Kinderarmut in Deutschland (German Edition)
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Kinderarmut in Deutschland (German Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Kinderarmut in Deutschland (German Edition) book.
Happy reading Kinderarmut in Deutschland (German Edition) Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Kinderarmut in Deutschland (German Edition) at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Kinderarmut in Deutschland (German Edition) Pocket Guide.
Just a heads up I would just like to point out that in the "area" section of the sidebar at the top of the page, it says Germany has an area of " km sq. I am not sure which of these is right, but the data is inconsistant, and needs to be fixed. I like Germany and it's peoples. I have been their for seven days in Furankfurt city. The city is very beautyfull, and the people are very cooprative to help others. Map A Original Uses the German external borders. Shows the occupation zones in as of February 21, Shows the occupation zones as well as the newly created Saar in the west, and the territory under Polish and Soviet control in the east.
- Download e-book Kinderarmut in Ost- und Westdeutschland (German Edition);
- Kinderarmut: Armutszeugnis für Hamburg | ZEIT ONLINE;
- Find a copy in the library.
- Bildrechte auf dieser Seite?
- The Journal of University of Trnava.
Map C Official map published Uses the German external borders. Only included for comparison purposes, this map is NOT under discussion! I would like to open this discussion, because I observe an ongoing revert war related to two these two map. User: Lear21 advocates the long-standing left map, while User: Stor stark7 would like to substitute it by the right version.
These are our core themes
As you all know, communication merely via edit results is not counter-productive, e. Other limitations of edit wars are well-known. Personally, I prefer the right version, since it simply adds information: Germany is shown in its context other countries borders , the territorial losses of Germany to Poland and the USSR are indicated, and the Saar region is treated more appropriately. T om ea s y talk , 19 July UTC. The main reasons for the reverts have been: 1. The new map and its caption have been far too big. Emphasizing the situation of Allied forces in Germany through a large image is not justified.
Neither is an overlengthy caption. The size does not fit in the layout concept of the article. The section describes the situation IN Germany with its borders we know today. The situation in Poland is a different story and has therefore no place in the historic narrative of the Federal Republic of Germany. Who knows how many people assume that the borders of, say, Germany were precisely the same as the borders of post Oct Germany?!
Lots of sloppy assumptions going on. Even Ken Burns's recent TV documentary "The War" had the boundaries of Germany incorrect, although not quite as misrepresented as other sources have been. Hey Matthead. As you take part in this thread you must have seen that we are currently discussing with Lear21 the question which map to put.
Why do you have to revert him during this discussion? It's a good habit to wait for the ultimate change until consensus is reached. I think, we were anyway not far from this aim. Again, the section deals with the history of Germany from until now. The clear focus is the partition and the reunifcation of Germany. There is no place for an extended visualisation of surrounding territories. This does not mean territorial losses are not mentioned. In fact, it is mentioned in first sentence, but it is only one sentences among many within the section.
Kinderarmut in Ost- und Westdeutschland (German Edition)
The Polish parts have no influence in the history of Germany after , therfore it remains unjustified to present them. Furthermore, two sections above is a map of the former German Reich which is clearly different from the one in the last history section. Please people, do not make a big political discussion out of this. Ultra-leftist versus Nazi accusations are simply destructive and are going to loose focus on the real and not so complicated issue itself. To Molobo, you have expressed your criticism with respect to this map already elsewhere, where it is also discussed.
Here it is just misplaced, as it was IMHO already when it was put here. Let's focus on the history we are trying to narrate. There was Nazi Germany until , whose accepted borders are usually depicted as those from Matthead might have a point of proposing otherwise, but this is uncommon and would certainly be interpreted as POV or original research. Lear said that the borders of the former German Reich are shown earlier.
Well, this is again a different thing as it refers to the state until , which is distinct from Our task is to be as precise as possible without using too much space. That's why I favor the map with territorial losses. Not because I want to show how great Germany was or what others have taken away from us or whatever other stupid reason. It is simply what has happened at that time and it needs to be shown.
