Talk:Germany/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Article size, layout, images and media

Since editors from German Wikipedia have been invited to take an active part in the improvement of this article, we should perhaps clarify some of the major issues relating to apparent differences between the two pojejcts.

Many of the differences regarding the Featured Article Review revolve around differences regarding article size, summary style, and the use of images.

As I see it, the relevant objections raised at FAR and addressed above are based on English Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines:

• WP:Image use policy, which states "For an image to add to an article, it should be relevant and helpful in making a point. In general, images that are not mentioned in the article itself, tend to not meet this guideline."
• WP:Article size, which sets the upper limit for prose at around 60-100KB (with some tolerance)
• WP:Summary style, which states: "The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long articles would cause problems. So we must move information out of articles periodically." and "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects."

The WP:Featured article criteria state:

• Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
• Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

In practice:

• no other featured country article on English Wikipedia has more than about 30 images; most have far less.

As far as I can tell (please correct me if I am wrong), German Wikipedia does not have guidelines corresponding to WP:Article size and WP:Summary style, or the non-legal provisions of WP:Image use policy; and the relevant criteria for featured articles (exzellente Artikel) are slightly different (paraphrase/summary by me):

• Pictures may not be inappropriate or selected randomly.
• All images must be free.
• A reader can be encouraged to read the article to the end by using good layout, graphics, and photographs which help to explain the article topic, or at least illustrate it appropriately.
• The article must cover the topic [fully?]], in accordance with current knowledge.

In practice:

• the eqivalent German article, de:Deutschland, has around 100 images or other media files and its size (from History) is about 246KB.

It might be useful to discuss the different rules on the two projects, and that might include suggestions for changing Wikipedia guidelines. But that should be done elsewhere. For this article, I think we need to comply with the current guidelines.

I hope this helps people understand the differences, so that editors more conversant with German Wikipedia can avoid giving the impression that they are trying to ride roughshod over established guidelines, and do not go away with the impression that editors more conversant with English Wikipedia guidelines are being unwelcoming to new editors. If the differences are not made clear, I fear a certain rancour is inevitable and constructive co-operation is made difficult. --Boson (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Would it be possible for you write all of the above in German as well, at the WP-de page where Herr Kent has taken it upon himself to try to recruit people to his cause? -- Alarics (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer not to, because of the potential, in any ensuing discussion, for

• breaching WP:Canvassing
• fostering tensions between the projects
• getting involved in a pissing match, involving endless discussions about who has the longest or most appealing article

--Boson (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Kent The campaigning you did on the German Wikipedia is very clearly against our guidelines here. (I am not sure whether the German project allows this, but that is not important, because we have a discussion here and you "invited" people to this discussion.) You said that you are editing for many years. I am flabbergasted to see that an experienced author breaches our behavioral guidelines so blatantly.

Please read the guideline, if you did not know it so far, and decide for yourself if you want to remove your partisan entry on the Deutschlandlemma. If you decide to leave this comment, I must understand that you do not acknowledge your mistake. In this case, I would advocate to bring this issue up at Wikiquette. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Back to topic. I think it was a good idea by Boson to summarize differences between the project, because it assumes good faith. Maybe, it was just not clear to some editor who work on the German project more frequently that this project state relatively clear upper limits for article sizes. I hope indeed that this is what caused so much confusion. Perhaps from now, it enables us to concentrate on detailed questions like what kind of information a picture should convey and apply these criteria to individual images. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn´t know that my comment on de:Germany does has any relevance here. If so I´m sorry I really am. But Boson, please don´t get me wrong, your post or should I say your method (the internal Wikipedia recommendations) you like to apply miss the most important point. That is the subject itself. It is the core question of any article in the first place. What is important to present the subject core information. Nobody of the massive amount of authors who suddenly appeared and went into competition to delete everything has ever argued for the importance to maintain core messages. This is why I have been angry in the beginning (Again I´m sorry for that) and it is the reason why I have created an english account. At all, if there is real interest in the matter of this lemma then every single one should ask themselves what necessary to portray the issues in high class way. The internal Wikipedia guidelines cannot judge common sense. The guidelines cannot restrict images of writers and philosophers in a lemma about a country which is famous for its literary achievements. The debate about what images are needed to portray Germany has guided to much on purely (assumed) technical terms, this is wrong and does not help the lemma or the reader. One last point to consider, in an age where the images (From TV to magazines) have gained a very noticible status, it is absurd to believe that the absence of images fulfil a higher degree of quality. Regards Herr Kent (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The guideline mentioned, indeed, does not intend to limit common sense. It simply forbids you to post partisan calls like you did here. Are you now aware of this? Will you remove your request there seeking support for your case here, or not? Tomeasy _{T C} 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to discussing the importance of different images, but this should be done within the framework of the guidelines that exist. I would suggest, tentatively, that the two projects have reacted differently to the possibilities afforded by the platform. You are saying:: in an age of multimedia, we can (and should) have more images etc. The English Wikipedia seems to say, currently: in an age of hyperlinks, there is no need to have everything in one article. The top article should have a summary, and more detailed information should be in the sub-articles. As the documentaton for {{Main}} makes clear: the sub-articles are conceptually part of the article, but the editor can choose which parts he or she wants to download and read. Thus, the Germany article would have a brief summary of German music; there is no reason to assume that someone looking up Germany would have the remotest interest in listening to a sample of Bach and Kraftwerk. In the ideal form of this approach, the few readers who are interested in German music, rather than golden eagles or industrial production, will click on Music of Germany, and then the few people interested in opera can click on German opera. The very few people interested in Kraftwerk can then click on the appropriate link. The opera lovers do not have to wait while images of Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte and videos of aircraft are downloaded. Thus, multimedia and summary style complement each other.

On this talk page we could possibly decide that a few things are so much more important for the topic of Germany than for the typical topic envisaged by the guidelines that the guidelines need to be interpeted generously, meaning we go for 30 25-30 images, and 110KB 100KB-120KB, but if we go much above that, we are questioning the essence of the guidelines, and that means going to the Community level. --Boson (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Remaining FA concerns

In view of the open FARC, I have checked the article for remaining problems (mainly sourcing), but haven't had time to completely verify or fix them.

Remaining problems (in my opinion; feel free to strike out when addressed):

Sourcing:

Law section:

• I think we need a citation and reformulation for the sweeping statement "The Judiciary of Germany is independent of the executive and legislative branches." For instance, the issue of the Minister of Justice being able to give orders to Staatsanwälte makes the situation more complex.
• I think we need a secondary source and/or reformulation for the implied assessment of priorities expressed in "The German penal system is aimed towards rehabilitation of the criminal; its secondary goal is the protection of the general public." Or it needs to be re-formulated.

Good catch, the German text uses "auch", which is basically a listing of goals (and sometimes can imply a kind of ranking). I removed the ranking implication to get closer to the original source. GermanJoe (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations:

• We need citations and dates (as of) for: "It is the largest contributor to the budget of the European Union (providing 20 percent) and the third largest contributor to the UN (providing 8 percent)".

Military:

• "In 2005, military spending was an estimated 1.5 percent of the country's GDP; overall military spending is the seventh-highest in the world." To avoid confusion, the ranking for percentage of GDP should also be given and the year for the rankings should be given. The ranking should use the latest available data (rank 8) and give the year (2010). The source hould be changed accordingly.

Economy:

• I don't think this is adequately sourced: "It has the largest national economy in Europe, the fourth largest by nominal GDP in the world, and the fifth largest by PPP in 2009. The service sector contributes around 70 percent of the total GDP, industry 29.1 percent, and agriculture 0.9 percent. In July 2010 the average national unemployment rate was 7.5 percent." I think a reference must have got lost.

