![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Eternity clause page were merged into Entrenched clause on 26 August 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This text has nothing to do with an encyclopedic article but is a POV, revisionist political essay. It is totally worthless and should be deleted for good until a new, neutral article (e. g. along the lines of the de.wikipedia article on the same topic) has been written. --FA2010 (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
_________________
The de.wikipedia article on this topic is absolutely false, i.e., not neutral and presents the opposing and unlawful (totalitarian) view of those who willfully violate Articles 1, 20, 23, 79, 93, 146 and numerous other articles of "this Basic Law"---betraying the German people. Germany's "Basic Law" today is not enforced, and you are asking me to turn a blind eye to the false claims in the de.wikipedia article. For example, the de.wikipedia article on this topic claimed that "this Basic Law" is a constitution, but it is not. (I deleted that claim in the de.wikipedia article last week.) The original text of Article 146 of "this Basic Law" as enacted in 1949 makes it very clear that "this Basic Law" is not a constitution, but a temporary measure until a constitution is adopted by the free decision of the German people. And the English Wikipedia article "The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany" also explains that "this Basic Law" was to be temporary until the ultimate reunification of West and East Germany. The fact is that the eternity clause and Article 146 are the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany which the legislature has, with unlawful "amendments," replaced with an extra-legal (arbitrary) "basic law". In fact, "this Basic Law" is not valid for the people of East Germany: There has been no lawful reunification. --Ofthehighest (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia and I'm learning the formatting here etc., but I fully intend to meet Wikipedia's quality standards for this article. I am being objective and will cite reputable references and sources, and include relevant internal links. If you wish to contact me personally, please do. My name is H. Everest Wilhelmsen and you can write to me at ofthehighest@yahoo.com. I live in Germany and have experienced first hand the injustice of the legal system here -- the result of the government's willful violations of the eternity clause. --Ofthehighest (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Now someone has deleted the facts I entered in this article, possibly User:Fa2010, who claims above that they are "totally worthless." It would seem polite to me that someone claiming to be "neutral" should reserve his or her claims until after scrutinizing the facts. --Ofthehighest (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The law, (i.e., Articles 1 and 20), is the citation you have asked for. Articles 1 and 20 are demands of the legislative, executive and judicial organs and bind these organs and their separate responsiblities so that they cannot conspire with one another. This is the basic democratic principle of the separation of powers. There is no way around it. Possibly, you do not like the words "internal conspiracies by the legislative, executive and jucial organs," but that is specifically what Articles 1 and 20 prevents. Articles 1 and 20 are security measures limiting and separating the powers of these organs to prevent political conspiracies. And this is also exactly why the eternity clause was put in "this Basic Law," to protect the identity and functions of the federation. Articles 1 and 20 both specifically define and protect the integrity of the Federal Republic of Germany from internal plots.--Ofthehighest (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello Lone boatman. Someone has blocked me from editing on the "deutsch" article for Eternity clause. What did I do wrong to get blocked? To my recollection I several times took out the German word "andere" from in front of "Verfassung" because it says that the German people now have a constitution ("Verfassung") even though they have not adopted a constitution. It is not possible for the Basic Law of Germany to be redefined as a "constitution" without the German people doing so in accordance with Article 146. The full sentence in German where I removed the word "andere" states, "Bis zu einer Ersetzung des Grundgesetzes durch eine andere Verfassung (Art. 146 GG)[1] kann die Ewigkeitsklausel nach heute herrschender Meinung nicht aufgehoben werden."
How do I challenge what has been written in the Deutsch article on this topic? It is just not correct for false statements (lies) to be made on Wikipedia. You, yourself, agreed with me on that. Are you an administrator for Wikipedia. Apparently, an administrator blocked me on the deutsch article at someone's request. Thanks for being patient with me in what I am writing on the English Eternity clause. I am trying to follow the policies of Wikipedia, but want to present the truth only.--Ofthehighest (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I have eliminated several statements I wrote where you asked for citations. Later, after finding citations, I may add them again. I have also changed the one remaining sentence where you have asked for citation. What I have written there is only an introduction to a list of "the basic principles" and a different way of saying that the eternity clause and Articles 1 and 20 do not allow state authority to eliminate democracy. But let me know if you still think it needs a citation.--Ofthehighest (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible for the German authorities to accuse me of being a "Verfassungstroll" and have me blocked from the English Wikipedia Eternity clause article?--Ofthehighest (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You or someone else has twice taken out a clause in one sentence leaving the sentence absolutely false. You cannot write, "i.e., illegal amendments of this basic law cannot be abbrogated or infringed upon, neither by additional legislation of the Bundestag (Federal legislature), nor by an executive order, nor by an assertion, opinion, decision or rule of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court)." Whoever removed the first clause of the i.e., is saying that illegal amendments are valid in the law. Not so!