If this can done without loss of information by simply replacing one map - great, let's do it. I prefer the second map, it just shows more information. The current history section of the country article Germany is one, if not THE longest of all country articles. The now discussed period is in itself the longest of all sections within the article. The first para deals with the development of the partition of Germany within the NOW existing borders. I see absolutely no room for extending content. I see also no room for extending visual content. The current evolving conflict about the accuracy of new-extended-map indicates a highly instable version and a source for future debates.
It should be mentioned in the main article "History of Germany". There is no reason for expanding or shifting the focus of these 3 major issues. Lear 21 talk , 28 July UTC. I am also in favor of Map B, since it illustrates what is written in the text. Otherwise, it would not be clear which territorial losses the Saar? GDR as territorial loss? Any person with more than a superficial knowledge should moreover be aware of the fact that the Eastern territories were of great importance for German post-war history, at least up to and probably even up to now.
I just want to mention politicians like Kurt Schumacher, Willy Brandt etc and the influence of the electorate originating from the Eastern territories. The reader not acquainted with German history should get non-biased and thorough information. I think most of the participants in this discussion are in favor of Map B and gave good reasons for their point of view. So how should we proceed? Ulmensis talk , 3 August UTC.
There's only a single user promoting Map A, unwilling to acknowlegde any kind of arguments and pushing "his" map, he should stop that. Pommerland talk , 3 August UTC. German news agency Deutsche Welle broke a story about how Germany's population statistics are off by 1. I dunno if this should be noted in the Demographics section or not. Please change as soon as possible. There has been repeatingly attempts to shift the focus of the section.
Through imposing a new title. Through installing a map which captures additional territorial losses of the German Reich after WW2. Conclusion: Both facts indicate a very, I repeat: very, very extended content of history which is unprecedented in Wikipedia country articles. It can be assumed therefore, that the written and visualized content sufficiently represents the historic events.
A classic occupation would involve an imposed administrative structure from outside lead by foreign stuff.
This has not been the case in former West Germany. Therefore a renaming of the section is not justified reason 1. The Section "Division and Reunification" covers the historic events within the borders of the internationally recognised Federal Republic of Germany. The major developments are accurately emphisized. The territorial losses take only half a sentence of the written content and are not further elaborated. The discussed new map would therefore cover a precedent of German history of marginal relevance reason 1.
Strategies against child poverty in Germany - why East German children are poorer - pedocs
Emphazising the territorial losses has almost no relevance of the German history narrative and can be regarded as misleading reason 2. Because the new map not even presents the complete Polish territory, the map is a source of misinterpretation for new readers and is to elaborated for the purpose of the section see general facts reason 3. The new map would change the focus of the historic narrative of the section and would therefore create an importance of less relevant events reason 4.
The focus now aims at the events within the Russian zone and the 3-Western Zone plus the events before and after the reunification. Not even one single sentence mentions the situation of newly created Poland in the years Because Poland does not belong to Germany reason 5 or to say it the other way around, the history of Germany is told not the one of Poland. The Spanish, French and most notably the German whose history section is significantly longer Germany-Articles include such a map. To compare the different territories of the German Reich and the new FRG, somebody can easily see the changes by scrolling to the German Reich section.
The new map includes redundant and misleading information like the inclusion of the Saar protectorate reason 8. This is highly specific historic narrative and is not mentioned within the text, neither it can be considered of relevance in a broader context. The flag of the protecorate is of highly specific degree. It is hardly known by German experts.
Because of A and B reason , it appears not justified to rename the section or extend the visual content through the proposed map. Lear 21 talk , 29 July UTC. My dear Lear 21 , it is a bit difficult trying to follow your English, which is odd since you claim near native status, but I will try to respond to your arguments nevertheless. Tomeasy Stor stark7 What comes next? Replacing Beethoven with Tokyo Hotel? Presenting Goebbels instead of Hitler. Mentioning all World Cup Final defeats of the German national football team?
I could go on for hours with these questions. At the center of it is one question: What is relevant and what is not. Both of you gave no evidence of aiming at the center of things.
"Neue Kinderarmut" in Deutschland : Ursachen, Folgen, Lösungsansätze
Let me try to ask another rethoric question. Are you both willing to install a map on the Russia article showing the loss of the Soviet Union territories after ? Are you both personally ready to install a map of territorial losses of the French colonial Empire in the history section of "France". Would you both argue with the same intensity and logic? I only can imagine what the answer would be like. The new map would shift the focus of the section to an exclusive act right after the war. The well established old map does represent a whole period, the new map represents a blink in time.