Transport:

• "The motorway (Autobahn) network . . . has no speed limits on most routes." might be slightly misleading.

Demographics:

• "Germans make up 91 percent of the population of Germany. " needs sourcing and should clarify that this is based on nationality.
• "As of 2004, about seven million foreign citizens were registered in Germany, and 19 percent of the country's residents were of foreign or partially foreign descent (including persons descending or partially descending from ethnic German repatriates), 96 percent of whom lived in Western Germany or Berlin." needs sourcing.
• "It is estimated by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany that nearly 30 percent of Germans aged 5 years and younger have at least one parent who was born abroad." needs citaion (seems to have got removed).

Education

• "To enter a university in Germany, high school students are generally required to take the Abitur examination, which is similar to A-levels in the UK and typically done at the age of 18 or 19" needs clarification. Is the comparison with A-levels appropriate? If it is, it needs explaining that Abitur is not subject-specific like A-levels (especially in the light of the following sentence). The sentence also needs copy-editing.

Health

• We need sources for "In 2002 the top diagnosis for male patients released from the hospital was heart disease, followed by alcohol-related disorders and hernias. For women, the top diagnoses related to pregnancies, breast cancer, and heart weakness. At the end of 2004, some 44,000 Germans were infected with HIV/AIDS. According to a 2003 survey, 37 percent of adult males and 28 percent of adult females in Germany are smokers."

Minor problems (can be fixed later):

Images: OK, but:

• there is a bit of clutter in the sections "Weimar Republic and Third Reich" and "East and West Germany", but I'm not sure what is best done about that.
• The images under climate are not particularly illustrative, and there is no need for two pictures. I would remove them both.
• I don't think the sample of spoken German under "Languages" is very useful here; it might be better in the German language article. Would we expect language samples for any other countries? If it stays, the layout needs improving. Moved to German language.

Article size and references to other articles: OK but:

• The article could do with losing about 4000 words (e.g. the sub-sections Religion, Languages and Education could be condensed).
• The Literature section should ideally have a hatnote link to German literature as a {{Main}} article, failing that (given the state of that article) a {{Tl:Further}} hatnote.
• There seems to be no mention of the history of German law, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable main article to link to, as yet.

--Boson (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I made the changes the were agreed to in the above #Sections section, and to keep conversation in one place, I'll just repeat the issues raised there.

Does the current environment subsection belong under geography, considering it's basically about public opinions?

Does Administrative divisions belong under geography, and should it be named administrative divisions? Note: Sometime after the discussion, an editor removed the subheader administrative divisions and made it fully part of Geography. Another editor later came and added the subheader back in.

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If Literature =! Media then the current information about German book publishing numbers and tradition in the media section is out of place. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Book publishing and literature are also not the same thing. Literature (as in creative writing) is more akin to philosophy than media. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On a creative level literature may have much to do with philosophy, but in the end most books are literature, and I would argue that information about how German books are the third largest market is an interesting and important note on at least the quantity, if not quality, of German literature. I also feel that information about how German literary tradition can be traced to the middle ages and the longevity of the Frankfurt Book Fair is complimentary. I suppose it's just strange to me to have two separate sections about books. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, leaving Culture aside, I still find the table of contents "overwhelming" as noted against in MOS, and I reckon that some of the tiny one or two short paragraphs subsections probably don't even need to be subsectioned. Also, theres a "notes" section with a single note. Currently there's other name information under the history section, so this single note could be placed there or both could be moved to their own section or something. I'd also like more information about the German states in order to feel this article is fully comprehensive, a bit about how they are divided and why, which would be useful as judging by previous objections to their being under the title "Administrative divisions" the position and powers of the states is important. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Inline citations in the introduction are needed (Or does it follow a recommendation?). Overall, the article could well need 200 citations or more. Italiano111 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations in the introduction are discouraged, per WP:LEAD. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to continue to have delist until the TOC problem is solves. The FA guidelines state "2 (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;" after the latest Italiano111 revert, there are currently 36 items in this table of contents. Earlier we were discussing issues of there being more than 30 images, let alone independent section headers. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest:

• Remove the heading Administrative divisions and move the contents to Politics where it really belongs, since it pertains to the political constitution, rather than the geography, of Germany.
• The Environment section does not discuss the German environment (in a geographical sense) at all. It discusses government policies and attitudes. The heading should be removed, and the contents should either be removed completely or condensed and moved to Society or Politics. Many other attitudes, policies, and international treaties are not discussed; so why this exception?
• The number of sub-sections in the Culture section needs to be reduced. I would suggest a sub-section Philosophy and the arts, to include the topics Philosophy, Art, Sculpture, Architecure, Music, Literature, Theatre, Opera, Ballet, Cinema, etc. If they need to be kept separate, we could use third level headings and omit them from the ToC. The {{Main}} template should be used to link to these subjects (possibly several links under the one heading).

--Boson (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, but using third-level headings and omitting them defeats half the point of the header system, which is access from the TOC, and so I'd be against that. I find it hard to imagine that any summary style article on a country would need to use thirdlevel headers anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There should be awareness of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries recommendations. Adminstrative divisions or similar topics are used in all articles. Usually the structure of a state has a place in either Politics or Geography. Sometimes it fills even an own main section, which I believe is not necessary. Italiano111 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I see the advantage of a uniform structure for country articles (within reason) and - now that we have reduced the ToC - would not object to a separate section or sub-section, in which case I would prefer a high-level section, or a sub-section of politics. Except where used with several countries together, where concessions have to be made, I don't like the term "administrative", as this may (in my opinion) imply delegated authority granted by a central government for the purposes of administration, which is not the case with federal states like Germany or the USA. I would say Regierungsbezirke are administrative divisions (of some Länder). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boson (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps we should restructure to follow the guidelines. However, it doesn't need to be to the letter of course, so we could probably just name the section "States" or something. It should be under politics not geography at any rate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. --Boson (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was prompted to place my opinion on the FARC, so I tried to fix as best as I could the remaining outstanding issues. There was a general agreement that political divisions did not belong under Geography, so I removed the list of states and created a subsection called "States" under the Politics section. I then combined the foreign relations and military subsections and got rid of the problematic environment one by moving information on kyoto etc. to the energy section (which already had information on renewables) and simply deleting irrelevant CIA factoids. I left a citation needed on the note of the highest per capita emissions in the EU, removing the pointless comparison with the USA. As it stands, there are 29 section headers. It's a milestone that it's finally below 30. While I still feel that the article could use a couple less sections and have more information on the status of states (as of now there's not even an explanation of their federated status), those are not enough in my mind to continue the review process, although they are ideas for future development. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sections look better now. Added a source for the greenhouse gas statement (link is not optimal, but hopefully will do for a basic fact). Someone needs to find a source for the 1,500 types of sausages :) - surprisingly hard to find a reliable one. GermanJoe (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What about these:

• Government of Rhineland-Palatinate.
• Sausage lobby group.
• Sausage lobby group.
• National news magazine.
• TV program.
• TV program.

