Talk:Germany/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Music in Germany

The previous text on German music from the 1700s to the 2000s is a bare list. It is not "in order", chronologically (Early Romantic composer Beethoven appears first...then Baroque era Bach, then six names later, Bach's contemporary Handel). I understand that a summary style needs to be used, but there needs to be a middle ground between the bare list, given here, and my newest proposal, which is 2nd:

• German classical music comprises works by some of the world's most well-known composers, including Ludwig van Beethoven, Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Johannes Brahms, Richard Wagner, Richard Strauss, Franz Schubert, Georg Friedrich Händel, Carl Maria von Weber, Robert Schumann, Felix Mendelssohn, Karlheinz Stockhausen and Carl Orff.

• German classical music comprises works by some of the world's most well-known composers. Johann Sebastian Bach and Georg Friedrich Händel were influential composers from the Baroque period. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical era. Ludwig van Beethoven was a crucial figure in the transition between the Classical and Romantic eras. Franz Schubert was an important figure in the late Classical era and early Romantic era. Carl Maria von Weber and Felix Mendelssohn were important in the early Romantic period. Robert Schumann and Johannes Brahms composed in the Romantic idiom. Richard Wagner was known for his operas. Richard Strauss was a leading composer of the late Romantic and early modern eras. Karlheinz Stockhausen is one of the most important composers of the 20th and early 21st centuries. Carl Orff used colorful, unusual combinations of instruments in his orchestration.

OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the current version OnBeyondZebrax, well done and way better than before. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2014

Wrong information about Finland in the Languages section map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#mediaviewer/File:Knowledge_German_EU_map.png Percentage of German speakers in Finland NOT 10% - 19%. Corrected 0.09% Will need new image. Ouuo0100 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: @Ouuo0100: ask at [1] to have the map updated with preferably an english souce stating these statistics Avono (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The map is about language knowledge not native language.93.209.110.204 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The confusion is understandable, when the caption refers to native speakers. A reader expects to see this information in the map of course. I moved the caption info to the main text to avoid that problem (maybe the caption could be clarified a bit more, showing that the map depicts some kind of basic knowledge afaik). GermanJoe (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015

The Anthem of Germany is only the the third stanza of "Das Lied der Deutschen".

Source: English Wikipedia article on the "Deutschlandlied"

Suggested wording: 'Third stanza of "Das Lied der Deutschen"' Themulticaster (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Only ??? --Kgfleischmann (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The song "Das Lied der Deutschen" consists of three stanzas, but only the third one ("Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit") is the official German anthem. Thus, in the sidebar, change "Anthem: Das Lied der Deutschen" to "Anthem: Third stanza of Das Lied der Deutschen". Themulticaster (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That would add another ugly linebreak in the 1st line. If the clarification is really needed (?), it would probably be better in the second line as "(Song of the Germans, third stanza)". But I am unsure, if we should add it at all - all details are covered in the anthem article. No preference either way. GermanJoe (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The article on "Das Lied der Deutschen" is not the "anthem article", it's about the song whose third stanza happens to be used as the German anthem. "Das Lied der Deutschen" is not the German anthem. The third stanza is. And since we don't have a page on the German anthem per se, we really need to point out that it's only the third stanza if we only point at the article about the song "Das Lied der Deutschen".

If you understand German, here is the original wording of the Federal President (Bundespräsident) about the national anthem: "Die 3. Strophe des Liedes der Deutschen von Hoffmann von Fallersleben mit der Melodie von Joseph Haydn ist die Nationalhymne für das deutsche Volk."

I can't say anything about the formatting since I don't have access to it, but if your suggestion (Das Lied der Deutschen, third stanza) works out, it seems good. Themulticaster (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and included the requested minor clarification as uncontroversial (imo). Please feel free to revert and join this discussion, if anyone disagrees. GermanJoe (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Language map

There is a newer language map: File:Knowledge of German EU map.svg (Bosnia added, different colours), but it seems to be missing references... --Mika1h (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Weimar Republic and the Third Reich

Added new images to the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich section to better illustrate the chain of events during this time period and emphasize the importance of the most significant topics of WWII. --E-960 (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed 2 of them back, let me quickly explain, why:

• The old Hitler image showed him in his typical "speech pose" and is easily recognizable with good EV. The new one was badly colored and showed him in a completely staged photo posture, and it is a lot less known afaik. However, I left the caption alone, as it included more detail.
• The destruction of large parts of Germany during WWII is a historical fact and can (must) be illustrated in the country article without risking any undue weight. The new image had less encyclopedic information and was less illustrating for the section.

Please see also the lengthy previous discussions about this topic in the archives. GermanJoe (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, included a more iconic image of Berlin after WWII, previous picture was a bit too generic and nondescript. Also, added a new image of Hitler, it's extraordinarily important to illustrate the fanaticism of that regime and not gloss it over. I think that the previous items completely de-emphasized the subject matter, the images simply made Hitler look like Paul von Hindenburg of Frederic the Great (military leaders) that all; hiding the madness and fanaticism that he advocated. --E-960 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Fanaticism and madness are not encyclopaedic concepts. Wikipedia is not a sensationalistic tabloid.Blaue Max (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia documents history and during this time period German hyper nationalism resulted in the biggest war in humanity (madness and fanaticism are psychological conditions not sensationalistic tabloid jargon). --E-960 (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Text and images have to be impartial and neutral, regardless of the topic; all encyclopedic topics need to be treated in the same editorial manner. That has nothing to do with "glossing over" or belittling the importance of such topics - it's one of Wikipedia's core principles to keep the articles' content impartial in all cases. GermanJoe (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I re-added an image associated with the Holocaust (events leading up to), it needs to be included in this section. I ensured that the image is not in any way graphic or heavy handed. I'd like to point out that the Austria article has a image of a liberated concentration camp in the Interwar period and World War II section, so including an image of the Dachau concentration camp which is mentioned in the text as being the first German concentration camp is appropriate in this case. --E-960 (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I also believe that the "Weimar Republic and the Third Reich" (1918-1945) history part should be illustrated with 3 pics. But one should represent the Weimar Republic. A third one for the (1933-1945) period would unbalanced the whole part. Please remember, that the era afterwards (1945-2015) only has 3 images. So we need to keep a balanced History here. Ciao Italiano111 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the Weimar Republic part is only made up of one paragraph, while the text about the Third Reich contain 5 paragraphs (the most paragraphs about a specific topic in the entire article). So, having three picture is not excessive give the size of the text and it's significance to German history. --E-960 (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that 3 WW2 pictures are just too much, when this short period is compared to millennia of history like the Holy Roman Empire. It gives undue weight; even though WW2 was a very relevant and fateful event in German history, it really isn't the only period of relevance. It'd be better to have a 3rd picture in this section illustrating the first free democratic order in Germany. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

In this case I would recommend that we keep the Dachau image and remove the "Cologne Allied aerial bombing" picture. I understand that Germany was bombed severely, but it's definitely not the paramount event of German history during WWII, for several reasons — a major one being that Germany lost far more soldiers than civilians during the war (unlike Poland and Soviet Union) and despite the bombing German infrastructure was still in better shape then that of some occupied countries — so having an image referring to the 'Allied aerial bombing' may not be the best option. Bombing of Germay in WWII (Very bad) < Final Solution/Holocaust (Unprecedented). --E-960 (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with you if the article was about World War II in general. But this article is about Germany. I'm not sure you can comprehend how severe the foreign and self-caused destructions were for Germany. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The more research I´m doing the more I´m questioning myself if we need even 3 pictures in this part. In the end it spans 26 years (1919-1945). Certainly the massive destruction in the country seems to be the most relevant impact during this time. Another picture should be dedicated to the Weimar Republic. Italiano111 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use a compromise solution and do an example like in the Religion section, where you have two images: Cologne Cathedral and Frauenkirche in one picture frame — striking a balance between the two topics. Then there would be space for an image from the Weimar Rep. --E-960 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop expanding all details concerning war developments. These information belong to the specific WW2 articles. Thanks Italiano111 (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, please note that all additions are minor grammatical adjustments and closing an incomplete thought; not creating new paragraphs in the section. Example of fixes… from: "In 1941, invaded the Soviet Union." to: "In 1941, German troops invaded the Soviet Union." and from: "The British repelled the German attacks…" to: "The British repelled German air attacks…" and from: "...were also killed." to: "died from Nazi policies of…" — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-960 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"Varieties of German"

The usage and primary topic of Varieties of German is under discussion, see talk:German dialects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

7.1 Music

It says: “Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical era.” and “Franz Schubert was an important figure in the late Classical era and early Romantic era.”

Mozart was born in Salzburg, Austria, and Schubert in Vienna, Austria, so they may have been Austrians: you simply may erase these two sentences.