The new map does not even show a "real, newly established territory of Poland". The difference of the map two sections above is clearly visible. Lear 21 talk , 30 July UTC. Quote Tomeasy: "How can it be that you not know this and still think you have the expertise" This question proofs exactly the attitude of unfocused debates.
What interests me is "How to visually present the history of Germany from - in 2 images". The already written text gives a stark and useful hint: 1. This is not without reason BTW none of the first 3 paras have been written by myself. The relevant WW2 activities are covered in the Third Reich section. The last history section has a different focus aiming at the events in Germany within the new territory of And not Poland. You will hear this Hundred times if you want. The new map would shift the focus of the entire section to a brief WW2 aftermath act.
This is not wise nor suits it the other major events from Please, with sugar on the top, realize that the old map represents more of the history of Germany in this period than the new even incomplete map. Sometimes less is more, in this case certainly. I already expressed my opinion at "History map reverts" because I at first didn't notice the discussion was being continued here.
The section "Division and Reunification " also covers the years , therefore what happened in the Eastern territories is of relevance here. This should be illustrated by Map B, because otherwise the reader unacquainted with German history will be misguided and not know which territories were lost. However, a map showing the allied occupations zones witout the Eastern territories does not make any sense to me.
Either you write about what happened in Germany from - then the former Eastern territories and the expulsion of Germans from there is of great relevance - or you write about later years, when the two German states were established. How about this one It also seems to be most representative for the period of a divided country. Lear 21 talk , 5 August UTC. Tomeasy: The missing EU involvement was rather an example of other important developments in German history. It was not a direct proposal to extend content, this should be discussed in another talk topic. In fact, it has its representation in the article as a whole.
Lear 21 talk , 6 August UTC. Look, my only interest is the article itself and the content of it. The Germany article receives It is for many people around the globe the first contact with Germany and all its releated issues. The new map is a step forward in this stuck discussion and focuses even more the major state of being from Hope you can support this view while still maintaining an eye on the articles developments. I find this map dissatisfying, well, irritating: How are all those people around the globe for who this is the first contact with Germany are supposed to know what the blue and red areas mean?
And what on earth is the green thing? A lake?
The divided City of Berlin as mentioned in text? Or obviously, but just for me only West-Berlin? User:HerkusMonte At the center of German history from stands the period of a divided country. Two German states existed for almost 40 years. The new map illustrates that, the others fail in this respect. Lear 21 talk , 11 August UTC. Its pleasant seeing Map B back on the Article page.
The following pertains to the description below the posted map B. I believe it is a mistake to lump both the Soviet and Polish administered Eastern Germany areas in the same statement. Simply link your Qantas Frequent Flyer membership number to your Booktopia account and earn points on eligible orders. Either by signing into your account or linking your membership details before your order is placed.
Your points will be added to your account once your order is shipped. Click on the cover image above to read some pages of this book! Laut einer Studie des "Legatum Institute" im Jahr , wonach die wirtschaftliche, gesundheitliche, unternehmerische Dimension, als auch Bildung, Soziales Kapital, personliche Freiheit, Sicherheitsleistungen und die Regierungsform untersucht wurde, erreichte Deutschland in einem Ranking, von insgesamt untersuchten Landern, Platz Zahlen bestatigen jedoch die Realitat.
Jedoch schutzt scheinbar auch eine Erwerbstatigkeit nicht vor Armut. Denn auch wenn mindestens eine Person in dem Haushalt mit Kindern voll erwerbstatig ist oder zwei Personen jeweils einer Halbtageserwerbstatigkeit nachgehen, liegt deren Armutsrisikoquote immer noch bei. Help Centre. Wortmeldungen im Dienste des Widerstands gegen die neoliberale Invasion.
Hamburg: Hamburger Edition Google Scholar. Castel, Robert : Die Metamorphosen der sozialen Frage. Eine Chronik der Lohnarbeit. Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk e. Freiburg: Velber Google Scholar. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, : Gesellschaft im Reformprozess. Hartmann, Michael : Eliten und Macht in Europa. Ein internationaler Vergleich. Frankfurt M.