They are all German :-( and none of them lists 1500 types, but they all repeat the same claim. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The name "Administrative divisions" follows a widely accepted recommendation. Have a look at Japan which recently kept the FA status. Same goes for a single Environment section. Military and Foreign relations are not related and are large independent issues. It is also a widely accepted division among European country entries. Italiano111 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Italiano111, you're claiming support by the wikiproject countries MOS where it does not exist. The MOS clearly states it is an advisory structure. If editors here feel that the title administrative divisions is misleading, it should not be used. Interestingly enough, you were the one who made the MOS title administrative divisions, but at least you now know this doesn't always apply. As for your argument that it is the "widely accepted division among European country entries", that's only because you have decided to go an singlehandedly change them all (and various others around the world) to your preferred style. If you change a huge number of articles you can't then say I must be right as a huge number of articles support this. Also, for all your talk of MOS, you only follow the parts of it which you like, picking and choosing. Either use all of it, or use none of it. Otherwise it's simply disruption. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, I have long resisted on several other occasions to answer your personal attacks or your inconsistent behaviour. This is my first time I directly ask you to stop that and concentrate on the discussion and argue in a proper way. As for the term Administrative divisions, this is certainly not my invention. It has its roots (I assume) in the CIA World Fact Book where it is used to describe the state structure of all countries. It was also rooted in Wikipedia. It has, unlike your claim, found a stable presence in either prominent or high profile country entries supported by other editors. It just makes sense to use some stable name conventions. It does make sense as well for sections as "Culture". I´d like to have an agreement here, that there is no urgent need to change this main section name. Almost all country entries use this for many years. As a sidenote, this is certainly no problem at all when discussing FA. I also disagree on the notion that a TOC has a major impact on the FAR, especially not when almost all European country entries look the same. Another point is the topographic map I added in Geography. This was (I believe) a non controversial addition in an otherwise empty section. The type of map is used frequently to open geography sections (as per Japan). Last point is the image of the fall of the wall. I think one does not need to be a history expert to acknowledge this event is bound to the East Germany period. I hope this is understood by the most. Italiano111 (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you continue to take what I say out of context, I'll address the relevant parts of what you posted point by point.

• Administrative Divisions is not your invention. The standardisation of that term on Wikiproject countries however was your action, as was the renaming of a huge number of equivalent country article sections to "Administrative Divisions". Some countries are fine with the term. Incidentally so am I. However, the validity of the term Administrative Divisions in relation to Germany has been questioned above. Due to this, it's absolutely fine to title it something else here. Since you replaced "Subdivisions" with "Administrative Divisions" on the Wikiproject Country guidelines, countries where the term is felt to be wrong (mostly federal countries) will have to title it something else if editors there feel so.
• The Culture title is fine in my opinion. But you have to discuss that with the editor who put that in place (I believe Nikkimaria) or establish WP:CONSENSUS on this talkpage for the change.
• The TOC does have a major impact on the FAR. See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, where there is an explicit guideline stating that the article must have "a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents." Once again, the fact that you changed most European articles to your desired structure does not mean you can claim that suddenly all Europe articles have consensus for your structure. An additional point, how many European country articles are FA's? Just Belarus, Belgium, and Turkey. The others can not be used as a standard for comparison.
• For pictures, please see MOS:IMAGES. The Featured Article criteria state that an article must "follow[] the style guidelines". One of the MOSIMAGES points is that an article should "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." By shifting the Berlin Wall photo up, it sandwiches with the map of the divided Germany. By shifting the bottom three photos up, you are sandwiching between Hitler and the ruins of Berlin.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Also, note also on MOSIMAGES that a relevant section is "defined by the most recent level 2 heading". In this case, History.
• As for the topographic map, I have no objection to that. However, you are including that in a huge rash of other changes. You can't expect to include noncontroversial edits to remain if you make them with controversial ones. Furthermore, when you edit you just make a note on the talkpage and then change back saying "as per talk." That is out of line with WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Germany the "strongest" Economy in Europe?

The article states Germany as being Europe's "strongest " economy. Although Germany has the largest nominal and PPP GDP, this is different from economy "strength" which is an ambiguous and subjective term (also not referenced). Surely the article means to say Germany is the "largest" economy in Europe. Doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00CoppardD (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree: "strong" is ambiguous and possibly subjective. --Boson (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, "largest" is used in the main text and the better term.GermanJoe (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The introduction version addresses 2times the economic situation. For practical reasons it should be merged in one paragraph. Italiano111 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Some national parks are missing under biodiversity

look here -- Sag-Ich-Dir-Nicht (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You have just proven yourself wrong, by showing where they are. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Köhler not president anymore

 Done--Boson (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving this page sooner

This page is getting a bit long. Any objections to changing the archiving parameters to automatically archive after 30 days of thread inactivity? --Boson (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done

See also section

Nikkimaria somehow reverted my edit introducing a See also section. My understanding is that all Wikipedia-internal links in the footer are collected in such a section. This applies mainly to the Portals and the box with Articles related to Germany.

After Nikki's revert, they are found under External links, where -- I think -- they are wrong. Please read WP:Footer, which suggests that the internal links come even before References, while the external one come later. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The box with "Articles related to Germany" is a navbox, and as such goes under the external links according to the guideline you cite. The portal link could be placed in a See also section; however, it seems like overkill to create a new section just for a portal link, particularly given the concerns raised about an over-long ToC. "[W]hether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all." Common sense would dictate that we not create an entirely new section just for a portal box. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's where I found the navbox being part of See also, and accordingly above External links. Anyway, I have just verified what you said about the correct placement of the navbox, and I also agree that the portals alone would not be enough. It just looked strange to me to have this very standard section mission. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed there, too. FWIW, See also is not a standard section for FAs (although it is allowed). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Occupation zone map

The current map in history includes areas that were not occupation zones, but actually annexed, and thus with the current caption is misleading. I've been trying to formulate a concise wording that will be able to show the differences between occupied zones annexed territories and Saarland, but can't. My other thought was to just remake the map, but again Saarland would provide an issue. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In West German theory, until 1972 (or even until reunification) the areas in the East were not de jure annexed by the Soviet Union and Poland, but merely "under Soviet (or Polish) administration". So from that point of view the map is correct. —Кузьма^討論 12:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that. When did they finally drop the claim? At any rate, we shouldn't promote that view over the others. Perhaps "Post-WWII division of Germany into occupation zones and annexed territories."? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In the Treaty of Warsaw (1970), the German-Polish border was accepted by West Germany. Nevertheless, I remember seeing the claim of "under Polish administration" in the maps of my 1980s high school geography books, and only after Germany achieved full sovereignty in 1990 in the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany the matter was really set to rest and German borders defined. —Кузьма^討論 14:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Military - Foreign relations

The two subjects do not belong in one main section. There are long main articles for these subjects and deserve separation. In politics these issues do traditionally not belong together either. Among European country entries there are hardly any mingling these subjects. Italiano111 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While there are many things about Germany that have long articles and no doubt deserve some mention, we unfortunately are not able to present all of them here, and trimming things down has been a large part of the recent FAR in order to bring this article more in line with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I'm not even sure either belongs in Politics at all (which to me implies domestic things) but as for there being hardly mingling, the very text on this page shows different. The current section, and the separated section before it, includes a mention of NATO (a military alliance), a Franco-Germany alliance, and trying to create a European defense and security apparatus. The third paragraph also mixes the two quite thoroughly, stating in fact "Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's government defined a new basis for German foreign policy by taking part in the NATO decisions surrounding the Kosovo War and by sending German troops into combat for the first time since World War II." So, basing foreign relations significantly off Germany's military reintegration into the alliance. The current fifth paragraph, previous second paragraph of military, lists military forces in areas outside of Germany. If a more current event is needed, the fact that Germany chose not to participate in the Libyan bombings and even went as far as to abstain on the UN vote was an important event that could have huge repercussions in the future. Of course, it would trend on WP:RECENTISM to include that in the current section I suppose. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations have been greatly influenced by the participication or non-participation in various military actions, especially in recent years - so those topics are closely related and could stay together. The information stays the same anyway, merging or splitting is a minor editorial decision. GermanJoe (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The foreign relations in Europe are dominated by trade and EU issues. On a global stage trade and other issues are priority among the largest powers. Formats such as ASEAN and G8 and G20 are the key issues. Military does not equal military actions. GermanJoe is right whith the remark that it is a minor decision. Italiano111 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you revert the "Largest cities of Germany" template? Tomeasy _{T C} 22:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Germany is a future superpower

i know while russia is going forward , germany is becoming an ally of russia therefore a superpower —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemagic-germany (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the talk page header. This is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. --Boson (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Greenhouse

