up with a better alternative.

— Alisperic (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

As much as I hate "is a term used to describe" (which I try to edit out whenever I see it) I think it might just be the best way to encapsulate what we mean when we say "West Germany". Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem with calling it a "term" is that the article is not about the term, unlike how articles like Latinx or Fuck are. Even though it may feel most clear, I believe calling it a "term" is inaccurate in the context of this article, and Wikipedia policy is clear that this should be avoided (WP:ISATERMFOR, WP:REFERS, MOS:REFERS). So, I think it is better for the 1st sentence to be a little clunky rather than calling "West Germany" a term, and I have just edited the first sentence to read as follows:

West Germany was the Federal Republic of Germany from its formation on 23 May 1949 until its reunification with East Germany on 3 October 1990.

I still feel that it is imperfect but I believe it to be a solid foundation from which other editors can improve.

— Alisperic (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

How about...

The Federal Republic of Germany, from 1949 to 1990 commonly West Germany, was established on 23 May 1949. The historic period of a split German state ended in 1990 and the reunification with East Germany.

JackTheSecond (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Huh. Clumsy wording, but I like it better than any previous version. Factual and clear. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is at least an "and" that should be a "with" there, but it clarifies things without being open to misinterpretations, I think. JackTheSecond (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is better than calling it a "name" or a "term", but I still think it presents some issues. Firstly, the first sentence reads as if it is that of an article about the entire history of the FRG. This is because the period from 1949 to 1990 is only mentioned in a dependent clause, and the subject of the sentence is "The Federal Republic of Germany" (without any clarifiers of the time period). Maybe this could be fixed as follows:

The Federal Republic of Germany from 1949 to 1990, commonly known as West Germany, was established on 23 May 1949.

This still feels quite clumsy, but I think it's clearer. Another problem is that it mentions 1949 and 1990 twice within the first two sentences, which feels a little superfluous. Maybe this could be better:

From 1949 to 1990, the Federal Republic of Germany was commonly known as West Germany.

This is kind of referring to "West Germany" like a "name" again, but this time it doesn't allude to the article being about terminology. Still, I'd prefer if "West Germany" was the subject of the sentence and/or at the start of it. So maybe this could work:

West Germany was a historical period of the Federal Republic of Germany between 1949 and 1990, during which it encompassed the western portion of Germany and the associated territory of West Berlin. [Of course the next few sentences would have to be changed a bit too.]

I am most fond of this option above, but I think any of these could work. Let me know what you think.

— Alisperic (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No, West Germany was not a "period". I grew up watching news items that began with things like "West German Chancellor Willy Brandt said today."

I'm going say this again: we all hate articles that begin with "X is a name for" and the desire to edit them is commendable. But sometimes you just can't do it, because it makes a mess of the intro. Always remember the Ignore All Rules rule Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Or we can imitate Britannica. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, calling it a "historical period" feels off to me too, so maybe we shouldn't do that.

The issue I have with the "name" and "term" sentences is not just due to the rules, but also because it is a little misleading—it makes it seem like the article is about terminology and not the country. I'd personally prefer a sentence that's a bit convoluted but accurate over a sentence that flows but is inaccurate. Of course, if the sentence is too clunky, then the rule could be ignored; but I think the current sentence is fine:

West Germany was the Federal Republic of Germany from its formation on 23 May 1949 until its reunification with East Germany on 3 October 1990.

What do you think of this sentence?

And about the suggestion of imitating Britannica, I might be misunderstanding but wouldn't this just render something similar to the "West Germany was a country..." that was also problematic? I am imagining something like this:

West Germany, from 1949 to 1990, was a republic consisting of the western two-thirds of what is now Germany.

which refers to the republic in past tense even though it still exists.

— Alisperic (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There isn't actually a need to open the article with "West Germany". You could for example have "The Federal Republic of Germany was founded on 23 May 1949. Until the reunification with East Germany on 3 October 1990 it was commonly known as West Germany." CMD (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I recognise that, and I think yours could be a possible solution, but I think this often makes it unclear what the subject of the article is. Like I think your proposal could easily be the first few sentences of an article on the contemporary FRG. Also, the most common term used to refer to the FRG of this time period is "West Germany" (since if you say "Federal Republic of Germany", most people would understand that you are referring to the modern nation), so I feel that it would be better if this term were to be placed first.

Policy-wise, MOS:FIRST states: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, although there are exceptions..." I think it is very possible to have "West Germany" as the subject of the first sentence, and this topic doesn't seem to fit any of the listed exceptions, nor does it seem to be otherwise extraordinary.

Though I have proposed a few sentences that do not have "West Germany" at the start, in a reply to JackTheSecond.

— Alisperic (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My wording was based off those ideas actually (eg. taking commonly known), just with a further shift into a separate sentence which gives a bit more space. I'm not sure making the subject fully clear in a single sentence is possible, given the mixture of continuities and discontinuities. The large paragraph at the end of the lead is testament to this! CMD (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I might be inclined to agree that it is difficult to make the subject fully clear in a sentence, but what do you think of the 1st sentence of the current revision?

West Germany was the Federal Republic of Germany from its formation on 23 May 1949 until its reunification with East Germany on 3 October 1990.

I think it does a decent job of conveying the subject of the article, even if its wording may still feel a bit under-polished. Alisperic (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it does a decent job, subject to the same quibbles as other examples. In this case the implication of the reunification seems to imply creating a new state, rather than the annexation that happened. That said, I'm not opposed to it, the rest of the lead is there to clarify. CMD (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the sentence implies a new state. As I interpret it, the sentence implies reunification terminated "West Germany", but not necessarily "the Federal Republic of Germany". But, as you say, there are other parts of the lead to clarify if any confusion arises. I think this sentence conveys sufficiently useful and true information, and it does so with (relatively?) acceptable fluency.

— Alisperic (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would not say "West Germany" was terminated, given West Germany was the "Federal Republic of Germany", but I do agree the sentence has acceptable fluency. I was merely putting another idea in for consideration in case that might make things clearer. CMD (talk) 07:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Just to clarify: what I meant by "reunification terminated West Germany" was that after reunification, the concept of "West Germany" no longer exists - even though the FRG still exists - as the FRG is no longer called "West Germany". Alisperic (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)