It must read, "i.e., the will of the people regarding illegal amendments of this basic law cannot be abbrogated or infringed upon, neither by additional legislation of the Bundestag (Federal legislature), nor by an executive order, nor by an assertion, opinion, decision or rule of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court)."
I am correcting it again. Thanks.--Ofthehighest (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are you always taking "the democratic rule of law" out of the sentence before "Rechtsstaat"? This is an English article on the eternity clause. I find it inappropriate that you only want the German word here. Obviously, the Basic Law is based upon the democratic rule of law, otherwise it would not have been allowed to be a member of the European Union (EU). It seems to me that you are agreeing with the German article which states that the rule of law is not in the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. I wish you would start editing the German article. It is full of false assertions, ABSOLUTELY FALSE assertions, many without sources.--Ofthehighest (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I have not made any reference to my blog in the text of the article, as you accuse me of above. I have already explained to you that the reference for that second sentence is from the article "Quo vadis, Germany?". Current Concerns. 15 July 2012. http://currentconcerns.ch/index.php ?id=1871 which I referenced to several days ago. You had already seen the reference and had apparently approved of it, because you did not disapprove of it. But after accusing me above of taking the second from my blog, (i.e., "The eternity clause and “the basic principles” of Articles 1 and 20 are the essential barriers against a new dictatorship in Germany"), you removed the reference, even from the first sentence. What is really unethical about what you did is that you have not acknowledged doing it, and apparently you did not even bother to read the Quo vadis, Germany article, as referenced, and instead falsely accused me of taking it from my blog. Either that or you chose to disapprove of the sentence and wrongfully censor it. Also, you have falsely accused me of starting an "editing war". It is you who have repeatedly and wrongfully removed properly referenced material, even though I had previously sourced it with your approval. At this point I have decided to let you write the article.--Ofthehighest (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
You have repeatedly taken out "The eternity clause and “the basic principles” of Articles 1 and 20 are the essential barriers against a new dictatorship in Germany" even though I had sourced it with your approval previously. Is it you who wrote regarding the "three resolutions of the United Nations"?
I am beginning to see that I am wasting my time here on Wikipedia. Why? Because nothing is secure, not even the truth with verifiable sources can be told here on Wikipedia. It doesn't stick. At this point I suggest you write the Wikipedia article on the Eternity Clause. Afterall, you are censoring me on everything I write. Good luck. I'll check back in a few days to see if you are truly a believer in the basic democratic principles. If you like you can draw from my blog, http://ofthehighest.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/what-is-the-eternity-clause/ I have included in my blog the sentence you wrote, "The eternity clause establishes that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed."--Ofthehighest (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
You have falsely accused me of starting an "editing war". It is you who has been trying to stop me from sharing properly referenced material. You showed me how and I referenced what I wrote. You had accepted what I referenced, but when I added the second sentence (even though it was in the same reference) you chose to delete the reference and accuse me of not having a citation for either sentence. If it wasn't that I don't believe you, (i.e., I believe you do work for Wikipedia and are lying to me), I would report you to Wikipedia. At this point I believe Wikipedia is a great place for lies, because that is what you have been supporting. Go ahead and have me blocked and it will only prove that you are not interested in the basic principles of democracy, but in your own political opinions.--Ofthehighest (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It would do you good to read my blog. But your eyes are apparently closed to the truth I do my utmost to only write verifiable material there, and I am in the process of adding the sources for everything written.--Ofthehighest (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Lone boatman, please stop accusing me of referencing my blog. I have never done that. I referenced "Current Concerns," an article called "Quo vedas, Germany?" This is a reputable/reliable Swiss publisher. I have also referenced this publisher in my blog. And please stop accusing me of participating in an "editing war". It is you who have wrongfully removed material by accusing me of referencing my blog. I have not done as you claim. And also stop removing the words "democratic rule of law" in front of (Rechsstaat). This is an English article on the eternity clause, not a German one. The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany has the rule of law established in "the constitutional order" of the Basic Law. Obviously, the Federal Republic of Germany has the rule of law in its Basic Law, otherwise it would not have been permitted into the European Union. Do you not find it interesting that the Deutsch article on Wikipedia for the eternity clause claims that there is no Rechtsstaat within the Basic Law? That is only one of the false statements made on that site. Another false statement is that the Basic Law is the "constitution" for the Federal Republic of Germany. Utterly false. If you have any constructive additions to the English article, you are welcome. I appreciate that you added the sentence "The eternity clause makes it clear that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed." And also where you added the words "three United Nations resolutions" before the source I referenced. You hhave also simplified the headers. Probably a good idea. Thank you.