I suggest replacing "Nevertheless the country's greenhouse gas emissions were the highest in the EU as of 2007.[93]" by a per capita information. Given that Germany has 20 million more inhabitants than any other country in the EU, the total emission is not very informative. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Airports

The listed "major" airports are not all major. A quick google query yields [1], for example, or the german wp article, which lists (in descending order of passengers) Frankfurt, München Düsseldorf, Berlin-Tegel (which is scheduled to be closed sometime soon, though), Hamburg, Cologne-Bonn, Stuttgart, Berlin-Schönefeld. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Politics

I suggest removing "He is elected by the Bundesversammlung (federal convention), an institution consisting of the members of the Bundestag and an equal number of state delegates." This is the only purpose of the Bundesversammlung, so I think in the interest of being focussed this is overly detailed in this article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, I think that the politics section should also briefly mention The Left (Germany), e.g. they are currently holding a few more seats in the Bundestag than the Greens. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Economy

Oddly, the whole technology section is of merely historical interest. Why not mention more recent stuff such as, say, Transrapid or MP3?

Moreover, "Aerospace engineer Wernher von Braun developed the first space rocket and later on was a prominent member of NASA and developed the Saturn V Moon rocket, which paved the way for the success of the US Apollo program." is of little interest to German technology or even just the history of German technology. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In the Technology and Science sector: Spelling/grammar mistake. "which spezializing" -> "specializing" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.238.2 (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

motorway network ranks third largest worldwide in length?

Maybe. But I don`t think the given source (#92: http://www.presse.adac.de/standpunkte/Verkehr/Autobahn_Temporegelung.asp?active1=tcm:11-18784-4) confirms that. It's just saying, that the motorways are used by one-third of "vehicle traffic". I think this refers to the german traffic (not worldwide): "Im Jahr 2009 wurden auf den Autobahnen etwa ein Drittel aller Kraftfahrzeugkilometer abgewickelt." = In 2009 approximately one-third of vehicle traffic kilometers were completed on the motorways. (The article is about a discussed speed limit on german motorways). 178.5.199.42 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Additions to lead history

I have reverted the latest lead additions for German history, as they go beyond a mere summary per WP:LEAD and also add vague and simplifying statements:

• "During the Migration Age, the Germanic tribes destroyed the Western Roman Empire, and established successor Kingdoms throughout much of Europe." => The gradual decline of the Western Roman Empire had several reasons - internal aswell as external. The second part is too vague without much factual information (which states? much of Europe, where?).
• "German territories formed the central part of the Holy Roman Empire." => The Holy Roman Empire consisted of three main parts, admittedly with varying influence.
• "Southern and western parts remained dominated by Roman Catholic denominations, sparking the Thirty Years' War which resulted in the decentralization of the Holy Roman Empire in the Peace of Westphalia. " => Again the Thirty Years' War had many reasons, not only a single simple one. The Peace of Westphalia didn't decentralize the Empire, but further weakened it's already weak central institutions.
• "Partitioned during the Napoleonic Wars..." => Wrong, several German states were actually merged during the Napoleonic Wars to better serve as puppet states for Napoleon. Napoleon didn't invent or increase the partitioning in several powerless mini-states.
• "...partitioned in the Versailles treaty." => Exaggerating, main part was kept intact, albeit with some serious losses of territory.

The lead as a summary isn't the right place for detailed analysis of such complex events, better stick with some basic facts. The main text does include this additional information anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

List of richest municipalities

I reverted list of the ten "wealthiest" municipalities because

• the article used as ref deals with de:Kaufkraft (Konsum) (interwiki: purchasing power; free income) but not wealth
• the article used as ref only considers municipalities with more than 5000 inhabitants; rich borrows such as Hamburg-Blankenese or Cologne-Hahnwald are not included, because these aren't independent municipalities. But these would have to be mentioned. What about summer/winter residence places such as Sylt?
• An article is not a list

-- Traveletti (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Quintoxicon, 22 July 2011

I think the following Sentence on German Foreign Policy during the reign of Emperor William I is somewhat misleading:

"In the Gründerzeit period following the unification of Germany, the foreign policy of Emperor William I secured Germany's position as a great nation by forging alliances, isolating France by diplomatic means, and avoiding war. "

In fact it was not Williams I policy but Bismarcks, who had a significant amount of control on William I. It was Bismarck who designed and forged the system of alliances. As a result, in German History this system is known as "Bismarcks alliance Policy".

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%BCndnispolitik_Otto_von_Bismarcks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Foreign_policies

Therefore I would suggest a slight change:

"In the Gründerzeit period following the unification of Germany, the foreign policy of Emperor William I 's chancellor Otto von Bismarck secured Germany's position as a great nation by forging alliances, isolating France by diplomatic means, and avoiding war. "

Quintoxicon (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone has changed it to

In the Gründerzeit period following the unification of Germany, foreign policy under Emperor William I secured Germany's position as a great nation by forging alliances, isolating France by diplomatic means, and avoiding war

so it no longer states that the foreign policy was the policy of William I but happened during his reign. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

>Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor led Germany to declare war on the United States.

I might be wrong about this, but from what my historical knowledge tells me, it was the United States who declared war upon Imperial Japan and the axis upon the attack on Pearl Harbor. That said, I don't think mention of the United States in this section of the article is entirely necessary apart from mention of Operation Overlord. 204.10.127.120 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Attack on Pearl Harbor#Aftermath:

• the US declared war on Japan on December 8
• Germany and Italy declared war on the US on December 11
• the US on Germany and Italy later that day

So this seems to be correct. --Tokikake (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bmoq, 1 September 2011

{{FIFA Worldcup Host nations}} Bmoq (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This template is too specific for this article. — Bility (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It also seems broken for 2006 and 2010, if you want to use it in other articles. GermanJoe (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitlers official titel

Führer-link removed. I am open for correction from someone more knowledgeable, but my understanding is, that "Führer" is a term derived from the "leader/führer of the nazi movement", but never a constitutional one. Per [2] and [3] (sorry don't know an english source) the official title would have been "President and Chancellor of the Reich" (Reichspräsident und Reichskanzler). -- Traveletti (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

At least from 1942, I believe, he was officially "Führer des Großdeutschen Reiches", though that does not necessarily need to be put in a caption.--Boson (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He was officially called "Führer und Reichskanzler" since 2nd August 1934 (after the death of Hindenburg). It´s a fact. The actual version implies that he was a democratic chancellor like Merkel today, but he wasn´t. First he was the chancellor, then "Führer und Reichskanzler" and during the war only the "Führer". Look here: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/biografien/HitlerAdolf/ (1934, 2. August: Reichspräsident Hindenburg stirbt. Hitler vereinigt die Ämter von Reichspräsident und Reichskanzler in seiner Person und führt den Titel "Führer und Reichskanzler". Die Reichswehr, aus der 1935 die Wehrmacht hervorgeht, wird auf ihn persönlich vereidigt. ) He united the titles of president and chancellor after the death of the former president Hindenburg.--Askalan (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You missed the important point: „he united“ without having the constitutional power to do so. „Führer“ was never official per Weimar Constitution and the Enabling Act: On 2 August 1934 President von Hindenburg died as expected for some time. Already the day before the cabinet had approved a submisson that Hitler would succeed him. The office of president should be dissolved and united with that of the Chancellor in the unique position of „Führer und Reichskanzler“. However that was in violation against the Enabling Act, but no one took notice. Source is the Federal Centre for Political Education, so it's basically what is taught in schools in Germany today. Google translation with minor changes only. -- Traveletti (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

