Talk:Germany/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

The Buchenwald concentation camp photograph: really necessary on an overview page for Germany?

I am opposed to Monopoly31121993's edit introducing a photograph of dead Buchenwald prisoners into the article. The image is, I would argue, unnecessarily graphic for inclusion on this particular page. (Of course, in articles dealing specifically with the topic of the Holocaust, this sort of photograph is much more relevant)

I also question the need for an additional image in this part of the article, irrespective of its nature.

Ilraute thanked me for reverting this edit - so I'm going to assume there is at least some opposition to this photo.

Surlyduff50 (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

And I'm opposed to removing the image. The Holocaust is an important part of history, whether it was "graphic" or not. I'm not seeing a policy relevant reason for removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I support replacement of the picture. We should restore the image of Berlin in ruins, showing the "after" picture for Nazi Germany. It better illustrates that section. I also think we need an extremely good rationale before we introduce pictures of dead people, weighing up the (very rare) need to depict such horrors and the dignity of those portrayed. --Boson (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As the picture shows what took place it should be kept.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Boson, I don't know. Removing a picture which illustrates the Holocaust and replacing it by a picture of Berlin in ruins... smacks of Third Reich apologetics. I'm not saying that's what it is, just that's what it sort of looks like. I could see having both pictures in there, as they illustrate different things, but if we're going to go with only one, it's got to be the Buchenwald one. The Holocaust is THE important part of history here, that's how the text is organized, and that's what the image should illustrate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't prevaricate - it was the "Berlin in ruins" picture that got replaced. --IIIraute (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how the Holocaust picture is irrelevant in the page about Germany. The Holocaust is a major event of the 20th century. Since the Nazi Germany was responsible for planning and execution, it seems natural to put focus on the Holocaust in the article on Germany. Nxavar (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said the photo is "irrelevant". It is a question of whether or not such a photo is appropriate on the overview page for Germany. Surlyduff50 (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Or, in other words, what is the policy based reason for removal, other than your own WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• In reply to the section above → Problems with Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, and the current discussion:

  A short history, (hitherto) regarding the editors involved at the last two talk page topics - as well as my two pennies worth:

  Monopoly31121993 (a recently created account), rewrites parts of the long-standing and stable "Weimar Republic and the Third Reich" section, criticising that this part of the "Germany" article has too much German perspective in it. Also, the "Berlin in ruins" picture gets replaced with the "Buchenwald" picture.

  Then, Nxavar, rewrites part of the "‎Science and technology" section, and adds a "citation needed" tag to the part below, because now (after this edit) this part of the paragraph doesn't make sense anymore. Additionally, some more emphasis on Nazis and the Holocaust is added.

  Surlyduff50 removes the "Buchenwald" image, stating: "I have a moral objection to the graphic nature of this image."

  Volunteer Marek joins the edit warring and the talk page discussion.

  IMHO, neither the new content that was added, nor the picture, will remain in this article for very long - therefore I don't think that the changes will help to maintain a stable article. This article only includes a brief summary of the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich/WWII, while more information on the individual topics is available at the relevant articles, containing accurately described content that was discussed thoroughly. For all of the editors involved, it might be interesting to note, that even for the Nazi Germany article, it was decided to separate the details of the "Racial politics" from the "History" section.

  In my opinion it is certainly worth having a look at the the Russia article, or the Japan article, which is one of the "Featured articles in Wikipedia; see Japan#Modern era. Some orientation on the Encyclopædia Britannica article on Germany also could be useful. --IIIraute (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS part, which is irrelevant, I'm having trouble understanding your comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Surlyduff50: What do you mean by saying "appropriate"? The image gives some visual information on the Holocaust, which is a major even in the history of World War II, specifically in Germany's actions in World War II. I must also note that the previous picture with Berlin in ruins was used in this section when the reference to the Holocaust was minimal. You can possibly say it was not "appropriate" for the previous state of the section, I don't see how you can say it for the current one. Nxavar (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

user:IIIraute basically is saying that the article was fine and should have been left that way. That's NOT TRUE, see the section I added above this one detailing all the things wrong with the one paragraph i edited. The picture of a bombed Germany city was replaced with one of the Holocaust since that's the major topic in the section not bombing which didn't even take up a full sentence. The picture I chose was one from another page which shows what was found at a concentration camp IN GERMANY after liberation. I'm sorry if it disturbs some people. Perhaps it should as it seemed disturb most of the Western World when it became public in 1945.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

user:IIIraute's stated reason for removing the image is that 1) the article was fine before (That's clearly not true, see my whole section above) and 2) other pages don't have such images (also not true because that's where I found the image and there were lots of extremely violent images to choose from which I choose to not pick. I choose one that showed what the allies and Western publics found and saw when they first encountered the Holocaust. user:Surlyduff50's reason is that it offends his/her moral sensibilities, that clearly falls under the WP:IDONTLIKEIT so can't be taken seriously. This addresses all of the pro-removal arguments stated above.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like my most recent edit to be considered as an alternative; one photograph relating to the Weimar Republic, and one photograph relating to the Nazis. Surlyduff50 (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And as far as I can see most editors would like to see the Buchenwald picture to remain in the article.--Catflap08 (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this is a featured article, I think we should open this up to a wider discussion. I propose holding an RfC.