--Ofthehighest (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)--Ofthehighest (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Lone boatman, thanks for changing the word from "intrical" to intrinsic. And also thanks for putting in "aimed at preventing" - it's more positive than "barriers". Thanks.--Ofthehighest (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Lone boatman, please do not change that sentence again. It is you who originally wrote "The eternity clause establishes that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed, even by parliament." You took that directly from the reference you cited. I changed that to "The eternity clause establishes that certain fundamental principles of this democracy can never be changed, even by parliament," which says the same as what you had originally written, but replaced the word "things" with "fundamental principles," which is more explicit and accurate, as referenced. But yesterday you took out "democracy" and put "constitution". The reference refers only to changes of "democracy," not the "constitution" as you have written. So, you have not been "more explicit," but are synthesizing to present your argument that "this Basic Law" is a "constitution". Please do not change this sentence (take the subject off track) again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofthehighest (talk • contribs)
Lone boatman, your argument above is absolutely false and you are continuing to vandalize this article. You posted the original sentence as follows: "The eternity clause establishes that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed, even by Parliament." In fact, you plagiarized the sentence from National Review's article that you referenced (cited). I changed the sentence to "The eternity clause establishes that certain fundamental principles within this democracy can never be changed, not even by parliament," which was not plagiarizing and in line with the topic of the referenced (cited) National Review article and the purpose of the 'eternity clauses' as stated in the National Review article. After I added "this" to be more explicit, you then took out the word "democracy" and supplanted it with the word "constitution," ignoring the context of the reference cited. I warned you that what you did would need a different citation, and that you were only presenting your usual political argument that Germany has a "constitution." I put the word "democracy" back in the sentence. But again you supplanted it with the words "Basic Lsw" -- ignoring what I had told you. The National Review article is not about changing a "constitution" or changing the "Basic Law," but about interference with (changing) Germany's "democracy". And now you are again vandalizing this article on the 'eternity clause" to pursue your argument again that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution" -- purposely added material already published in Wikipedia's article on entrenched clauses -- claiming again that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution". The 'eternity clause' is not a "colloquial term" used in other countries for an entrenched clause, as you claim. And Wikipedia already has an article for "entrenched clause" which is where the material you have added to the 'eternity clause' article belongs. You are vandalizing the 'eternity clause' article and obviously pushing your political view that Germany has a "constitution". You have been censoring me with false accusations, claiming I am violating Wikipedia's policies, but it is you who have been doing so, not me. Now, I am going to remove the material you have added, because you are using it to vandalize (sabotage) this article. Please take your political opinions elsewhere and stop disrupting this article. Stop pushing your political views and censoring what I am writing and referencing. And now you claim that you have a partner who is also against me. I do not find it to be a coincidence that I was blocked from the German (Deutsch) article on the eternity clause. It was probably you who had me blocked, not wanting Germans to read what I was writing. --Ofthehighest (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
@Lone boatman: It seems to me that it's high time to escalate this issue and to deal with this disrespectful and disruptive editor once and for all. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I have also reported this problem. It is you (Lone boatman) -- you are vandalizing this article. Your new data is again to push your political view that Germany has a "constitution," and a deliberate attempt to distract people from reading about the eternity clause. The material you added on other countries belongs in Wikipedia's "entrenched clause" article. If you want to add the entrenched clauses of other countries, do it in the correct article, i.e., "entrenched clause". As for you Mmeijeri, I find it interesting that you have only now shown up after Lone boatman has been causing nothing but trouble. Lone boatman has again started an "editing war," and you have come to help him I see.