But he was not a chancellor! You are taught that in every German school today. (Keine Ahnung auf welcher du warst, aber in Berlin wird immer deutlich hervorgehoben, das Hitler ein Diktator war!) The actual version implies that he was a democratic chancellor, but he wasn´t. "„he united“ without having the constitutional power to do so..." yes, but he did, didn´t he? After his "Machtergreifung" he turned Germany into a dictatorship, that´s why you can´t say he was chancellor from 1933-1945, it´s simply wrong and cover up the real nature of his regime.--Askalan (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no conflict between someone being a chancellor (which is a title), and at the same time being a dictator (which in modern language is a functional term, not a title). In fact, many dictators like to adopt existing structures and titles of the state to achieve the appearance of legitimacy. Much of what the Nazis did after the Machtergreifung was in violation of the Weimar constitution, but real nevertheless. Hitler was acknowledged as Führer und Reichskanzler both nationally and internationally, regardless of the the nominal constitutional situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: Yes, exactly! That´s why you have to mention it in the article. If you only call him chancellor it would support Hitler´s intention "to achieve the appearance of legitimacy". --Askalan (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

@Askalan: Think I begin to understand your intention.

However: Führer und Reichskanzler ≠ dictator. Using Hitler's self imposed title Führer und Reichskanzler means to acknowledge the breach of the Weimar constitution and provide him with the exact "appearance of legitimacy" he intended to gain with that move.

As Hitler was chancellor from 1933 (per constitution) and de-facto president from 1934 (breach of constitution), what about the following caption for the picture: Chancellor and de-facto president of the Reich. -- Traveletti (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

NB: interesting wording in the Nazi Germany infobox (remark 2). -- Traveletti (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that´s a good compromise. Such a remark would be good, too.--Askalan (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Traveletti (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now a large caption and it might be worth integrating some content into the text. I used the bpd-source for reference; some cross-check of the translation would be appreciated as I shortened and paraphrased. -- Traveletti (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Map of the occupation time

-

Occupation zones in Germany, 1947. The territories east of the Oder-Neisse line, under Polish and Soviet de jure administration and de facto annexation, are shown as white as is the detached Saar protectorate.

I've undone the deletion by user Lysy[4] of the map (pictured here on the right) that showed a summary of the German situation in 1947. Contrary to the claims made in the deletion, as far as i can tell the map is neither misleading, nor POV. I also do not understand the claim made that the map instead should show the situation in 1943 or 1939, which is rather silly for a section that shows the situation 1945 to 1990. No explanations for these claims have been provided.

Quite on the contrary to the claims in fact the map fits very well in the article in the current place in the history section, as it is the only map that sumarises the territorial losses of Germany, as well as showing the borderline between what would become east and west Germany. It also shows the Saar protectorate which formally remained as its own country until 1957 (and economically was not reintegrated until years later). Showing the outlines of the 1937 borders of Germany is also relevant for the later history of Germany, and I tentatively assume this border outline inside what is currently Poland is what made editor Lysy make a POV claim. This 1937 border outline was common to do in American maps of the occuation time, as for example here, which makes sence, since:

After Adolf Hitler`s armies capitulated in 1945, the Soviet Union, United States and Britain held a conference in Potsdam, where they agreed to redraw the borders of Germany that had existed since 1937.[5]

In the Potsdam agreements it was stated that ``the three heads of state stress their view that the final alignment of Poland`s western border must be postponed until a peace conference.``[6]

Communist East Germany accepted Poland`s western border in 1950, but under the Christian Democratic Union governments of the postwar era, Bonn refused to formally endorse the frontier. The 1949 West German Constitution was used to back up a stance maintained in deference to millions of ethnic German refugees who fled to West Germany after being ejected by the Poles. It was the West German government under Social Democratic Party Chancellor Willy Brandt that first formally recognized the Oder-Neisse Line in the 1970 Warsaw Treaty as part of the Ostpolitik policy of reconciliation.[7]

[I]n 1976 the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that neither the West German government nor the Bonn Parliament ``should relinquish the restoration of national unity as a political aim.`` Until a peace treaty was signed, Germany still existed within its 1937 borders, the court ruled.[8]

Bonn's policy, from the early days of Konrad Adenauer through the present regime of Ludwig Erhard, has never publicly changed. Official West German maps label Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia Zurzeit unter Polnischer Verwaltung (temporarily under Polish administration), and Germans still refer wistfully to Wroclaw as Breslau. Bonn argues that until a reunited Germany negotiates its final World War II peace treaty with the Big Four (as called for in the 1945 Potsdam Agreement), Germany's boundaries remain those of 1937—the year before Adolf Hitler began his Gross Deutschland annexations.[9]

Therefore, for all the reasons listed above I've undone the deletion and reinstated the map and caption that as far as I can tell have been stable in the article for years. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Stor stark7, thank you for taking the extra mile to discuss this instead of plain reverting. The problem is that the map claims to present the 1947 situation but arbitrarily uses 1936-1937 German borders, after Saar was annexed in 1935 and before Sudetenland or Austria were annexed in 1938. As to the German-Polish border, the Potsdam Agreement had not defined it, as Stor stark7 admits, therefore drawing it in its 1936 shape is also anachronistic. Also, contrary to what Stor stark7 claims, the Potsdam Agreement, text of which is available at wikisource does not mention anything of the German borders of 1937. Potsdam Agreement simply did not define what the term "former German territories" means, so calling it here is irrelevant. To summarise, if the map is supposed to present German territory losses in WW2, it should show its either 1939 (just before the war) or 1943 borders. Arbitrarily using 1936-37 map is nothing but a clever manipulation, making a groundless statement which areas were supposed to belong to Germany (e.g. Saar or Silesia) and which were not (e.g. Sudeten, Danzig or Posen). I appreciate that this is how history was taught in Germany but there's no reason to propagate this POV to English wikipedia. --Lysy^talk 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

31 December 1937 is the way to go. As an example have a look at German Basic Law Article 116(1) -- Traveletti (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This settles it. Thank you. --Lysy^talk 00:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hausa-wiki

Please, add the ha-interwiki (ha:Jamus) in your page. Thank you very much.--Only Red (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Done.--U.Steele (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 30 October 2011

In section East and West Germany, text starting from Though East Germany claimed to be a ... appears to be a NPOV as it does not represent a neutral point of view. Especially phrase like "many of her citizens looked to the West for freedom and prosperity..." Please consider revising/removing this text Vasyaivanov (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Editprotected should really only be used for making actual alterations to an article, but you are always able to use the talk page to discuss potential changes. I suggest that you discuss your concerns here. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Names

Woah, woah, woah. While I admit that the names couldn't be left where I put them, the reasoning for the removal is quite besides the point. 1. The names come from the Page Names in the corresponding Wikipedia. "2. It's not "translations" as such. It's the name of the nation in the nation's languages and I think Eigenbezeichnung ('name one gives oneself') of a country is a more than valid entry in an encyclopedic article about that country.Dakhart (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The country has one Eigenbezeichnung, as it has one official language in which it has given itself a name. This is included in the infobox. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Some minority and regional languages are sufficiently „official“ to facilitate the use of bilingual road signs ( see commons:Category:Bilingual road signs in Germany). Signs at police and railway stations (see: commons:Category:Bilingual German-Frisian signs in Germany) provide further evidence that this more than just a paper exercise. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages may provide some good reading as does the article's infobox.