I would like to set the question about the name of the national anthem in this conversation. In order to this I need to pronounce, that the original name of the song was "the song of the Germans" so in German: "Das Lied der Deutschen" and not "song of Germany" related to: "Deutschlandlied". It would be pleasent to hear about the point of view from other persons in relation to that point.2A02:8070:6181:800:61CF:1AE0:2E38:7BD0 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

D. Ruhfus (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2015

Please add after Area a line -Water(%) 2.34 to make this coherent with other country facts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area) 86.67.124.3 (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Updating per FA review committee underway

This article is overdue for FAR; I am starting an update pursuant to a pending review. Please do not undo edits or updates. Tasks include: updating/streamlining text; verifying footnotes and citations; additional information; format compliance with FA standards; editorial compliance with FA standards, etc. If you with to assist in this, please contact me. auntieruth (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I did some update and some overhaul recently. Of course, re-checking is always important but to me the article looks fine now. Italiano111 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty good, but Sandy just asked me to have a look. To do list is below. If you want to help out, please do! auntieruth (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

to do list as of 6 May 2015

• The Peace of Westphalia (1648) ended religious warfare among the German states. needs source
• confirm that the population figures are still good? (and if not update here and on related pages)
• West Germany joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1957. has no source.
• hence its fall in 1989 became a symbol of the Fall of Communism, German Reunification and Die Wende. has no source
• The united Germany is considered to be the enlarged continuation of the Federal Republic of Germany and not a successor state. As such, it retained all of West Germany's memberships in international organizations. has no source

This is stated in the "Einigungsvertrag" Art 11 (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/einigvtr/art_11.html) "Die Vertragsparteien gehen davon aus, daß völkerrechtliche Verträge und Vereinbarungen, denen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland als Vertragspartei angehört, einschließlich solcher Verträge, die Mitgliedschaften in internationalen Organisationen oder Institutionen begründen, ihre Gültigkeit behalten und die daraus folgenden Rechte und Verpflichtungen sich mit Ausnahme der in Anlage I genannten Verträge auch auf das in Artikel 3 genannte Gebiet beziehen. Soweit im Einzelfall Anpassungen erforderlich werden, wird sich die gesamtdeutsche Regierung mit den jeweiligen Vertragspartnern ins Benehmen setzen."

Please add and if necessary translate. Nillurcheier (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• third paragraph of EU section... has no source.
• Since reunification, Germany has taken a more active role in the European Union. Together with its European partners Germany signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, established the Eurozone in 1999, and signed the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. no source
• modest expansion of urbanization section (needs a slight perspective)
• expansion of political section to explain party system and regulations governing election in the mixed proportional system. this may be clear to Commonwealth English speakers, but not necessarily to Americans.
• Ref 14 ("Ice Age Lion Man") is dead and/or forbidden. Replacement with a free reliable source would be nice (I found 1 via Google, but am not sure about reliable).
• climate borders and links to animals. done auntieruth (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• section on Education has several incomplete sentences and never really explains what the realschule is.
• needs citation in Architecture section (on firstparagraph) and picture of Fachwerk (Rothenberg ob der Tauber? Swabian image? your choice). addressed (if Italiano would stop deleting it). auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: When adding new online links, please make sure they are also archived at the Internet Archive (see WP:LINKROT for more info). Most sites can easily be archived with just one click, when the archive has no archived versions of the link. GermanJoe (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

History

The whole history part seems to long. Sections like the Holy Roman Empire are almost the size of an entire "normal" Wiki article. I can´t support any expansion here anymore. Italiano111 (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

it's complete enough now. It was incomplete before. auntieruth (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Architecture

This part already includes 4 images. In all parts of the article (Education, Health, Economy) other types of architecture are represented as well. Even more important, the first picture in Culture, the Weihnachtmarkt, does include a town square. There is certainly no shortage of architecture related images it in the article. Please, stop adding more images of buildings. It does´nt make sense. Italiano111 (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, Ialiano, because the images in the architecture section are all modern, or monumental, and don't reflect the variety of architecture. auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In general

This type of article is very much longer than normal. That is okay, given the vast information every country has to offer. But it doesn´t make sense to put the same content in an article twice. Right now, UNESCO world heritage sites, war crimes, Olympic sites, beer traditions, buildings (Cologne cathedral) are mentioned in more than one part. A good article avoids these duplicated infos. Italiano111 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Right now, we can leave it be, okay? The problem seems to be a lot of hands moving stuff, and adding stuff, and taking stuff away. auntieruth (talk)

Tourism

This part after all is placed in Economy. It shouldn't read like a travel brochure. Nor should it be overloaded with minor details. Italiano111 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

These might seem minor to you, but I doubt they are. The Freilichtmus. are a European trend, and Germany has an abundance that reflect the diverse history. auntieruth (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Again removing the Holocaust image and placing one of a bombed Germany city

We had a huge discussion about this last year (see this page's archives) and we never agreed to put a new image of poor Germany's destruction by the cruel and cowardly bombing allies on this page. This page is not here to perpetuate Nazi apologists' propaganda showing how Germany was a victim during World War II. That aside, per Wikipedia rules on the use of images, the images on a page need to reflect the content of that page and the section in which they appear. There is far more content on the German government's mass murder of 10 million human beings in this section (and rightfully so) than discussion about the bombing of German cities (which, it is never mentioned, the Germans air force and missile corp did plenty of themselves). That is the reason why that image does not belong there.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to this RfC? --Boson (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus for anything and most probably never will be, since this is a "super fancy FA article" these days, leaving no room for more than superficial aspects. So we'll have to live with just one image for that history section, and likely that Mr. Hitler is the obvious choice now. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I would not object to removing the image of Hitler from the Weimar/3rd Reich section. Yes, important person, but... I've added a small paragraph on 1930s economics. What image would you like to put in? auntieruth (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I'd like to see one of the Featured quality photos used in as many places as possible, maybe even here. auntieruth (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone find a suitable Featured quality photo to use in the Weimar/Third Reich section of the history? If so, please don't replace the one we have, but let's discuss it here. auntieruth (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Berlin Children playing the Air Life Game

does this work for a new picture?

It wasn't at all obvious to me what that was supposed to illustrate. If we want to illustrate the Berlin Airlift, I would prefer this one:

But that would be in the section "East and West Germany", and I don't think it particulary illustrates anything we are saying at this level of detail. --Boson (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think all pictures should at least make sense. If anything, a Weimar related image is missing. On the other hand, the Weimar era seems too short and hardly important. I can live with only one picture in this History part. Italiano111 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"The Weimar era seems hardly important" - LOL. Joke of the day. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. Problem: Weimar is somewhat overshadowed. I do have an issue with using an Austrian to illustrate a period in German history, however, however emblematic he was. Since "we" collectively fussed over Mozart and his inclusion as illustrative of German music, we should probably pick a different image. I'm open to suggestions! auntieruth (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the story on a different Third Reich and Weimar image? Do we have sufficient coverage on the Weimar period? Horst-schlaemma ? Boson ? What are your ideas? auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe this History part has become too long. I oppose any expansion. After all Weimar/Third Reich is spanning only 26 years. Italiano111 (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Demographics

I believe it makes sense to keep a picture of the average german population (sports team). What else is this part about than people who are living in Germany ? And BTW, the recently introduced text about German diaspora seems to misplaced. The Immigrant population part is about those people who live "IN" Germany. Italiano111 (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want a picture of people in the demographic section, we can find a crowd picture that isn't a sports team although I think the chart tells us more about demographics than a picture of people will. Diaspora moved to culture section. auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It certainly does tell us more than an image of the girls volleyball team (totally unrelated to any of the content in that section). The demographic chart is the image used in the german language version of this article and, more importantly, it actually reflects the content of the section. The map is helpful as well but what it demonstrates (the geographic population distribution) is not currently clearly described in the text of the section.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Art

The image of a C.D. Friedrich painting seems to be relevant. The painter is one of the most recognized artists from the Romantic era. So it is not a mistake to have this art work represented here. The recently rejected image gallery seems not very convincing. Kandinsky is no German artist for instance. A second image gallery in the extensive Culture part should be also avoided. Ciao Italiano111 (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Kandinsky was a immigrant from Russia, and his work influenced the development of German art well into the 20th century. Although he returned to Russia during WWI, he came back to Germany after the war, and stayed there until he was chased out by the Nazis. As for Friedrich, I'll add his chalk cliffs into the gallery. auntieruth (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Again. Kandinsky is a born Russian who died as a French national. In this context here the artist seems not important enough. The sculpture in Überlingen seems random. The artist Lenk as well. Integrating a Breker art work will probably stir controversy in the future. The Culture part is already the second largest (after History). Its not appropriate to display another image gallery here. Italiano111 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Kandinsky spent around 20 years in Germany, studied art there and painted his most famous works of art while living there. He had a huge impact on the art world in Germany as well as abroad. I don't know what images will be best to include in the section but I would support including at least one of Kandinsky's Bauhaus works since it is representative of Der Blaue Reiter.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Harvard references without corresponding info

References 49 (McNab, p.54) and 52 (McNab, p. 56) do not have any associated book/publication info, there is no other reference or mention throughout the whole article to the name "McNab" Banjo (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this was added by Auntieruth55. One of the World War II Data Book series by Chris McNab? --Boson (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to convert citations to use the {{sfn}} citation template in order to provide automatic links from the footnote to the bibliography? That should also make it easier to notice such problems. --Boson (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Gender Equality and Homosexual Rights

A recent edit removed some text about gender equality and homosexual marriage from the demographics section. I agree that this probably isn't the right place in the article to include this information but since woman make up over 50% of Germany's population and LGBT rights is a major topic in Germany these things should be placed somewhere in the article. Any ideas on where to place this discussion?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

True. Its not the perfect place in Demographics. But the sentence should be kept. Italiano111 (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Demographics. Whether it should be kept is another question.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If re-added, would a sub-section on social issues under Politics be appropriate?