--Ofthehighest (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Who said the word "conspiracy"? You did. I simply pointed out that Martijn Meijering showed up for the first time when you started adding all of this other material regarding other countries, which I consider to be vandalism because you are angry that I pointed out that you had wrongfully deleted "democracy" and replaced it with "constitution". And then you did it again - deleted "democracy" and replaced it with "Basic Law" even though you know that the article referenced is not about changing the "constitution" or "Basic Law," but changing "democracy". And then you did it again by adding the new material on top of the eternity clause, again claiming that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution". It is you who ar3e not "neutral". Do not accuse me of that. And it is you who have been synthesizing (also plagiarizing). Therefore, it is you who should be given a "stern warning," not me. You always get the last say by changing things and then threating me. Okay, I will not delete what you last changed. It is you who does not gain "concensus" before deleting and changing things to your liking. And suddenly you have another person here supporting you. He has never been here before today. Is that what you are calling "concensus"? I have also filed my complaint on the same pages you have. Maybe we will get some help with this. At this point I have asked for protection until the page is written and then protection if Wikipedia agrees that it meets Wikipedia policies.--Ofthehighest (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Lone boatman, it is you who is claiming ownership of this article, not me. I only want you out of this article because you are vandalizing it all the time. was adding much needed material to this article when you showed up and started manipulating everything to fit your political views. You even found my personal blog, told me that you did not like my views and falsely accused me several times of using my blog as a reference. I made it very clear to you several times that you were falsely accusing me. You have not yet apologized for that. You have started several "editing wars" with me by insisting on having it your way (deleting and revising and threatening me if I changed it). It is you who have in each case ended up with the last change. You plagiarized the one sentence that has now caused this disagreement. I changed it so it was not plagiarism and then you came again and changed it again taking out the word "democracy," supplanting it with "constitution" because I have told you that Germany's Basic Law is not a "constitution". But you disagree and will have it your way with manipulation, lies and threats. Yes, I want this article to be protected from vandalism. You are vandalizing it. The 'eternity clause' is intended to protect the fundamental principles of democracy, and in the same way I want the fundamental purpose of this article to be protected from you changing it so that it is meaningless.--Ofthehighest (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I also had put a German flag at the top of the article. Lone boatman removed it when he changed the page into an international page like the "entrenched clause" article. He did so only to take the focus off of Germany's 'eternity clause'. Then someone else came and removed all I had written and correctly referenced. Much work totally vandalized (sabotaged)! There is no other way to say it.--Ofthehighest (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Lone boatman has also accused me of wanting to personally own the article (page). Not true. It is he who has always gotten his way with this article, always threatening to have me blocked after making his changes. And what is very interesting is that three other editors suddenly turned up to agree with him. They had never been here before yesterday and today. And suddenly the entire article is GONE. I see them as a gang of VANDALS, nothing more. They did discuss, but only acted rapidly to delete the article.--Ofthehighest (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The vast majority of this article is either unsourced or relies exclusively on primary sources. Per WP:V, contentious material (which this obviously is, based on the edit history) must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source.
Please do not restore any material without including a reliable source. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
You have all vandalized the article, violated all of Wikipedia's policies. The entire article is gone and you have wasted my time - censored what I had properly written and referenced.--Ofthehighest (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am a volunteer for the DRN. A dispute over this article was filed (albeit to the wrong WP resolution area) and I thought it might be better to leave the page intact until some issues were resolved. I likely don't know all the details surrounding the page but I have some concerns. I'm not opposed to a redirect after all the issues are resolved. I would appreciate feedback.
I think most of the editors here have been very patient, civil and followed protocols and etiquette so kudos to you. I am going to be very forward and address the main editors to see if the major problems can be resolved here on the talk page. If that's ok then I'd like to withdraw and allow consensus to decide about the redirect issue. If the majority wish me to withdraw now then please let me know as no one has formally asked for a comment, etc. Thanks. Jobberone (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
@Ofthehighest, I've warned you to stop accusing those who disagree with you of vandalism, and you really should stop that, and also stop the personal attacks against others, before someone blocks you for it (I can't, as I am involved in the content discussion, but I am quite prepared to ask another admin to review your comments).