However the full amount of information on names of Germany in minority and regional languages might be better suited for the Names of Germany article; this article would benefit from an additional paragraph on names of Germany in languages spoken in Germany (such as the minority and regional languages). That paragraph could than be wikilinked by adding a short sentence to Germany#Etymology (e.g. Names of Germany in minority and regional languages include [... names in minority and regional languages that are official in Germany ...]). -- Traveletti (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

formation

the info box give the year 962 as the founding date of the Holy Roman Empire. Actually German and French statehood both date back to the Frankish Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia). By the Treaty of Verdun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_verdun) in 843 it was split in three parts. "Louis the German received the eastern portion. Louis was guaranteed the kingship of all lands to the east of the Rhine and to the north and east of Italy, which was called East Francia which was the precursor to the Medieval conglomeration of disparate states known as the Holy Roman Empire and thence to modern Germany." I've got a German book called "Fischer's Welt-Almanach". There as well the Treaty of Verdun is cited as the origin of German statehood. The title of "Emperor" (in those days rather honorific meaning defender of the faith in the tradition of the Roman Emperor Constantine) first went with the West Frankish kings. In 962 the first East Frankish (German) king became Emperor. From then on the term "Holy Empire" gradually replaced the old name of the country. But essentially it's just the name that changed. So I think the Treaty of Verdun, thus the foundation of an East Frankish kingdom should be in the info box. Until now it looks as if there was no state before 962. --77.10.70.232 (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Anachronism in first section

"Beginning in the 10th century, German territories formed a central part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." Contrary to what many people in and outside Germany think or believe the name "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" didn't exist in mediaeval times. Correct would be: "Holy Roman Empire".141.91.129.5 (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Have changed and added a footnote. --Boson (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" in the .ogg-file

The speaker actually says "BundesCHrepublik" (with a ch-sound before the r) instead of "Bundesrepublik", that could be for dialectal reasons, but anyway it isn't Standard German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.192.121 (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There are several standard German pronunciations that I wouldn't call dialect. This sounds to me like a distictly spoken voiced uvular fricative. --Boson (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Boson. The ogg-file pronunciation is certainly not a dialect. A rolling r, which the IP probably suggests here, is rather less standard than what is featured in the ogg-file. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Some famous Germany singers????

In German language? 219.148.85.225 (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nena, Silbermond, Juli, Tokio Hotel (hate 'em), some Deutschland sucht den Superstar participants, ... In the American and British charts German music isn't very common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.17.95.71 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not forget Xavier Naidoo!--Askalan (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

most successful rock/bands in descending order: scorpions, rammstein, die toten hosen, die ärzte, böhse onkelz, tokio hotel

most successful male singers: Herbert Grönemeyer, Marius Müller Westernhagen, Udo Lindenberg, Peter Maffay

most successful female singers: Nena, Andrea Berg, Helene Fischer, Cascada

most successful pop/rock bands: rosenstolz, silbermond, juli, revolverheld, wie sind helden

most successful rap/hip hop acts: Die Fantastischen Vier, Bushido, Sido

some older successful groups: Modern talking, boney m, milli vanilly, Enigma, Kraftwerk

from a German

If we mention Music from Germany we souldn't just limit this to those who sing German. For instance, the Scorpions are worth mentioning, too. Also, don't forget about Unheilig, Rammstein. There are indeed some Germans who made it to the charts in the US or Britain, however in most cases, those were Germans singing English. One example of this is Nena. Even though her song "Neunundneunzig Luftballons" is very old, you can hear it sometimes on AFN. This is weird because it's a German anti-war song and they play it on a US MILITARY radio station. It's very common for German singers to sing English. Your enumeration of German singers is mostly limited to German singers singing German. On the radio, more than 50% of the music is in English, and we hardly know which singers are German and which aren't. Groove Coverage ("God is a girl", "She", ...) is a German group, for instance, but I didn't know about that until I looked them up at ... You know it, ... Wikipedia. Btw, Tokio Hotel has achieved something that noone else has achieved in Germany before: Being successful with awful annoying bad music. The girls (Ok, two of them are boys) of Tokio Hotel even have to give concerts in other countries because nobody in Germany wants to hear them. -- 79.238.168.220 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

the list I made includes artists with the highest sales in Germany and elsewhere combined. It's not relevant in which language they sing or if they are succesful outside of Germany or not.

demographic collapse

Maybe the reasons for the birth rates could be explained? The whole issue of 1,35 children/woman (Shocking!!) should be adressed, since it is the biggest problem of declining Germany. They don't want to have kids anymore. If media and health deserve a headline, so does the actual demographic crisis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.28.135 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Official language

I've been rummaging through German laws and there seem to be none that say: German is the country's official language. (There's one in the Administration-laws which say "German is the official language", but I'd assume that this accounts only for the language for the concerned administration. Also: In theory it is possible to have a country with multiple country-languages of which only one is used for legal documents.) Can we either verify that German is the official language or add de facto?Dakhart (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you consider an official language outside administration? It seems that it's the English term for de:Amtssprache, so German is the official language. Perhaps it's not a national language but maybe I'm relying too much on the Wikipedian definitions? --Zahnradzacken (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I recall that there was a law that requires people to communicate with state servants in German, otherwise you can be charged for translation. Given that most teachers are state servants, I would find it funny if this was enforced in English class. I don't know what "official language" could mean if it doesn't mean "Amtssprache". I do know however that there are a few languages which have the special status of a "recognized minority language". One of these languages is sorbic. In the area where sorbic is spoken, public administration has bilingual letterheads in sorbic and german. This is a speed ticket from Kamenz: http://titanic.shipdown.de/uploads/geblitzt_im_niemandsland.pdf However, I don't know about the exact legal status of minority languages. -- 79.238.168.220 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2012

77.185.170.231 (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC) This is a Islam Republic. Germs has to have Islamic Republic.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to say that Germany was an Islamic Republic, you're wrong. -- 79.238.168.220 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

President

The german President (Bundespräsident) is not allowed to be in a political party. The statement (CDU) after the name of Christian Wulff is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.123.228 (talk) 11 January 2012

I believe this is a convention, rather than a strict rule, but his party membership is dormant. See

• http://www.bundespraesident.de/DE/Amt-und-Aufgaben/Verfassungsrechtliche-Grundlagen/verfassungsrechtliche-grundlagen.html
• http://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/DE/Christian-Wulff/Interviews/2011/110630-Die-Zeit.html