The first sentence does not seem to be supported by the cited source at the specified URL. Since the document referred to is out of date, perhaps the reference should be updated to point to the 2014 report (if this supports the statement). I would prefer a more objective statement with a supporting quote from the report, rather than an evaluative statement. --Boson (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Formation in 962?

Why is this date so important for the formation of "Germany"? If anything it's of interest for the idea of the Holy Roman Empire. The German kingdom would by necessity have been around before that, either in 843 when the Frankish kingdom was split and there were distinct kings in each of the parts or in 911 when the first non-Carolingian Conrad I. was crowned king of East Francia, or 919 when Henry I., founder of the Saxon dynasty was crowned. Otto being crowned emperor was no different than Charlemagne's coronation in that sense.--MacX85 (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Automotive image(s) in the Economy section

I suggest to remove the automotive image there. Inventiveness isn't necessarily related to the performance of exportation, which is more about quantities and also depends on many other kinds of goods. Automotive industry plays a crucial but not the sole role for the economy. Moreover, users can keep changing it to their favorite models. I tried to include pictures of all the major German automotive brands (Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Porsche) but was reverted for the reason of redundancy and advertisement. Complete removal seems to be a better way to me. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 07:24, 15 August 2015

In general I agree that, while a car picture is good enough to exemplify the auto industry, it also can potentially bring an edit war between fans of the German "Big Three", which may undermine the article quality. Perhaps an example less "passional" would be better. I would like to know the opinion of regular editors as this is a featured article... and we must keep it that way... --Urbanoc (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

An image of an automobile represents the export and machinery tradition of the country. According to the edit history a car image and the text mentioning the export status has not been questioned for several years. The proposal to remove the image is absurd and can be considered vandalism in a FA rated article. It is also absurd to put in more than one car image, because the Economy of the country has other notable branches as well. As far as my superficial wisdom tells me, Germany is very successful in producing and exporting high end luxury cars (sedans). Thats why it makes sense to present such a car here. Italiano111 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't agree that it's "vandalism" even when someone just proposes to remove something with reasons. Just because this is a featured article doesn't mean it can't be changed or it's permanently perfect. You'd kept changing the image without discussion before and someone removed photos of German police cars previously without discussion either.

I suggest to delete it mostly because of the potential edit wars resulting from it. Who's eligible to decide which model is, in your term, "more representative"? Sedans and sportscars are popular "machinery" that are always taken to have comparisons. Moreover, as you said, there're many branches of economy and automotive industry doesn't represent them all. Even the German article doesn't contain such an image for this purpose but a picture of a police vehicle only. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 06:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe some image of the Made in Germany label (which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article) could be used instead? Unfortunately, Commons:Category:Made in Germany doesn't really contain a suitable image. --95.89.234.7 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The German economy is known for its export orientated industries. The leading industry branch is the automobile sector. So it makes sense to have a representation of it here. France is known for its aerospace industries, the UK for its finance institutions. Both country articles have an image that is representing the status. The situation here should be comparable. After re-checking the German Wiki article about Germany (Deutschland) it becomes even more telling. There you have a container ship (export representation) and 2 images of a Volkswagen factory and the Siemens HQ (industry representation). So, no, a removal of the car image does not make sense. If this is accepted, we have the question about what kind of car is suited best. My automobile wisdom tells me that the yellow Mercedes sports car (with gull wing doors) is not very common and not much sold worldwide. Instead, large luxury sedans from BMW, Audi, Volkswagen and Mercedes are very popular. Thats why it makes to have this type of car here. Italiano111 (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

However, images of rockets or financial institutions aren't that easy to attract, like what the above user said, "fanboyism", unlike a photo of a specific car model which may be supposed to represent the whole automotive industry of this country. Yes, Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG isn't that prevalent. Maybe, we can follow the way of the German article and add a picture of Volkswagen factory, which is the largest German automotive company, there. This is less specific and may be less controversial, especially because there're numerous models of those "BMW, Audi, Volkswagen and Mercedes sedans". ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 15:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Expulsion numbers

In section 2.5 "East and West Germany", the sentence "Together these zones accepted more than 6.5 million of the ethnic Germans expelled from eastern areas" is at best misleading. The number of 6.5 million is quoted in the source as coming from a political agreement for future action in November 1945 and does by no means describe the reality of the following years. All sources known to me quote an intake of ca. 12 million expellees until 1950, see e.g. [[2]]. Could someone correct the sentence accordingly? --93.205.87.122 (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I have added the total number of 12.5 million refugees until 1950, according to Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung .--JohanahoJ (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Bundesrepublik Deutschland in other languages

Danish, Low German, Sorbian, Romany, and Frisian are legally recognized as minority languages. I am going to insert translations of "Federal Republic of Germany" in these languages a la Poland and the United Kingdom. Can someone please help with the Low German/Romany translation? Thank you.--Sιgε |д･) 14:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind I found them.--Sιgε |д･) 15:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Migration

Under "History": "East and West Germany", I removed a couple statements about migrations. They didn't seem inaccurate, but they do not seem relevant for post-WWII split into eastern and western Germany. If they are returned to the article, it should at least be clearer what the "eastern areas" were that the ethnic Germans were, and who expelled them. I also think they should be in their own paragraph, as opposed to in the middle of discussion about the split. --GoldCoastPrior (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Together these zones initially accepted 6.5 million of the ethnic Germans expelled from eastern areas, a number that until 1950 would rise to a total of 12.5 million German refugees seeking a new home within the four zones.

— Previous version of the article

References

WW2 mention in the article header

I'm all for moving on, but the current mention of WW2 in the article header is absolutely feeble: "The establishment of the Third Reich in 1933 eventually led to World War II and the Holocaust". This makes it sound like the events of 1939-1945 were something that just so happened to happen to Germany. In linguistic terms, there is absolutely no agent in that sentence, and that seems more than a little bit political to me. I propose, as a balanced and thorough alternative: "Between 1933 and 1945, Germany was led by the Nazi Party. Nazi Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe, sparking World War II, and undertook a programme of organised genocide against a number of groups, most prominently the Jews, which has come to be known as the Holocaust." 60.242.48.18 (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Done I did edit the wording on your first sentence so we wouldn't loose the link to Machtergreifung. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 08:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is far better.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Even better, in my opinion, would be "Between 1933 and 1945, Germany was led by the Nazi Party. Nazi Germany invaded and occupied parts of Europe, sparking World War II and the Holocaust." This would both solve the problem first presented while not expanding too much on a 12 year period. However, those 12 years had an enormous influence on the history of Germany (and of the rest of Europe and the World (Cold War, East and West Germany, ..., anyone??). As such this small expansion seems justified. 206.248.158.23 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: If it wasn't clear enough, the text to be replaced is the same as above, that is: "The establishment of the Third Reich in 1933 eventually led to World War II and the Holocaust" 206.248.158.23 (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This is neither the article about WW2 and neither the article about the Third Reich and neither the article about the Holocaust. Right now History related content occupies almost 3 out 5 paragraphs of the introduction. This about the same length like the whole History of Germany part (with the several subparts) is occupying in the whole article. Right now the History info in the introduction represents more than 2000 years. I can´t see the relevance to expand the content of a 12 year period. I want to keep this very neutral, BUT, Monopoly, your edit history does not indicate any experience on the History of Germany or Germany related expertise. Italiano111 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Italiano111, I have been editing this article for a long time and even if I hadn't that wouldn't give you the right to simply remove whatever you liked from the page. Wikipedia's Germany page is not a dictatorship that you can rule over. I would suggest you gain some experience editing other articles and read what Wikipedia has to say about Single-purpose accounts. That said, the suggested text offered above does not change the length of the text and incorporates hyperlinks to the relevant articles. Please stop deleting the constructive contributions of other editors.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The proposed expansion puts an enormous emphasis on a 12 year period within a brief History summary spanning 2000 years. This does not make sense and seems unbalanced. For instance, the German party SPD (150 years old) or the CDU (70 years old) have more impact on German history and are not mentioned either. Remember, this is not the article about WW2 and not about the Third Reich. Italiano111 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the statistics on religion