RfC: Image to illustrate the Third Reich period in the main Germany article

The following discussion 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.

---

Which image should we use (in addition to an image of Adolf Hitler) to illustrate the Third Reich? --Boson (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A: This is the picture that the article contained on 12 June 2011 when it passed FAR: [[:Image:Potsdamer Platz 1945.jpg|center|thumb|Berlin in ruins after World War II]]

B: In May 2013, it was replaced with this edit and this picture remained till 8 June 2014: [[:Image:Fotothek df pk 0000180 001.jpg|center|thumb|Berlin in ruins after World War II]]

C: On 8 June 2014 it was replaced with these edits by this picture: [[:Image:Buchenwald-bei-Weimar-am-24-April-1945.jpg|center|thumb|The bodies of Holocaust victims who were prisoners at Buchenwald Concentration Camp.]]

Should we use picture A, B, C, or none of the above? Under Survey. please indicate, for example, Support none of the above, with a brief rationale. --Boson (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Boson Here is the actual text with highlights on sections which relate to the Holocaust:

In what later became known as The Holocaust, the Nazi regime enacted policies which directly persecuted many dissidents and minorities. Over 10 million civilians were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, including six million Jews, between 220,000 and 1,500,000 Romani people, 275,000 persons with mental and/or physical disabilities, thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses, thousands of homosexuals, and hundreds of thousands of members of the political and religious opposition. 6 million Ukrainians and Poles and an estimated 2.8 million Soviet war prisoners were also killed by the Nazi regime and in total World War II was responsible for around 40 million deaths in Europe. After World War II, Nazis, former Nazis and others were tried for war crimes, including crimes related to the the Holocaust, at the Nuremberg trials.

Now here is the text that relates to the destruction of German cities:

Germany suffered mass rape of German women and the destruction of numerous major cities due to allied bombing during the war.

Your attempt to place huge, unrealistically sized pictures on this page is clear POV pushing. The text clearly supports an image of the Holocaust, that's the only image that is supported by content. I'm sorry if you find the image disturbing as it seems IIIraute and user:Surlyduff50 also do but so does just about everyone else. That doesn't change history or the fact that it happened. Just as importantly that's what the world saw in Germany after WWII, that's the image of the Holocaust taken from a concentration camp IN GERMANY. And as I said above, it's an image of dead people, not even killing people or violence just the result.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assumption of good faith. I shall never cease to be amazed at Wikipedians' mind-reading abilities. Since it is a matter of evaluating the pictures, I thought it best to show the greatest detail possible, so I chose the largest size that permitted two pictures to be displayed together (though I suppose that depends on your resolution); that made it easy to compare both the older picture and the newer picture with the long-standing picture in the middle. What triggered that was that the two pictures of the Berlin ruins looked very similar on my screen, but the editor who put in the "new" picture in 2013 (until it was replaced a few days ago) claimed to be doing so because the new picture was of better quality. When I saw the higher resolution picture, I agreed. Of course, reviewers can, and should, click to see a higher resolution picture, but that makes it difficult to compare the higher-resolution pictures, since they are not displayed simultaneously. Just to clarify: the pictures don't disturb me personally, but I have been around a while longer than the many youngsters that will - hopefully - read this article. The picture would, in my opinion, be appropriate in the article on the holocaust, but here the barrier is higher. There is no need to add pictures expected and meant to shock to every high-level summary article that has a handful of lines on the holocaust. --Boson (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Boson, I've taken your concerns about younger viewers seriously so please see the new image I've suggested below. Thanks for your comments.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

C--Catflap08 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

C The ideology of the Third Reich was nazism in which racism is a prominent feature. The Holocaust represents nazism, as well as the actions of the Thrid Reich in World War II. On a general note, the history of the Third Reich, although short, is so rich in events that cannot be summarized with a single picture. For example, a picture of Germans parading in Paris, a symbol for the quick expansion of the Third Reich in Europe in the beginning of World War II, is one I would add to this section. However, since the focus is on damages, I choose the picture on Holocaust. Nxavar (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

B Millions of Germans died in the bombings of major cities, so the argument that "this part of the article focuses on damages" applies just as much to the Berlin photo as it does to the Holocaust photo. There is no direct need for an image this shocking on the overview article for Germany, either - just as there is no need for photos of the victims of the USSR on the overview article for Russia, or for photos of the victims of Imperial Japan on the overview article for Japan.

