Talk:2010 German presidential election

Parties in the infobox

The current version of the infobox[1] is less than ideal. Joachim Gauck is not a member of the SPD, he's a non-partisan candidate backed by the SPD and the Greens. Apparently, this infobox doesn't support multiple parties (also see Template_talk:Infobox_election#Several_parties_backing_a_presidential_candidate). Josh Gorand (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC) 

There's really no easy way to do what you want. The only suggestion I have is to note the nominations in refs. Aside from that, the real problem is that the template doesn't allow images without parties. If it did, we could just note the parties parenthetically. -Rrius (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a work around, which is specify a colour, then hide it with party_colour=no, see also Template talk:Infobox election‎#Several parties backing a presidential candidate. 117Avenue (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Re-added Jochimsen to the infobox. She is a candidate backed by over 100 delegates, I see no reason why she wouldn't be a "major" candidate. --Danielbruns (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

She's not a major candidate because she isn't backed by any of the two major parties, and hasn't any realistic chances to get elected. 100 delegates, see, that amounts to less than 10%. The two major candidates are backed by 646 and 461 delegates, respectively. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fringe candidates

Personally, I don't think the two fringe candidates, Jochumsen and Rennicke, should be included in the infobox. The fringe candidates Sodann and Rennicke were not included in the infobox on the 2009 election. The only candidates with realistic chances to be elected are the two candidates of the major parties (CDU/CSU and SPD), that is, Wulff (backed by CDU/CSU and FDP) and Gauck (backed by SPD and Greens). But if we include Jochumsen, we must also include Rennicke, of course. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

More relevant precedent: United States presidential election, 2008 does also only include the two candidates of the two major parties (that is, the only candidates with realistic chances to actually be elected president) in the infobox. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How is an election where the two listed candidated gained 100% of the electoral votes and much over 90% of the popular vote a relevant precedent? Calling a candidate who is predicted (I can't see into the future, on June 30 we'll know) to receive 10% of the electoral votes a fringe candidate is a bit off I think (10% is not little). Also there's a tiny difference between 124 votes out of 1242 and three votes. More to the point: declaring candidates as "minor" and removing them isn't really NPOV imo. Another "precedent": Austrian presidential election, 2010, including all candidates in the infobox, one of them with 5% of the votes. --Completefailure (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

forget it, like in german wikipedia, state security police point of view (SSPPOV) has to be considered NPOV. This is because nowadays in Germany, mentioning of injustice by west german executives or Secrect State Police, be it before 1990 or after, isn´t anymore considered useful, because all these things like secret police informers, censorship, police brutality, torture or extralegal killings didn´t or don´t have to have existed, all this existed only in the "state of injustice called GDR", this is for reeducational purposes in the "latter invented german democracy".

Even if this orwellesque "New History Speak" may seem a little ridiculous for a neutral spectator from outside, it is like it is....

Secret Political Police existed and exists only "over there" or "over the ocean", this is what our hun secret police says, and not shall one doubt or question it. It´s just better for you to feel secure, better believe me, ok !! 89.196.29.247 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of delegates& Previous President

1.I corrected to 1244, as you can see by addition of lines above, else see http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/aufgaben/weitereaufgaben/bundesversammlung/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.196.29.247 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

2. Böhrnsen was NOT President of the Federation, instead he was and is President of the Federation Council, and President of the Senate and Mayor of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, which is equivalent to a Ministerpräsident(Minister President)of a Federal State(Bundesland).

Article54 (1) of the German Grundgesetz (GG) says: "(1) Der Bundespräsident wird ohne Aussprache von der Bundesversammlung gewählt. [...]"
"(1)The President of the Federation is elected without debate by the Federal Convention. [...]"
Not elected by Convention-> not in the Office of President. There is no automatic successor, only can one be elected by Federal Convention.

Art. 55 of GG says: "(1) Der Bundespräsident darf weder der Regierung noch einer gesetzgebenden Körperschaft des Bundes oder eines Landes angehören."
"(2) Der Bundespräsident darf kein anderes besoldetes Amt, kein Gewerbe und keinen Beruf ausüben und weder der Leitung noch dem Aufsichtsrate eines auf Erwerb gerichteten Unternehmens angehören."

"(1) The Federal President may not be a member of the government or of a legislative body of the Federation or of a Land."
"(2) The President of the Federation ist not allowed to perform another salaried office, business and profession, and to be nor Executive Officer neither Member of the Board of a comercial enterprise"
Indeed, Böhrnsen is still in Office as President of Federal Council and as Senator and Mayor of Bundesland Bremen. He did not resign, and therefore cannot hold the Office of the Federation´s President. He is only deputy in a functional sense.

Art.57 of the GG says:
"Die Befugnisse des Bundespräsidenten werden im Falle seiner Verhinderung oder bei vorzeitiger Erledigung des Amtes durch den Präsidenten des Bundesrates wahrgenommen."
"The authorities of the President of the Federation are discharged to the President of the Federal Council in case of unability to perform or premature ending of his office."