Hullo,

I just noticed that according to the "religion" segment on the main article for "Germany", other religions are at 2.7% That corresponds to the figure one can see thanks to the source data, the 2011 Census

However, it is detailed that there are are 1.9% Muslims, 0.3% Buddhists and 0.1% Hindus I don't speak German, but even in the English version of the census, I can't see where those detailed figures were obtained

To make matters worse, when one clicks on the "Religion in Germany" article, it is stated that there are 5% Muslims in Germany...when the figure is at 1.9% in the "Religion" segment of the "Germany" article

Can someone please countercheck the figures and put the statistics that are accurate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manish2542 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in history

The "establishment of the Third Reich in 1933 led to World War II and the Holocaust". No the establishment of the Third Reich did not lead to either. The sentence implies that one inevitably followed the other. This not logically correct. It is also not correct that "After 1945, Germany split into two states". After 1945 Germany ceased to exist, and was divided into a number of occupation zones. In the 1950's it become two states - one independent, and the other a Soviet satellite.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see that "led to" could be understood in that way. Perhaps "led up to" would be an improvement. I don't think you can say that Germany ceased to exist in 1945, but I agree that the lead currently oversimplifies the complex reality, made more complex by the differing (and changing) views on the de jure and de facto status of the "two Germanies" and former German territory. --Boson (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Language part's map

The map shows Turkey as an EU state while it's definetly not. Should be fixed.78.171.175.236 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The map has been repeatedly changed back and forth in the past. I have added a short footnote to clarify the discrepancy (but feel free to tweak). GermanJoe (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Weimar Republic and Nazi era section

Added a map of German concentration camps in occupied Europe. I think that this being a very significant topic it should be highlighted a bit more in the Weimar Republic and Nazi era section. Also, the section has enough room to include a second image, so I don't think the map will clutter things. The issue of WWII and the role Germany played can illustrated in more depth. --E-960 (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. The image is useless, we already have enough images.Ernio48 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

If I can also augment my point — the map shows the extent of German occupation in Europe, which naturally leads to the map just below it of the Allied occupation zones of German, illustrating to the reader that the reason why German was so harshly treated... due to its military expansionism across Europe. I understand that this is a difficult subject, but the map clarifies a lot as to what occurred, instead of showing some graphic pictures. Also, I would not think that having two images in a large section is a lot. --E-960 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Politics --> Chancellor--> False information

Hello,

In the third paragraph, row six and seven it says: "Since 1949, the party system has been dominated by the Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party of Germany. So far every chancellor has been a member of one of these parties."

That is wrong. Walter Scheel, even if he was Chancellor for just nine days, was a member of the Free Democratic Party (FDP).

Thank you very much.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeskanzler_%28Deutschland%29

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Choosen101 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 1 March 2016‎ (UTC)

No, sorry, but Walter Scheel was never Chancellor. He was from 1969 until 1974 Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister before becoming President from 1974 until 1979. When Chancellor Willy Brandt resigned in 1974 from his office Walter Scheel leaded for nine days the business of the Government until Chancellor Helmut Schmidt was elected and appointed - but he did it as Vice Chancellor in absence of a Chancellor!

Dr. Hans Rudolf Wahl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.143.122 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

A statistical supplement: From 1949 until 2016 the Federal Republic of Germany was governed from eight Chancellors, five from the CDU, three from the SPD. The CDU-Chancellors governed 47 years, the SPD-Chancellors 20 years. During the same time Britain had 13 Primeministers and the US 12 Presidents. Even more interesting is to look on the terms of office. During 41 out of 67 years only three (!!!) CDU-Chancellors governed the counntry: Helmut Kohl 16 years, Konrad Adenauer 14 years and (until now) Angela Merkel 11 years. During their chancellorships Britain had 8 Primeministers and the US 8 Presidents. I think that shows very impressive the domination of the political system by the CDU and as single other political party by the SPD.

Dr. Hans Rudolf Wahl

Location of Kennedy speech

Inaccurate: quoting: "...It was the site of U.S. President John F. Kennedy's famous Ich bin ein Berliner speech of 26 June 1963 and subsequently Ronald Reagan's, Mr. Gorbachov, Tear down this wall! speech of 12 June 1987; hence its fall in 1989 became a symbol of the... "

corrected: "U.S. President John F. Kennedy's famous Ich bin ein Berliner speech of 26 June 1963, nearly two years after the setting-up of the Berlin Wall, was held on the balcony of the West-Berlin city hall Rathaus Schoeneberg facing a packed front plaza which was later renamed as 'John-F.-Kennedy-Platz'. Also Ronald Reagan's, Mr. Gorbachov, Tear down this wall! speech of 12 June 1987 at the Berlin border wall line became famous. Hence its fall in 1989 became the ending of the post-WW2 Cold War period, the symbol of the..."
112.201.166.214 (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I have reworded the statement. --Boson (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130520080610/http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/services/showShotlist.do?out=PDF&lg=En&filmRef=i-055938 to http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/services/showShotlist.do?out=PDF&lg=En&filmRef=i-055938
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120306214813/http://www.konsularinfo.diplo.de/Vertretung/konsularinfo/de/06/Wahl/Wahlneu.html to http://www.konsularinfo.diplo.de/Vertretung/konsularinfo/de/06/Wahl/Wahlneu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016

2015 Population: 82.5 million Source: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/germany-population/

Jojobird7 (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: A government source for the current 81.4 million people population has been listed. — Music1201 ^talk 00:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2016

Infobox shows the official name in West Frisian. This is not a language of Germany. Take it out. (:*{{lang-fy|Bûnsrepublyk Dútslân}}) 174.17.233.202 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - according to Languages of Germany both North Frisian and Saterland Frisian are "Recognised minority languages" - Arjayay (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

IP removed my reply as they are unhappy with it - have reinstated my reply, but re-opened the request for another editor's opinion - Arjayay (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think 174.17.233.202 should consider if others think the change is worth making... possibly gaining consensus for the change too. For now, closing the request. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

North Frisian and Saterland Frisian are "Recognised minority languages", so there is no need to remove the information. But the language should point to Frisian languages (or North Frisian language and Saterland Frisian language, as West Frisian language is spoken in the Netherlands. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That would entail changing the template, not just the info in this article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2016

Remove West Frisian from Infobox; not a language of Germany. 75.172.189.52 (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as explained above - Arjayay (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

I believe that Bonn should be listed in the infobox as a co-capital of Germany. Some German ministries are headquartered there, the Chancellor has an official residence, and the legislature periodically meets there. Inspector Semenych (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like most reliable sources name only Berlin as the capital. Do you have any naming Bonn as a co-capital? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bonn wikipedia page states that "Bonn serves alongside the capital Berlin as the seat of government of Germany". Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No, Bonn is not the official co-capital of Germany. For details read Berlin-Bonn Act. The German Wikipedia page of Bonn is not claiming that. The city has the honorary name "Bundesstadt" and is seat of several ministries, most of them split with their offices between Berlin and Bonn. --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As the article says, Bonn is not the federal capital city (Bundeshauptstadt) but has the special status of federal city (Bundesstadt). I suppose that would justify adding it to the infobox, as long as the proper designation (not 'co-capital') is added. I'm not sure what parameter is best used for that (administrative center?). Finding a source for the designation Bundesstadt should not be a problem, and it is already stated in the body of the article. Designating Bonn as a capital would be politically inappropriate. Article 22 of the German constitution states that Berlin is the capital. --Boson (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

How about adding a footnote in the infobox a la the article for The Netherlands? Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Boson (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Boson Okay, do you need to edit the infobox? Are you an editor? Inspector Semenych (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added a footnote. --Boson (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Religion in Germany

Should we keep the official census data from 2011 or new surveys/estimates/etc.?

Discuss?Ernio48 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

it's ok to discuss and I already proposed to keep both data. But I support strongly to add newer

church data, since 2011 census data are 5 years old and were based on 10% population samples and had a rather skewed questionnaire (in favor or churches). Compare the religion in Germany page, were both data sets are shown and explained. BR --Nillurcheier (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely include the 2011 census data. However, we should be very careful not to misrepresent them as saying anything about religious beliefs.

The Federal Statistical Office says its information is reliable only for membership of the corporations under public law. Such membership is more or less unrelated to actual religious beliefs and says practically nothing about the large percentage of people who are not members.

It would, in principle,be useful if we could also present:

1. more recent and more comprehensive information on membership of all religious groups
2. information on people's stated religious beliefs (or lack thereof); this is completely independent of membership of organizations.