--Boson (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Federal President is elected by the Federal Diet and the Federal Council. These consist of people who belong to some parties and they would only vote for a person of their own party. The reason why Wulff became Federal President was that he was a CDU member and that the coalition of CDU/CSU and FDP has a majority so they could elect him. I believe that the rule that the Federal President must not be member of a party is somewhere in our legislation (it's not in the constitution, I just checked that). However, the Federal President ususally doesn't quit their party entirely, he just lets his membership be dormant. Whatever his official membership status is, he still feels part of CDU/CSU and people still associate him with this party. When he leaves office, he will become a regular CDU member again, so we can't really consider him non-CDU. -- 79.238.168.220 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But if everybody voted strictly along party/coalition lines, it presumably wouldn't have taken three attempts.--Boson (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Boson: Germany has more than two parties, so if everyone votes for a candidate of their own party, you wouldn't get a majority. The only way to get a majority for a particular Federal President is by making several parties vote for the same candidate. These "several parties" are usually the government coalition parties. The party that leads the coalition would be allowed to decide who is going to be Federal President while their coalition partner will mostly want some Federal Ministers in return. -- 62.156.56.92 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that Wulff was the (only) candidate put forward by the governing coalition (CDU/CSU + FDP). By your logic, they should have controlled 644 votes, where 623 would have been sufficient for an absolute majority; so Wulff should have got an absolute majority on the first vote. Since he was only elected on the third vote (where an absolute majority is not even required – but was politically desirable), it was obviously not that simple. The rather unusual make-up of the Bundesversammlung may be one factor that makes "party discipline" more difficult. Don't forget: half the electors are not from the Bundestag at all, and – though elected by the parliaments of the Länder- need not even be politicians. It's quite possible that experienced politicians have to take some of the VIP electors aside and explain how the sausage-making process really works. I don't see the direct relevance of horse trading for ministeral posts in the presidential election.--Boson (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a relevance either. It's rather pretty unconvincing, since Federal Ministers are regularly assigned only after an election of the Bundestag, which takes place independently from and quite often in another year than the election of the Bundespräsident. Anyway, this discussion is quite off-topic. Or is any of this going to improve the article? --Zahnradzacken (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthem

Is it possible to find another recording of the national anthem? The one currently in place has an awful clarinet player that is unable to stay in tune and whose technique is severely lacking. It tends to sour the entire performance and is noticeable from the very beginning. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

German brands

Especially if we list brands not included in the cited source (in which case we need more sources), we need to avoid original research, including synthesis, and we need to specify criteria. For instance, one of the "global" German brands recently added was Wella. It is true that Wella is - amongst other things - a German brand, but it is , I presume, ultimately owned by Procter & Gamble. So it's not really the best one to choose as an example of a global German brand. I presume we do not wish to mention all of the 1,000 brands mentioned. This is one reason to stick to a small list selected as being particulary relevant by a single source. --Boson (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The sentence starts with "Well-known global brands are . . ." yet none of the cited sources seems to claim that Wella (for instance) is a global German brand. I haven't checked, but I assume that the Wella mark, like the others, is also registered in other countries; so what makes it a global German brand? The same question needs to be asked for all the brands. We also need to consider which brands to mention: the top ten German brands, the German brands among the top 50 global brands, or what? --Boson (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The new sources don't cut it at all. There's no way to tell what they're sourcing, and some brands in the sources aren't in the list (which is two and a half lines long on my screen). We should stick to the one list, which showed which of the top 100 global brands were German. CMD (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"A global brand is one which is perceived to reflect the same set of values around the world." Just because some brands are not in your list of 100, doesn't mean that they are not global brands. To claim that Deutsche Bank, Lufthansa, Continental, T-mobile, Bayer, BASF, etc. are not well known global brands is just nonsense. I think the following do qualify for this (globally present & revenue higher than 1 billion USD): Mercedes-Benz, BMW, SAP, Siemens, Volkswagen, ThyssenKrupp, BASF, PUMA, Deutsche Bank, Adidas, Bayer, Audi, Allianz, Infineon, Bosch, Continental, Porsche, Lufthansa, Henkel, MAN, Hochtief (Turner Construction), T-mobile, Haribo, Osram, Hugo Boss, DHL, Beiersdorf (Nivea).--IIIraute (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia article states "Well-known global brands are..." so here are the Global 500 2011: http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global_500_2011 - I guess, since they all belong to the world's top 500 brands in 2011, the are "Well-known global brands."--IIIraute (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a general encyclopaedia article, not a directory, I would suggest, provisionally, taking (at most) the first five 'German' brands listed here. That would be Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Siemens, Deutsche Bank, and Volkswagen. I would be happier with a source that stated which are the five German brands that are most well known globally, rather than ranking brands by value (without stating how the brands are valued).

In the longer term, I don't think there is reason to mention as many as five brands. Do we have any other country articles that list more than 2 brands?

I also wonder about the rationale for listing brands rather than enterprises. I can understand why the United States article mentions McDonalds and Coca-Cola as brands, since they are claimed to be the two best-known brands (not just of US brands) but, as long as Germany doesn't have the most well-known brand, mentioning any German brands (in this high-level article) is a bit iffy from the notability point of view, anyway. Anything more than the first two (say, the first five) probably belongs somewhere like Economy of Germany. --Boson (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the status quo before IIIraute´s edits. As mentioned, this is not a directory nor is it the place for extended namedropping. We do have a list of leading companies AND global brands, that should be sufficient. All new source supported lists of brands should better go to the subarticle. Herr Kent (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source to the "best known" brands: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/most-famous-brands.html --IIIraute (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Status quo?? When deciding for the "best known" brands, it can only be: Mercedes, VW, Adidas, Puma (Maradona, Matthäus, Buffon, Bolt, Eto'o, etc.).... also Nivea, BMW, Porsche, Haribo, Audi, Lufthansa, Deutsche Post (DHL). I mean, ask some kids in Kinshasa if the know "SAP or Allianz"? ...they will know Mercedes, VW, Adidas, Puma, Nivea and Haribo.--IIIraute (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted my previous edit; I will take my edits to the "Economy of Germany" article.--IIIraute (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Haribo is the biggest manufacturer of gummi and jelly sweets in the world. Haribo produces 100 million gummi bears per day; they are produced in 14 European factories, then distributed to more than 100 countries from where they are sold to another (estimated) 100 countries (that's 6 gummi bears per annum for every single human on earth)--IIIraute (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Third Reich

Hello, i would like to propose to alter the end of the small Third Reich Text, it says

"war resulted in large territorial losses; the expulsion of about 15 million Germans from the eastern areas of Germany and other countries; mass rape of German women; and the destruction of multiple major cities."

Iam from Germany myself, when i read this i feel very unconfortable because the consequences of Germanys actions during the Third Reich, which led to millions of deaths, destroyed cities and mass rapes across europe are not mentioned inside the text. Only what Germany "suffered", this creates a wrong picture in which Germany is the victim or receives a victim like position.

Germany also suffered casualities and warcrimes but at a much less scale than Europe and Russia. It is our responisbility to reflect the history correctly. First we should mention what Germany, during the Third Reich, was responsible for in Europe, and then to mention that Germany also suffered loss of lifes and warcrimes, but on a much less scale than the suffering for what the Third Reich was responsible for.

I would propose to alter the text to :

"World War II, started by the Third Reich involving the Axis powers, led to more than 60 million dead in Europe, multiple destroyed and devastated cities and mass rapes. The Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals were held after World War II. The war casualties for Germany are estimated at 5.3 million German soldiers and 1 to 2.5 million German civilians. The end of the war resulted in territorial loss for Germany and the expulsion of about 10 million Germans from former German territory and East European countries; devastation of multiple cities and rape of women."

I already added sources, i would welcome further suggestions, additions and changes for the text. The article is restricted so i have to ask another author if he would be willing to do the change. Thank you.