@Jobberone, thanks for your input, but to me the dispute seems to be one person against the rest. I think a discussion here is better, but if we could ask for your evaluation of the consensus when the discussion has progressed a little, I think that could be very valuable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The quote can be found here [1] and it looks like an article rather than an opinion column, so should fall under WP:RS. If I've misunderstood or someone disagrees, please say so. WP policy based arguments only please.
- An “eternity clause” in Germany's constitution says that certain things, above all democracy, can never be changed, even by parliament.
The quote has some ambiguity but I'd argue that it is democracy that cannot be changed, rather than the constitution. Opinions? JanetteDoe (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Boing, prove what you have said above. You have no right to lie here, as Lone boatman was doing by claiming to "paraphrase," but repeatedly changed only one word, i.e., "democracy" to "constitution". Lone boatman was synthesizing - misusing the reference to argue his personal political views. And when I warned him, he took revenge by changing the entire article into a catch-all international article, and again at the top of the page put "constitutions". I then pointed out that he had only changed it to push his change to "constitution" again---violating the article referenced, i.e., that the 'eternity clause' is to protect fundamental principles of democracy, not the "German constitution". The article was not "a detailed personal analysis of a German statute." All was referenced. The history was there. The fundamental principles of Germany's democracy were listed there. The 'eternity clause' forbids changes to the fundamental principles of democracy and Lone boatman and the other VANDALS here have done exactly that by changing the page. Lone boatman first completely changed the purpose for the page (making it like the "entrenched clause" page). That was also drastically pruning the page,(he changed the topic of the page) - and then another editor showed up and deleted everything - all of these changes were made in willful violation of Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia's policies have been abused (alienated) by the manipulation and arbitrary acts of these VANDALS who are at this moment sabotaging this article on the 'eternity clause,' i.e., the article is gone. Wikipedia's policies are at this moment gone and if Wikipedia does not reasonably deal with these willful violations, then Wikipidia is allowing "editors" and "administrators" to use Wikipedia only for their own political objectives, contributing nothing - only bullying and threatening editors who are attempting to contribute.--Ofthehighest (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Lone boatman, it is you who have willfully and repeatedly violated Wikipedia's policies by making entire changes to the 'eternity clause' article then threatening me as usual. And you ask me now to stay "cool" as you continue to manipulate editors and possible administrators to cover your wrongdoings. Oh, I am staying "cool". You know full and well that I am staying "cool". If I was not staying cool I would have deleted your last changes. It is you who made the last changes, not me. Hopefully, administrators will see through your manipulations and make the right decisions. Clearly, you wanted a "concensus" and several other editors suddenly turned up for the first time to give you the support you needed. What a coincidence! You are not aiming at a "concensus" or "discussion," but willfully vandalizing (sabotaging) the 'eternity clause' article.--Ofthehighest (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
___________________________
JanetteDoe, You are right that the referenced article in National Review is about not changing the fundamental principles of democracy, not changing the "constitution". And this is why I have a BIG problem with Lone boatman (and the three other "editors" who suddenly showed up for the first time and agreed with Lone boatman - the three others had not been at the 'eternity clause' article previously). Lone boatman does not want the word "democracy". After I accused him of synthesizing he then took revenge by changing the entire article into a catch all international page in which he redefines 'eternity clause' as a "term" used internationally instead of the colloquial description specific to Article 79 paragraph (3) of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. This page was part of the German law page specific to Germany, not an international one which is already covered under a Wikipedia article entitled "entrenched clause". Lone boatman added the additional international data at the top of the page only to cover up the 'eternity clause' article. And again he focused on the word "constitution" at the top of his change. And when I told him he had wrongfully duplicated the "entrenched clause" to pursue his use of the word "constitution" (which I had previously told him Germany does not have), he then added "Basic Law" to his change to make it appear that he is not politically motivated with his changes. Then several editors suddently showed up for the first time and one of them deleted the entire 'eternity clause' article, leaving only what Lone boatman had put in at the top. Wikipedia is apparently no place to safeguard an article, even a properly referenced article, which the article was. And it was not a personal essay on a statute, as I have been accused of. It is an important historic prohibition placed in the Germany's Basic Law regarding the protection of Germany's new democracy.--Ofthehighest (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I propose that Eternity clause be merged into Entrenched clause. As far as I can see, the articles are substantial duplicates; Eternity clause article articulates no meaningful distinction. 73.202.30.72 (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)