However, we need to avoid original research, and it is important that we use only independent, reliable sources.

--Boson (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the following is true, the citation is also protected. There's no word lost about this in the German wiki. "German Muslims [...] lack full official state recognition of their religious community" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.183.62 (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. What is probably meant is that not many Mulsim communities have, as yet, applied for and been granted the priviliged status of a corporation under public law, entitled to levy taxes and have them collected by the state together with income tax. I will change it. --Boson (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2016 hjh

45.211.184.128 (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

the unemployment rate is much lower now

someone please edit it, 4.5% http://www.rttnews.com/2448401/german-january-unemployment-rate-at-record-low.aspx 123.203.117.93 (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

I want to add ² on every sq mile please;)

ThefighterkingGaming (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done that is the standard format produced by the infobox template - Arjayay (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Kurdish people

in this artcle, [3]. is wrote more than (800,000) kurdish live in germany. why here like that ? Ibrahim aziz (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Germany. 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/20110623054849/http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/824 to http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/824
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426173037/https://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/9/44981892.pdf to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/9/44981892.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501075718/http://www.sipri.org:80/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/milex_15/the-15-countries-with-the-highest-military-expenditure-in-2011-table/view to http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/milex_15/the-15-countries-with-the-highest-military-expenditure-in-2011-table/view
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/barometer/UNWTO_Barom11_iu_april_excerpt.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214004935/http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net:80/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_highlights14_en.pdf to http://dtxtq4w60xqpw.cloudfront.net/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_highlights14_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001157/http://wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/germany2013_1.pdf to http://wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/germany2013_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130222070337/http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/c19th/artnouveau.htm to http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/c19th/artnouveau.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fiapf.org/pdf/2006accreditedFestivalsDirectory.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013203955/http://www.oecd.org/germany to http://www.oecd.org/germany/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Section on Formation

I'd like to see the German Reich added to this formation. The formation goes from the Weimar Republic to the Federal Republic, skipping the Nazi German Reich of 1933 - 1945. We understand that the government was a dictatorship, but it was also, in fact democratically elected by a landslide. I'd be concerned that this was omitted from the formation, perhaps due to the embarrassing nature of the history itself and a desire to move beyond this. However, I think that to attempt to marginalise or lessen the relevance of this period is wholly inappropriate. It's arguably the biggest event in human history, I'd like to see this moved to the formation. It wasn't a short blip on the radar like the Military Junta in Argentina, it was a legitimate state, democratically elected that was in place for 12 years, it was not an illegitimate dictatorship that seized power from the Weimar Republic, therefore it slots in between the Weimar and Federal republics. Can someone please edit this please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavquinn87 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a chapter Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany and a separate article Nazi Germany, so what are you talking about?--Kgfleischmann (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote, it states that I'd like to see the German Reich added to the section on 'formation'. The section on formation is located on the right side of the page, below the map. It outlines the different changes of 'the state' from Empire to Republic, etc. In this section, following on immediately from 'Weimar Republic' is 'German Federation'. This isn't accurate, I'd like to see 'German Reich' added in here. It's clear enough what I was talking about, did you read my previous comment? If you read it you will see, it's clear.

Thank You, Gavquinn87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavquinn87 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Map of the administrative division of the Greater German Reich (Officially "Großdeutsches Reich")

Fair point, the Info Box section on Formation was missing this phase of German political development. --E-960 (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The formation as a German state after World War 1 was in 1919 ! The "Nazi era government" was established within the Weimar Republic constitutional framework. Expedian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get technical, what is Weimar Republic? I don't believe that's an official name of any kind for the German state, also if you want to get even more detailed, then we should include the Greater German Reich Großdeutsches Reich (Third Reich) as an actual name of the German state in the Info Box—as noted the term: "is the official state name of the political entity... [Nazi Germany]" perhaps we should include that if you feel that Weimar Rep. and Nazi Germany were the same political entity until the start of WWII. Pls see map, as this was a official name used for Germany, which fully incorporated Poland, Czech Rep, and Austria into it's territory. --E-960 (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

As I understand the box on the right, there are only new constitutional versions of Germany listed. The Nazi regime did not founded a new constitutional framework. Expedian (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Expedian, please do not remove other items on the page without an explanation. As for the naming argument, please explain your comment "only new constitutional versions of Germany listed"? Was the Holy Roman Empire a constitutional entity in the modern sense? I feel that this is just an excuse to omit reference to Nazi Germany from the Info Box. Perhaps other editors can weight in on this topic. --E-960 (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• To avoid an edit war, I won't re-add the reference to Nazi Germany in the Info Box as this is a recent edit, and the discussion is still in progress. But the image of the concentration camp is not a brand-new addition, so pls do not randomly remove it as a side item to this discussion as you did twice now, as the items are not related. --E-960 (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I added Third Reich to the box yesterday and it was deleted by Thenigma. Rationale given: No consensus for this change, current discussion leaning against. So now, it looks like the Weimar Republic lasted from 1919 to 1949.

    '''Weimar Republic''' ... unofficial, historical designation for the German state between 1919 and 1933. 

Wikipedia has a huge article about the Third Reich so it seems to be just as relevant as the Weimar Republic. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And how does EEC Foundation 1 January 1958 fit into the Formation list?

    '''European Economic Community''' The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional organisation which aimed to bring about economic integration among its member states. It was created by the Treaty of Rome of 1957.[1] Upon the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated and renamed as the European Community (EC). In 2009 the EC's institutions were absorbed into the EU's wider framework and the community ceased to exist.
    The Community's initial aim was to bring about economic integration, including a common market and customs union, among its six founding members: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany. 

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Examples of holocaust victims

@Thenigma: this edit changed

"In total, over 10 million civilians were systematically murdered, including 6 million Jews, between 220,000 and 1,500,000 Romani, 275,000 persons with disabilities, thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses, thousands of homosexuals, and hundreds of thousands of members of the political and religious opposition from Germany and occupied countries "

to

"In total, over 10 million civilians were systematically murdered, including 6 million Jews, between 220,000 and 1,500,000 Romani, 275,000 persons with disabilities, thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses, thousands of homosexuals, and hundreds of thousands of members of the political and religious opposition from Germany, the Nazi Party, [my emphasis] and occupied countries "

In other words it seems to have explicitly added members of the Nazi Party to the list of victims. Though some of the victims were doubtless members of the Nazi Party, does it make sense to include them in this non-exhaustive list. I don't understand what "the political and religious opposition from ... the Nazi party" is supposed to mean. Am I misreading something? --Boson (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I also do not understand why he added Nazi party there. It should be removed. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Boson:

When I included the Nazi Party in that list, I should have clarified. I removed the edit.Thenigma (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler, leader

He wasn't a leader but a Führer, which has specific meaning.Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Is the burning of hundreds of burned synagogues O.K.? I prefer the burning of hundreds of synagogues.Xx236 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany Images

The section should highlight the consequences of the Nazi regime, by including an image of the most infamous German concentration camp. I noticed in the past that the Germany article in several instances emphasizes the victimhood of Germany while omitting the cause, this was the case in the German Confederation and Empire section, when the text made reference to "Germans perceived the treaty as humiliating and unjust and it was later seen by historians as influential in the rise of Adolf Hitler" while completely omitting the fact that the German territories lost under the treaty were inhabited by non-German majorities and that those territories were taken by Germany from other countries (I added those references to complete the narrative). Also, there is a map of Allied Occupation zones, yet nothing in the preceding section that might highlight the reason for the allied occupation of Germany. --E-960 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• By the way, in the past when I tried to add an image of a concentration camp map of Europe to the WR and NG section, the argument for taking it down was that there is a consensus for only one image on the page, since than we have a second picture of Philipp Scheidemann in the section, and when I tried to add the concentration camp picture the argument used to take it down is that there is a consensus for only two pictures—pretty lame excuse :D . --E-960 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

With all respect E-960. Your edit history leaves no doubt. You have never added to Germany related articles in a constructive way. Your intentions here are to highlight / whitewash all issues related to Poland and suppressing all negative parts related to this country. At the same time you promote only negative events in German history. I call this either trolling or nationalist behavior. My 2 cents. After looking in your edit history I found out that you have tried to put in the non-consensus image here more than once. Stop it. Expedian (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I've yet to come across a historian of 20th C Europe who did NOT record that the post WWI settlements, and the sense of humiliation felt by some Germans was a significant factor in the rise of Nazism. What you seem to be arguing E-960, is that Germans had no right to feel such humiliation since the lost territories were not ethnically German. That is fairly irrelevant, many in the US felt humiliated at the ignoble end to 10 years in Vietnam, some in the UK felt humiliation at the loss of Empire, the moral rights or wrongs of either outcome are academic, the political consequences and effects are not. Pincrete (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Expedian, and Pincrete to respond to your comments. Unfortunately, in today's Germany with the use of phrases like 'Polish Concentration Camps" (pls read the Wiki article) by state owned media organizations like ZDF and others, someone may question whether there was a true sense of coming to terms with this history. This term is not accidental it was coined by two former Nazis Reinhard Gehlen and Alfred Benzinger, who worked as intel officers in the "democratic" Federal Republic of Germany after the war. Also, just now on the Nazi Germany Wiki page someone keeps changing the statement in the Oppression of ethnic Poles from "2.7 million ethnic Poles were killed by the Nazis" to "2.7 million ethnic Poles were killed by the Axis Powers"… completely ridiculous, thus perhaps the image of the concentration camp should highlight some of the facts regarding this topic, that those camps were build by Nazi Germany served their industry (IG Farben) and exterminated millions. --E-960 (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Btw, on Russia page there is an image of the Gulags, so in this case no one seems to shy away form presenting a comparable issue, given the scale this need to be highlighted here as well. This is a factually correct/relevant item and there is room for it, you can't just block it arbitrarily by saying that there is a consensus for just two images, that's not an argument based on merits, it's an excuse. --E-960 (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• E-960's edit warring notwithstanding, "their" version with a photo of the entrance of Auschwitz-Birkenau looks fine to me and not undue weight.

