Talk:Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (2010)

Correct title?
Is the title "Constitution of the Germany" correct? That doesn't really follow English grammar. 00:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoops! --CSN 01:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The original soucre was me, Tony Kendall who scanned it when I was the forum manager of GEnie's Germany RoundTable in 1993. It was based on a hard copy of the "Basic Law" given to me by a member of the Bundestag when I lived in Germany. I was in a meeting when several members of the Bundestag and when they spoke in English they all referred to it as the "Basic Law." In other words, our constitution is called the "Basic Law." —unsigned comment by 76.102.246.107 (talk).

Alternate translations
Alternate translations are of course welcome on Wikisource. However it is not neccessary to lose this version in the process. Please go ahead and crreate a new page for the new translation and we can make this disambiguate. Please read Translations --BirgitteSB 02:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up for me; I think the current version could use improvement. How do you suggest a new version should be named, and where should it be linked from? (Patrick 02:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC))


 * If you are translating it yourself it should be Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Wikisource Translation) I will move this to Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (1991) and we can make this a disambiuagtion page. --BirgitteSB 02:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who scanned this document many years ago. Germans do call it the "Basic Law." It is a constitution but the name for it is the "Basic Law" TK —unsigned comment by 76.102.246.107 (talk).

Missing Laws
Artikel 20a is missing. That's this animal protection thing. Original German text:

"Der Staat schützt auch in Verantwortung für die künftigen Generationen die natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen und die Tiere im Rahmen der verfassungsmäßigen Ordnung durch die Gesetzgebung und nach Maßgabe von Gesetz und Recht durch die vollziehende Gewalt und die Rechtsprechung." Date: 07/26/2002

The right of asylum (Article 16) has been restricted.--217.234.103.199 20:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Where are Article 143a through 143d??? --194.213.41.2 12:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

To be updated
Hello,

According to CK, it needs to be updated: http://www.bundestag.de/htdocs_e/parliament/function/legal/germanbasiclaw.pdf Yann 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Amendments
Something in the following list of statements does not fit:


 * 1) "Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany ... As Amended by the Unification Treaty of 31 August 1990 and Federal Statute of 23 September 1990"
 * 2) "amended 24 June 1968"
 * 3) "amended March 19, 1956"
 * 4) "amended March 19 1956"
 * 5) "amended 21 December 1983"
 * 6) "amended 19 August 1969 and 23 August 1976"
 * 7) "amended 28 July 1972"
 * 8) "amended March 19, 1956"
 * 9) "amended 23 August 1976"
 * 10) "amended March 19 1956"
 * 11) "amended 24 June 1968"
 * 12) "amended 24 June 1968"
 * 13) "inserted 28 July 1972 and amended 23 August 1972"
 * 14) "amended 12 May 1969"
 * 15) "amended 18 March 1969"
 * 16) "amended 15 November 1968 and 12 May 1969"
 * 17) "amended 15 Nov 1968"
 * 18) "amended March 27, 1954"
 * 19) "amended 24 June 1968"
 * 20) "amended 18 June 1968"
 * 21) "amended 26 August 1969"

There are around 20 amendments in less than 40 years, not 2. The top-level statement should reflect this. Or am I missing something? Int21h (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Embedded brackets in section headers make in-linking difficult
It's unfortunate that the section headers containg  tags, as well as square brackets in them, as it makes inlinks to sections difficult to construct. For example, clicking the ToC entry for Article 3, takes you to this wikisource url with square brackets in it; but if you attempt to code that into a section link, like this: that renders like this: so it doesn't generate a link at all. The workaround, is to escape the square brackets in the URL fragment with HTML entities, thus: then it renders as which works. But most people aren't going to figure this out, and removal of the brackets (at least change them to parentheses) would help, and removal of the  tags would make things a little clearer as well. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Article 3 link
 * Article 3 link

Material not in original source
I think all the bracketed expressions in the article titles should be removed. This is supposed to be a translation of de:Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1949), and should not contain original work not present in the original.

As far as I can tell, the names of the articles given in the English text, do not exist in the original German. They are very helpful in navigating the document, both in browsing, and via the ToC hyperlinks, but the fact is, they are not in the original. (That probably explains the presence of the square brackets noted in the previous section.) That is, the article titles are an invention of an editor here. I don't believe this is acceptable for a document stored here, but I'm not too familiar with the rules of Wikisource, so I will ask for help on this.

The bracket text is useful, and I believe it would be okay to create a supplemental subpage containing a table of contents-like indented list of piped links including the bracketed expressions from the current version of the article as the anchors in the piped links, as an aid in navigating the Constitution. Mathglot (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I opened a discussion about the general case at Scriptorium. Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fyi: this was discussed at the Scriptorium (April 2019 archives), which spawned this copyright discussion, which dealt with some tricky questions of copyright in German and U.S. law. Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You could this in an AuxTOC so that it's clearly delineated as Wikisource-added material by the green box. Something like:

Inductiveload— talk/contribs 21:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)