The current text documents your proposal already: "In what later became known as The Holocaust, the Third Reich regime had enacted policies directly subjugating many dissidents and minorities. Millions of people were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, including a sizeable number of Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Poles and other Slavs, including Soviet POWs, people with mental and/or physical disabilities, homosexuals, and members of the political opposition.[34] World War II was responsible for more than 40 million dead in Europe.[35] The Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals were held after World War II."--89.204.153.69 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not start a discussion here, the correct moralic assignments of the reflection of history are at a disproportional level within the current text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.49.202 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

...well, I guess that means that this discussion is finished.--89.204.139.170 (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Germany installs tax machines to make paying taxes easier for Prostitutes.

Prostitution is not illegal in Germany?? why? ```operation warlord — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project warlord (talk • contribs) 06:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Remaining problematic source links

After some cleanup 2 links remain problematic, where i couldn't find high-quality replacements:

• Link 104 "Autobahn-Temporegelung". While the ADAC article is still available, the article itself doesn't support the Wiki-text (no mention of length or comparison worldwide). The motorway statement could use a rewrite with a solid source.
• Link 168 "Land of ideas". This source appears lost, the description of the German book market could also use a rewrite with a solid source. GermanJoe (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Literature and philosophy

What does the following sentence mean: "In the 21st century Germany has contributed to the development of contemporary analytic philosophy in continental Europe, along with France, Austria, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries." ...why exactly Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries only? - and why has this phrase about the 21st Century, a reference from 1987?? - just asking... --IIIraute (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't tell, but can't be correct. It appears (if cited correctly) to be a single author's opinion, rephrased in an awfully general way. I'd support deleting that line.

By the way, I disagree with naming Ratzinger along with Mann, Brecht, Böll, Hesse, Grass as influential authors. He is an author and he may be influential. Then why not list the "autobiographer" Hitler? I don't think the Pope's literary work of the 20th century is among the most influential. --Zahnradzacken (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Culture

I replaced the top culture Beethoven image because the picture of him and another composer related media in the arts section (with again Beethoven mentioned) below seems to add no extra value. In fact the information seems duplicated. Thats why I took the top image from the main culture article, which identifies two strong images IMHO. I think Neuschwanstein is one Germany´s top archictures and Berlin as a culture center is also well known and famous.

I want to add that the culture section in general seems to be very short. Italiano111 (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pictures et al. aren't meant to convey their own information, only to reinforce what the text says, so there's no information duplication. In addition, the two types of media are completely different, one is an illustration, visual, and the other is a soundtrack, auditory. I don't know what you mean by "Neuschwanstein is one Germany´s top archictures", but a castle on a rock doesn't immediately identify it to culture, especially with no description. As for Berlin, yes it is a cultural centre, but a picture of a city with a haze of pollution hanging above it does not convey this in the slightest. CMD (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

“... the Third Reich was proclaimed in 1933.” (introduction of the article)

Who proclaimed the Third Reich in 1933? Better would be: ...the later so called Third Reich began in 1933. --Tfjt (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Infrastructure

The Berlin Brandenburg Airport will open in 2013 and not 2012 because of technical problems wich came out in May 2012. See the following link: http://preview.berlin-airport.de/en/company/about-us/news/2012/2012-05-17-BER-will-open-on-17-march-2013/index.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.53.96 (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Peacock28 02:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthem

It would be nice to note who performed the anthem. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Category

Germany has no "border to the atlantic ocean". Can someone pls. remove this particulare category? Thanks! SemanticMan (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the article of the atlantic ocean Germany has a border to it, beacause the atlantic ocean includes the north sea and the east sea. Ich901 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that by that theory Israel has a border with it, because the (A)tlantic Ocean includes the Mediterranean and Dead Sea...124.176.222.19 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The present can never make up for the past

Germany murdered 6 million innocent Jews. This is fact. Disputing this fact is criminal. This fact must be in the opening paragraph. If you disagree, then you are a racist criminal nazi barstard. *prepares to be yelled at by some tiny dweeb neo nazi child*124.176.222.19 (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Taken in account that you just have vandalized the article of Thilo Sarrazin, calling him a Nazi and baby killer, you should consider not to start any further edits on this wiki. Friendly greetings Ich901 (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Saying Germany murdered the 6 million is like saying the Caribbean Sea murdered many people because of the pirates there. True, pirates were once very powerful in the Caribbean Sea, but they don't represent where they live. It is more specific to say that pirates murdered many people than to say the Caribbean Sea murdered many people. Also, it is inherently unstable to label people as criminals just because what they believe is bad, as such labeling may cascade into a loop if you're also prone labeling beliefs as bad when you think all of its believers are criminals. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

... Please repeat grade 1 and come back to me with whatever the hell you were just trying to say about Pirates of the Caribbean or something... good day moron124.176.222.19 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

First, you should better watch what you are saying. Claiming that Wikipedia denies the holocaust is pure nonsense. Your past vandalism can result in a real life lawsuit against you, because you have left your IP. Second, here is a list of genocides in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history Now tell me, how many of them are mentioned in the introduction of the corresponding country? Ich901 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest we start making moves to have this distruptive, trolling IP blocked from editing until such a time when it is capable of understanding standard Wikipedia policies. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitler Image

I think the image of Adolf Hitler should be removed. It could possibly be viewed as offensive on this article, as this is about Germany, not about Hitler or Nazism. 99.178.171.244 (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)SilverStar

It has been categorically proven time and time again that when people think of germany, their first thought is the Holocaust and second is hitler. They are both drilled into the world psyche in a huge undeniable way and it will never in 1 thousand years be otherwise. I know you are trying to shield germans from any negative connotations but the past can't be changed, germanys fate is to always be known as the uneducated Anti-Semitic backwater of Europe and the world and it is HIGHLY offensive that you wish to shield modern germans from the history that they are so proud of.124.176.222.19 (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

...yeees, right - Melbourne is calling → Keep your breath to cool your porridge →→ [10] & [11].--IIIraute (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, there have been dozens of discussions prior to this, do not think you are special as this has already been discussed and shot down with logic and intelligence, not neo-nazi attempts to paint germany as sunshine and lollypops...124.176.222.19 (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though I doubt people reading this page would like to know how he looks, having so many paragraphs without a picture makes the article look unprofessional. If you see something as offensive, you can choose not to look at it. Changing offensive material will change our standards as we get used to not seeing it, so that everything else will look more offensive until we rinse and repeat with the next bit of "offensive material". 173.180.202.22 (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the abhorent statement "If you see something as offensive, you can choose not to look at it". This is exactly how the Holocaust happened, the world saw something offensive but chose to not look at it and do nothing about it, therefore becoming a defacto accessory to the deaths of Six Million Jewish people. That is why I believe we need a bigger hitler section so that the world never forgets. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - famous Jewish poet Isaac Rosenberg124.176.222.19 (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right that it's better to look at something... I was just thinking that it's better to not look at something yourself than to change it because of its relative offensiveness. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm right but offensiveness is not a relative thing, it is a societal concept and throwing Jewish people into gas chambers is certainly now and for the future an offensive thing and I and the rest of the humane world will see to it that it is forever this way. When something becomes part of the majority world opinion it is not changed back.124.176.222.19 (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, indeed →→ [12] & [13]--IIIraute (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Iranians AND Arabs?

Please don't group Iranians with Arabs in demographics section. This is highly unethical of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.185.20.125 (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Economy.

Germany is a country of contradictions. It is the largest country in Europe in terms of population, with the largest economy, yet disposable salaries are lower than in Spain. Maybe these contradictions could be mentioned in the economy section, unless Germans want to continue living a in lie.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage

Coon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Mismatched Parens

The opening of this article has mismatched parentheses. It should have one more closing ')' before citation 9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draperp (talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - fixed. Removed one (, as this intro already has too much parenthetical stuff. GermanJoe (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)