The post-WW1 humiliation stuff, of course, should stay. The argument that "they have right to feel this way / we don't care" is irrelevant when every reliable source agrees on the reality of that feeling and its political consequences, both of which are sufficiently notable for Wikipedia to mention - see, for instance, Dolchstoßlegende. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Problems, or PoV on other aricles are not a good reason for undue weight here. I doubt if the America article has pictures of My Lai or Hiroshima or Wounded Knee, nor that the UK article has pictures of 'bloody Sunday' or the more notorious incidents of Empire. To include on the general country page is frankly shoving down people's throats. The same would be true of gulags, though they would anyway be on the USSE page, not the Russia one. Clearly such pictures belong on more precise topic articles, but not on the general country articles. Pincrete (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Totally agreed. The text section is already very precise about it, as well as the specific articles. Modern Germany is a different entity than Nazi Germany and there's no need to shove a KZ pic down people's throats. Obviously this is following the victimising narrative of Polish PiS politicians, who aren't getting tired to stress that there were _German_ death camps, as obviously some uninformed tourists say "Polish death camps" since they are in Poland now. Seriously, that's ridiculous and not an encyclopedic ground to work on. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This page isn't about modern Germnay only, compare The discovery of the Mauer 1 mandible shows that ancient humans were present in Germany at least 600,000 years ago.

Not uninformed tourists but some German journalists.

Do the same uninformed tourists write Russian city of Koenigsberg or French camp Natzweiler-Struthof?Xx236 (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

E-960, two or three points, like Obama, I would quite naturally refer to 'Polish death camps', it would not even occur to me that anyone could construe my meaning as anything other than shorthand for 'Nazi death camps, located in occupied Poland'. Some Poles obviously take offence at that shorthand, none intended. Why some Germans prefer that form and whether it is a form of deflection, I have no idea. If it is deflection, they will have to try much harder than that before any serious person imagines Auschwitz etc. were anything other than Nazi run and instigated camps, but regardless of their motives, WP isn't here to 'fix' or counter-act the opinions of anyone. The 'name controversy' article is fairly poorly written in my opinion and thus probably does a disservice to those who do take offence at the description 'Polish'. Pincrete (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete and Horst-schlaemma, please leave political jargon like Obama or PiS out of it. My Lai or Hiroshima as bad as they were do not equate to what happened with Nazi Germany—think of the social, political, cultural and ethnic changes that occurred in Europe because of actions that were taken by the Nazis. Again, country articles like Russia (Gulags) and Cambodia (the Killing Fields) have images to highlight extraordinary events of this nature. Germany article should as well, the image is not graphic, also as user Tigraan noted there is room for it and the picture does not create un-due weight. --E-960 (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Btw, what's up with the Germanic Language map in the 'Language' section of this article, for all the talk about Germans calling concentration camps "Polish, they sure like to call Polish cities German—even when the map has English country names the cities are in German: Warschau, Lodsch and Gnesen. So, based on this article's discussion the concentration camps in Poland are Polish but all the cities in Poland are German. Very peculiar interpretation of history, no doubt. --E-960 (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Germans calling death camps "Polish death camps"? I can't see evidence for that here. Obviously you're chasing a phantom, E-960. Your nationalist crusade is something a group of reviewers should check on. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The writer Primo Levi, once wrote a short piece comparing Nazi crimes with Stalin's crimes, he concluded that the Nazi ones were of a wholly different, and worse, order, I'm inclined to agree with him. The various Nazi crimes - mainly in Eastern Europe - are possibly the worst deeds committed in Europe ever in both scale and barbarity. That does not alter my opinion that such images do not belong in an article about the whole history of Germany, any more than pictures of whatever worst deeds were conducted somewhere in the British Empire would belong on the main UK article. Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC) ps, maybe it's a German map. That might explain German names.Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The KZ-prisoner and historian de:Andrzej J. Kamiński has published [4].Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, regarding the map, your argument would make sense except that if you look closely the country names are in English and so is the legend, so it's not a map from German Wikipedia. --E-960 (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A Nazi camp picture is needed to summarize the Nazi period. A picture of Adolf Hitler belongs to the neo-Nazi propaganda "They (the Nazis) did it, we didn't know anything".

It's fascinating to read that an image of a Nazi camp is a nationalistic Polish POV. For me removing such image is nationalistic German POV. The German page shows KZ Auschiwitz. So we are more German than the Germans.

. (The French Wikipedia is more German - the only picture shows destroyed Dresden.)

I don't believe literarly the Gehlen story quoted above, but you act accordingly to the line - let's forget the camps and let accuse the Polish nationalists (from PiS). Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You seem to assume (1) that Germans (as a general entity) would try to remove the image ("So we are more German than the Germans") and (2) the exclusion of the image would be a whitewashing POV. (1) is wrong but I shall not elaborate (WP:NOTFORUM).

(2) is disputed, so you need to provide arguments to support it. There is a tradeoff between the historical significance of the fact, the shock value of it, the available space on a general-topic page, etc. I tend to think the shock value is low enough and the historical significance high enough to include the picture, but I recognize that there is a tradeoff, that the portrait of Hitler already is an illustration of the whole period, and that others might evaluate the picture as more shocking as I do. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Btw, the Deutschland article on German Wiki contains this very same image that's being proposed for the English article. Also, aticles in Spainish, Portugese and even Danish, have additional images directly relating to the Holocaust. --E-960 (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tigraan - do I need to explain you the significance of Auschwitz/Shoah/extermination of Slavs?

A band may use a picture of its frontman to earn more money, a nation isn't a band to be represented by a propaganda picture of its leader. Nazi propaganda is illegal in several countries. Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker. I have transformed more Catholic than Pope. Is soûl comme un Polonais politically incorrect in French?

I haven't demanded a picture of dead bodies. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, WP:NOTFORUM. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Xx236, the proper spelling is "saoûl comme un polonais" and while it is not incorrect, it is rather colloquial. For the war picture, although I don't want to be part of it, and try to avoid any conflict, why don't you put two pictures to illustrate this period, like one depicting a german city devasted by the bombs such as Hamburg, and another one representing Birkenau? It would show the two faces of the war for Germany. This is a section about history of Germany, so the Germans of today should not feel responsible for the atrocities occurred in the past, but the death/concentrations camps are an important event if the modern day history. Wiki is perhaps not the perfect place to relate historical events, since it is too complex to deepen, and expose all the facts leading to the second WWII. The works of the German historian Fisher are very interesting on this matter. And as for the sense of humiliation felt in Germany, do not forget that Hitler went to power with a small amount of voters...--Gabriel HM (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have informed that the German Wikipedia uses the Auschwitz picture in the parallel article. The resistance here radicalizes my opinion.

Germans and Austrians were corrupted (Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State).

Germans and Austrians murdered and robbed in the East.

Polish underground invented German anti-Nazi resistance and printed its leaflets. Germans and Austrians weren't able to organize their government-in-exile.Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The resistance here radicalizes my opinion - reading WP:MASTODONS might be warranted here. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The total history text seems to cover at least 2000 years. Including prehistory even more. It would make sense to me to put in more than one image of the "Nazi era" if it had lasted, say, 300-500 years. But in the end it was a brief moment compared to other historic developments. Why, for example, are there no images of German kings included here ??? My 2 cents. Expedian (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• I am fairly sure than in Wikipedia in year 2100 (if it still exists), 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt and associated articles will be a prominent part of the article Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Even though it was a short event itself, historical implications will resonate for long. Idem for the Third Reich - it did not last a thousand years, but it still shaped a lot of the world's politics. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears that there are equal number of folk for and against, in which case, there is no clear consensus which would justify the exclusion of a relevant image from the section. --E-960 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• First of all, WP:CONSENSUS is not based on numbers, and second, the burden to establish consensus is on the side that wishes to change stuff - in that case, adding a picture. A no consensus results defaults to the previous version.