The authorities, NOT the office! 89.196.32.213 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Depiction of the Left's critique of Joachim Gauck

Hi there. I have recently come across several edits that tried to purport the view that politicians of the Left had criticized Gauck for his role as "Stasi-hunter" (which in itself is a problematic and undifferentiated notion). As far as I know, there is no politician in the Left Party who actually did this (If you find one, don't hesitate to let me know) and the sources we have certainly do not back up this claim. Rather, the Left has criticized Gauck for concrete views and statements, most of wich had little to do with the GDR or Stasi at all. The idea that the Left disapproves of Gauck because of his role as Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives is one purported by the Left's political adversaries (like Sigmar Gabriel) and not a neutral or undisputed one. We should present it in this way. Gauck is, despite being nominated by the SPD and the Greens, first and foremost a conservative figure with mostly conservative views. It's logical that the Left would have problems supporting such a candidate. However, it is not our place to just claim the real reason behind the Left's disapproval to be another one, unless we have significant sources for that. Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit that this could possibly be worded better, but German commentators and the leaders of the other parties generally agree that The Left rejected Gauck in large part due to his criticism of the GDR and him being unpopular in the party because of his "Aufarbeitung" in regard to the Stasi and the GDR in general. When they refer to him as a "man of the past", they clearly refer to this work. Gauck is described as a liberal conservative by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and describes himself as a leftist liberal conservative, expressing enthusiasm for the democratic part of the left including the social democrats and the greens. He once represented Alliance '90, now part of Alliance '90/Greens. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Gauck gilt für die große Mehrheit der Abgeordneten [of The Left] nicht einmal im dritten Durchgang als wählbar. Der Vorwurf: Er sei zu neoliberal, zu militaristisch. Auch seine harte Haltung als Chef der Stasi-Unterlagen-Behörde tragen ihm einige nach. Mancher Linke würde am Ende sogar lieber für CDU-Mann Wulff votieren, nur um Gauck zu verhindern, ist zu vernehmen"[2] Josh Gorand (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Diether Dehm, Die Linke Member of Parliament, refers to him as a "witch hunter" (that is, a derogative term for Stasi hunter, as he's frequently referred to): "Dieter Dehm, der Gauck wegen seiner Leitung der Stasi-Unterlagen-Behörde als "Brunnenvergifter und Hexenjäger" bezeichnet"[3]. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I hadn't heard of Dehm's statement calling him a "witch hunter" and the sources we had until now didn't support that. Now that we have a source, you can add Dehm's statement to the article (but please don't say "The Left in general" or something like that). Still, I find statements like "German commentators [...] generally agree" problematic, especially in the article. Have you read all comments on the election? Or do you have a source claiming that "German commentators" "generally agree"? You would need one, otherwise your claim would be original research at best and made up out of thin air at worst. Just from the top of my head: This piece by Die Zeit focuses on the different stances on policies between The Left and Gauck and not on Gauck's role as "Stasi hunter".

Just so that you know my personal opinion on the matter: I think it is a bit of both. Clearly some people in The Left are a bit backward concerning the GDR but I also think that they genuinely have problems with Gauck's views. The Left has always advocated against participation in the War in Afghanistan and against the Agenda 2010, so it seems just logical to me that they would have problems supporting someone who has completely different views on that.

I would also urge you not to exclude The Left from the "democratic left", as you call it. Many people in the party are just appaled by the massive rightward drift of the SPD under Schröder and basically advocate the same the SPD did in its "Godesberger Programm" and until a few years ago. The real boneheads in The Left (KPF) are tiny factions. Janfrie1988 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Jochimsen's background

I disagree with removing Jochimsen's background as former editor-in-chief of the Hessischer Rundfunk. We have information on Wulff's and Gauck's backgrond, too. What is more, it is mentioned in the source we use in this section and I remember to have read it several times in the last few days. The HR is an important broadcaster in Germany, so this position should be notable. Likewise, I would also include that Frank Rennike is a far-right singer-songwriter. Janfrie1988 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I think neither Rennicke's singing career or Jochimsen's journalism career are that relevant for this article, because none of them were serious candidates with realistic chances of getting elected, and also because Jochumsen's journalism career has little to do with her politics. She only became politically active after ending her journalism career. Gauck's and Wulff's backgrounds, on the contrary, are directly relevant for their political careers and presidential candidacies, and they were the main candidates (similar to Obama and McCain, or George W. Bush and John Kerry). Josh Gorand (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 

Well, if your argument is that those two are too minor for including any background information about them I would argue that a random statement by Jochimsen previous to the election is irrelevant, too. Besides: I find it problematic to treat Jochimsen and Rennike equally. There were more than 30 (!) times more delegates that supported Jochimsen than Rennike. Also, in the media I have come across, Rennike was mostly ignored, while Jochimsen gained quite some attention. And to be fair: Even Gauck never really had a realistic chance. As far as I have read most people were actually surprised that he even made it to the third round. Janfrie1988 (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The backgrounds of both minor candidates should be included. Otherwise the reader may wonder where the two are coming from and why they are in the position they are in today. Short descriptions that it, a few words will do. Which candidate had realistic chances is irrelevant for this. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German presidential election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130115723/http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/download/de/publikationen/verfassungsschutzbericht/vsbericht_2007/vsbericht_2007.pdf to http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/download/de/publikationen/verfassungsschutzbericht/vsbericht_2007/vsbericht_2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)