Finally, even though I would mildly support including the picture, I can plainly see that I am in the minority and that the opposing side's arguments have more support in policy than Xx236's and yours. As of now, I see some consensus not to include it, although the closer may disagree. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Adding Nazi Germany to Infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Rough consensus has been established to remove the "Formation" section entirely as confusing and not being being informative. There appear to be no guidelines or standards in place to determine what would be the historical dividing points. The "Should ESC be included in Formation in the facts box?" and "Infobox, why not include the Third Reich or the division (West and East) or the European Union or the Reunification?" sections below are therefore moot. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Should the Info Box contain a reference to Nazi Germany in the 'Formation' section—currently the section reads:

• Holy Roman Empire 2 February 962
• German Confederation 8 June 1815
• German Empire 18 January 1871
• Weimar Republic 11 August 1919
• Federal Republic 23 May 1949
• EEC Foundation 1 January 1958
• Reunification 3 October 1990

I suggest that reference to Nazi Germany 30 January 1933 is included between Weimar Rep. and Federal Rep. --E-960 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. The Third Reich/Nazi Germany was a distinct political period in Germany's history and should be included in the Info Box.

• No. Nazi Germany was a political era. But not a new state. Expedian (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot even find the 'Formation' section referred to, however the overall coverage of the Nazi period seems balanced and given at least adequate weight. One minor observation, the text in the lead refers to 'a genocide'. Perhaps a better text and link would be 'the Holocaust', which is the general term both for the 'Jewish dimension' but is also often used for other victim groups and is the most widely used term for Nazi persecution. Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Pincrete, this section is in the 'Info Box' at the top of the page right below 'Legislature' sub-section. --E-960 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, sort of - I'll suggest relabeling the period to "Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany" as the division the article uses, though the borders and nature of what "Germany" was did change considerably in the 1930s. I also noted the box lacks German Democratic Republic (1949) so after this one you might look at that. Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have edited the header and created a new section for this RFC as I guess this might receive a lot of input. I am also notifying WikiProject Countries. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the section entirely as excessive, convoluted, and more appropriately explained in prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Remove the section from the infobox; barring that, add with the Weimar Republic entry (per Markbassett). Beyond the fact that it clutters the infobox, the current "formation" header is generated by |sovereignty_type = [[Kingdom of Germany|Formation]] when (1) you would not really expect clicking on "formation" to lead you to Kingdom of Germany, (2) though the key sovereignty_type is not documented in Template:Infobox_country, I guess it is intended for "parliamentary republic" or similar. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rename "Formation" to "Timeline" then add Nazi Germany 1933-1945. My opinion: The time periods in the infobox form a timeline instead of a single or multiple formations. I think a timeline is a better approach.

Comment: I did not find a formation parameter in template infobox Country. Is there a definition of the parameter "Formation"?CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Remove the section entirely better explained in prose per Nikkimaria, too many 'Easter egg' links as pointed out by Tigraan, and the omission of DDR as pointed out by Markbassett, also conflation of historic 'Germanic' entities with Germany, the modern state. Barring that, add Nazi Germany to Weimar Republic as an entity. Pincrete (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Remove the section entirely per Pincrete and Nikkimaria. This is yet another example of an infobox trying to do too much. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• No. While a distinct political era, there was no event that demonstrated a significant change to Germany's statehood. I disagree with an entire removal of the section, but agree it currently lacks focus. It should be used to give context to the sovereignty_type field. Thus, per Pincrete, it should avoid conflation of historic entities with the modern state, and so it should begin with the unification of Germany. Given it is not a full historical timeline, I am not as concerned about the lack of East Germany, as its absorption was an effective annexation rather than the creation of a new political structure, with today's Germany based upon pre-existing structures. CMD (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
• Nor or remove Third Reich was what they called themselves, not Nazi Germany. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes Yes, it should be added. I don't believe it should be added to the Weimar period, however. The Nazi era began later than 1919 so it should be a distinct era. 1933-1945. Call it the Third Reich era if you want to be politically correct. Do we have a consensus now? Peter K Burian (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

• No, you do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I added Third Reich to the box yesterday and it was deleted by Thenigma. Rationale given: No consensus for this change, current discussion leaning against.

So now, it looks like the Weimar Republic lasted from 1919 to 1949.

   Weimar Republic is an unofficial, historical designation for the German state between 1919 and 1933. 

Wikipedia has a huge article about the Third Reich so it seems to be just as relevant as the Weimar Republic. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

And how does EEC Foundation 1 January 1958 fit into the Formation list?

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes -- otherwise it looks like Germany went from the Weimar Republic straight to the Federal Republic. Separately, where is the German Democratic Republic? Germany existed as two states for many decades, which I believe should be acknowledged in the infobox. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Since we will never get a consensus to add Third Reich, I am changing my vote to Remove Formation section from the infobox. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• The whole section is terrible. If we list all constitutions, something like the Peace of Westphalia would also need to be included. Or perhaps the Frankfurt Constitution. Adding the Nazi era isn't going to make this complete or even particularly useful, as German history is so complicated. If we need this section at all, I would rather reduce it to just the Federal Republic: founded in 1949, last enlarged in 1990 by the accession of the GDR. —Kusma (t·c) 10:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, but... It can't stay the way it is: jumping from Weimar to Federal Republic. If the article keeps "Formation" (or "Timeline" as was suggested), it must include the Third Reich. (That would be preferable to "Nazi-something," which is purely political and not a description of nationhood status, as others in the list appear to be). If the list is retained, it must also include the GDR with an appropriate post-WWII date. I won't oppose deletion of the list, but I believe it can be repaired without great difficulty and offer useful info. I think, however, that Holy Roman Empire could be eliminated and the list can start with Kingdom of Germany, which currently is hidden in the "Formation" header, which doesn't make much sense; it should be explicitly named. DonFB (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF VOTES TO DATE:

• Yes, add Nazi Germany OR Third Reich: 4
  • No, ignore this aspect of the history: 3
  • Remove the entire Formation section from the infobox: 5

I believe we are close to a consensus to remove it.

     WP:CONS Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• No. Rather reshape that section. It looks stupid and unencyclopedic. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Remove formation section entirely The facts are too nuanced for a section like that. This RfC is proof this idea was poorly thought. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Remove formation section if without Nazism Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Remove Germany is not more related to the HRE than Nederlands or the Czech Republic. It's anachronic ans misleading. Bertdrunk (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Remove the formation section. It overloads the infobox, and there is no generally acceptable criterion for deciding which changes ín territory or constitution to include and which dates to use.--Boson (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, can we agree on consensus to remove this section all together? --E-960 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should ESC be included in Formation in the facts box?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as moot due to RfC above. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Is this a distinct era in Germany? Should it be included with the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich?

The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was proposed by Robert Schuman in his declaration on 9 May 1950 and involved the pooling of the coal and steel industries of France and West Germany.[30] Half of the project states, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, had already achieved a great degree of integration amongst themselves with the organs of Benelux and earlier bilateral agreements. These five countries were joined by Italy and they all signed the Treaty of Paris on 23 July 1952. These six members, dubbed the 'inner six' (as opposed to the 'outer seven' who formed the European Free Trade Association who were suspicious of such plans for integration) went on to sign the Treaties of Rome Peter K Burian (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• No -- does not apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• It is apparently important enough to be in the location map, so given that its EU predecessor ascension makes sense. CMD (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I just ask a general question ? Why is it that people with no edit experience in Germany related themes can come up with answers about the article ? Why are there votings about content and no discussions ? Is this Facebook or what ? I have not yet made up my mind about the EEC inclusion, but after checking some other European country entries it seems that many list this note. My 2 cents Expedian (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a community of editors with equal rights. And nearly always, articles about a country benefit from editors who have experience in editing articles about other countries.

How much experience in editing Germany related themes does one need to say, "Add the Third Reich" to the infobox, for example? Or "delete ECSC because it was a project for free trade and not one of the governmental eras of the country". But neither change will happen because the people who feel a proprietary right to the Germany article refuse to consider any change. Unless some Administrators get involved and force a change, it will not happen. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Procedural no - the whole "Formation" section should go. Even if it stays, I would rather support removing the EEC foundation than adding another EU-related mention - other entries are significant change in government structures and/or territory. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I support deleting the Formation section. (That would be preferable to leaving it as is, omitting the Third Reich era and including EEC). Peter K Burian (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

After going deeper in analysis I came to the following conclusion. I reject this kind voting pattern with thumbs up- thumbs down. In this Wikipedia project good answers should be convincing. (My 2 cents). Concerning the ESC issue I have two comments: After checking more country entries it becomes clear that the "Formation" part is very widely spread. Obviously many people have come to the conclusion that this is a useful information. If the Formation part is going to be kept so the ESC mentioning makes sense. I´m here with CMD. Because what followed after the ESC is almost a development of a supra constitutional structure. Namely the EU, with a parliament, a currency and governmental institutions. Have a nice weekend Expedian (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox, why not include the Third Reich or the division (West and East) or the European Union or the Reunification?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed as moot due to RfC above. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Surely these are as significant as the EEC (European Economic Community) era. And if we list the EEC, why do we not list the European Union era?

Nazi Germany Dritte Reich (Third Reich) redirects here. ... the common English name for the period in German history from 1933 to 1945, when Germany was governed by a dictatorship under the control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP) ..... the official name of the state was Deutsches Reich' from 1933 to 1943 and Großdeutsches Reich ("Greater German Reich") from 1943 to 1945. (or call it the Third Reich).

AND The division: 1949 when two states emerged: History of Germany (1945–90) Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), commonly known as West Germany, . ... German Democratic Republic (GDR), commonly known as East Germany...]

AND The reunification of East Germany and West Germany Main article: German reunification

If the Infobox cannot include all of these, how is the Formation item valid? Perhaps it should be deleted.

Peter K Burian (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Peter K Burian, maybe that instead of opening a subthread on every single possible change on German 20th century history, you could wait for the outcome of the current RfC? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017

GERMAN president IS Frank Walter Steinmeyer. Lindwurm9 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Change of office will not occur until 19 March.[5] -- AxG / ✉  18:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Who are Europeans?

Who are Europeans in the infobox and who decide it. Why Turks are mentioned seperately? If it is about the continent, I'm sure that there are lots of Germany-born Turks and Gastarbeiter from Eastern Thrace. I suggest that it should be changed as Other EU-Citizens. kazekagetr 15:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, the whole origin part of the infobox seems fishy. Reading the source, I think it considers Turks as Europeans, so it could be 11.6% other Europeans, including Turks 3.7%. But it seems to me that the source does not really support the 11.6% number, either, by searching for it in the text.

Do we have a fluent German speaker to check this? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I checked the document and updated the stats for 2015 vs 2012. Turks are included in Europeans, but given their high number, I added a line for them. Same for Middle-Eastern people out of the Asia total. — JFG ^talk 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Strange ideas

Cultural ties and economic interests have crafted a bond between the two countries resulting in Atlanticism

• US Army occupied part of Germany defending Germany during the Cold War.
• Cultural ties and economic interests existed between many European countries and the USA. Germany wasn't a leader of the Atlanticism.
• There exists strong anti-Americanism in Germany.Xx236 (talk) 06:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Why the arrows for the ethnicities and religions in the factbox?

I haven't seen them in any other national article, this is really incoherent. Either include this in every country's factbox or just remove them. Is it possible that someone tried to push an agenda or is this just a piece of information someone wanted to include in Germany's (but no other) article? --2A02:908:183:3EA0:E84D:3104:6D6F:3494 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree this looks irrelevant; we don't even say from what basis the numbers have increased or decreased. Can we get consensus to remove the {{increase}} / {{decrease}} arrows from the infobox? — JFG ^talk 12:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see Torygreen84 already removed them. Looks much better, thanks! — JFG ^talk 12:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

the sad reason for that facbox is to just to show people that we whites are going down whole the others are going up. its sad to see. Torygreen84 (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

'Evangelical' as opposed to Roman Catholic

The translation of German evangelisch as 'evangelical' is misleading. In English the term means a low church without a formal written liturgy and which evangelises actively, such as the Baptists, Presbyterians, Free Churches, and so on. The term evangelical is used in German for these. The correct translation of evangelischis 'Protestant', or, better, 'Lutheran' as the term evangelisch refers to this denomination. The other major protestant church is the evangelisch-reformierte Kirche, which in English should be rendered as 'reformed church'. For example, the labelling under the picture of the Frauenkirche in Dresden should therefore be changed, along with other instances — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.48.80 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I think protestant is the best translation, a "evangelisch" is used for "reformierte", "lutherische" and "unierte" protestants. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Einstein, really?

He was persecuted by the Nazi regime. Neither the germans or himself saw him as a german. He had an american citizenship and was more linked to the United States. I think putting a picture of him on "Germany" article is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh he was persecuted by the Nazi regime.. So we should still do it the same way? --Jonny84 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

this is exactly why I hate to talk with leftist trolls in Wiki. Did I say we should persecute him? no. I said that his picture shouldn't be on "Germany" article. He wasn't considered "German" by neither the germans or himself. If anything he was American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

He was born and raised as a German. Till the age of 54 he was a honored Professor at a German University. Due to Nazi persecution he spent his last 20 years in the USA (and did not return after the Nazis were defeated). So what could be wrong depicting the Germany article with his image? --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition to that, Albert Einstein got his Nobel prize in 1924 for work from 1905, which is arguably the most important reason why he is notable. That was more than 10 years before he fled to the US. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, when he did his most notable work in 1905, he was a patent examiner in Switzerland, and a Swiss citizen since 1901… And in 1911 he became Austrian to teach in Prague. We can pick any other German scientist to illustrate the article. — JFG ^talk 16:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I replaced him with contemporary Max Planck, to provide some diversity to readers in the "notable physicist" area, and to avoid nitpicking on nationality or residence. — JFG ^talk 16:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Horst-schlaemma: You reverted to Einstein; did you notice this thread? Planck is a great representative of German science too… — JFG ^talk 21:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFK:, there is nothing wrong with Planck, however Einstein is worldwide by far the most prominent German Nobel laureate. Furthermore your change was clearly against the discussion's tendency. Let's stick with Einstein till you find a majority for your position. BR Ulrich Nillurcheier (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the above post took the wrong end of Warnock's dilemma regarding my opinion after JFG's post. I agree with JFG's replacement by Planck and their rationale to do so. And of course, that is not a Planck vs Einstein thing, it is a 100%-German-scientist vs unclear-nationality-scientist thing. I forcefully pushed back against the OP's very unreasonable claim that if anything [Einstein] was American, but did not consider that he could be at least partially be considered Swiss (to be honest, I did not remember correctly the biographical details from Albert_Einstein#Patent_office and below); and anyways, better to pick a consensual choice than to ram Einstein through for the sake of it. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tigraan. To Nillurcheier's remark, I made a BOLD edit, which was reverted, so now we are discussing a bit. Several people have noted that Einstein had varying nationalities and loyalties over his career, therefore picking another of the 106 German Nobel laureates would be an appropriate and educational change. Conversely, in arguments to keep Einstein instead of Planck or anybody else, I read mostly "he's famous" and "he was persecuted", which sounds like essentially WP:ILIKEIT arguments; there were plenty of other famous scientists or artists who were persecuted. However there were few German Nobel laureates who spent most of their career outside of their home country and acquired several other nationalities. — JFG ^talk 11:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well this article is about the country of 'Germany' not the 'German people' so i can't see any reason to remove him since he is Germany-born. kazekagetr 09:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

By the same token, there is no particular reason to keep him. And perhaps listing a somewhat-less-mainstream-idol giant of physics would improve the educational value of Wikipedia… — JFG ^talk 11:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please consider the argument (above) that Einstein is worldwide by far more well known than Planck. Hence he is candidate #1 to be depicted unless no strong contraindication can be found. Some confusion and inconsistency in his de jure nationality is neither relevant for his achievements nor for his utmost tight relationship with Germany. Nillurcheier (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

+1. That. Einstein is overwhelmingly identified as a German scientist. He was born in Ulm, studied and worked with Germans at Polytechnikum and his Berlin years lasted 1914–1932 where his legacy was profoundly laid. It's ridiculous to say he was more linked to America. Far from the truth. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"If the theory of relativity turns out be correct, the Germans will claim that I was German and the French will claim that I was a cosmopolitan. If the theory of relativity turns out be wrong, the French will claim that I was German and the German that I was a jew."--Antemister (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

German-Occupied Europe Map

Horst-schlaemma, not sure what legitimate justification you have to remove the map, by claiming that no consensus was reached… first off, you don't need to get consensus on every edit. Also, why did you remove this map, but not the newly added map of Francia in the Germanic tribes and Frankish Empire section? Very selective editing no doubt, I would guess that map was just recently added to highlight the Franco-German leadership that is now talked about in the news, and I'd like to include a map that showed German domination of Europe during the last century. --E-960 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Cooperation with Russia

Germany is involed in controvesrial projects, eg. Nord Stream. The former German PM works for Gazprom.Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Denazification

Some of the Nazis were punished, the other ones not. There existed post-Nazi parties in both parts of Germany.Xx236 (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)