It is also worth noting that a very large chunk of text in this article focuses on the Weimar Republic. The argument that "because a large chunk of text describes the Holocaust, a Holocaust image needs to be used" could also be applied to the multiple paragraphs on Weimar Germany. Would it not make more sense to use the second image to address the Weimar Republic in some way? My earlier edit features a homeless German war veteran begging on the streets of Berlin; perhaps this could be used instead? Surlyduff50 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The article German casualties in World War II gives the following numbers for German casualties due to bombing:

• Government of West Germany (1956): 635,000
• German Red Cross (2005): 500,000
• Richard Overy (2013): 353,000

All of these figures are below one million. Compare this to the 10 milion victims of the Holocaust. Both are damages, but the Holocaust victims are an order of maginitude more than the German bombing casualties. Nxavar (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a German national and the issue brought up by user Surlyduff50 is to my mind ridiculous to say the least. Some people still are unable to differentiate between cause and effect. Some like to hint at the high amount of unemployment which is utter B.S. to say the least as the Weimar Republic was on the way of economic recovery – I guess this is why he wanted to include the image of that beggar. Nazi Germany caused World War II and eliminated a large portion of its own population by sending them to the gas chambers. This is by all means one of the most distinct facts about Nazi Germany … the ruins of Berlin ... any image of Germany at the time are a result of Germany's own actions. Actions that were committed not by a regime that fell out of the skies but a regime that was brought into power via an election. So the icon of Nazi-Germany is not a Berlin in ruins but the atrocities that were committed by this regime of which the Buchenwald image is a testimony. I am of bi-national descent and at least my British grandfather fraught for the right cause. What pisses me off (excuse my language) is that not that the user in question wanted to add the ruin picture but wanted to replace the Buchenwald picture! --Catflap08 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

33.09% --IIIraute (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

[53.36%, you forgot to count their allies.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't prevaricate - it was the long-standing "Berlin in ruins" picture that got replaced first, here --IIIraute (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

IIIraute, we heard you the first time when you wrote "Don't prevaricate..." It's still useful to remove it for the reasons I already stated (read above) and which you continue to blatantly ignore. And please try to be respectful and not tell other users that they are manipulating facts. The only people acting to deceive here have been you and Surlyduff50. Both pro-image removal advocates I might add.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08: "What pisses me off (excuse my language) is that not that the user in question wanted to add the ruin picture but wanted to replace the Buchenwald picture!" here so again, please don't prevaricate - it was the long-standing "Berlin in ruins" picture that got replaced first, here --IIIraute (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

C for all of the reasons I've already stated (the body of the text overwhelmingly relates to it, it's historically the most important element not the bombed out building which were in just about every country after the war, it's an image specifically chosen because it's from a camp in Germany, and because it's an image that is identical to how the world's population discovered the Holocaust for the first time as they liberated Germany.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@ IIIraute the picture of Buchenwald is EXACTLY where it should be any endeavours to question that do PISS ME OFF and I do not care if that is regarded a POV. Any attempts to portray Germany as a victim of World War II are dubious to say the least. Get back to your history books.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the "Berlin in ruins" picture is used in an attempt to portray Germany as a victim of World War II - it's a classic pair of pictures, to first use a picture of Hitler; i.e. the beginning - and a picture of Germany's capital in ruins; i.e. how it ended, the zero hour, etc. It's a classic combo. The capture of the Reichstag, the destroyed capital, the bombed out Pariser Platz with the Brandenburg Gate, often are seen (and used) as the key event; i.e. the epitome of the collapse of Nazi Germany, the end of the war, the defeated Germany, and a dead Hitler. --IIIraute (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

C Holocaust is the most important part of German history.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

B Estonian national here. If the bombed out Berlin image was there first then I think it should stay. No matter how bad the Nazis are, this article is supposed to remain neutral. I agree with "Surlyduff50's" point about the Weimar Republic. The Holocaust was terrible, but a lot of this segment of the article is talking about pre-Nazi Germany. It would be wrong to neglect this aspect of history (it was very important to the rise of the Nazis anyhow).84.52.53.169 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

C - and this choice is only reinforced by some of the comments above which appear to mean that IT IS in fact the purpose here to whitewash a part of history. That and the pedantry which is beside the point. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The Holocaust is undoubtly a very important part of German history, and therefore should covered in in relevant details. There is already a large part dedicated to the 12 years of Nazi Rule (out of 2000 years of German/Germanic history), including a description of this event. I personally however dont think a graphic picture of a pile of dead bodies is necessary in a general country article. It seems to me such a graphic picture is only there to reinforce stereotypes, prejudices and strong emotions, while adding nothing to the article (as the information is already in the text). None of the WP country articles features such pictures for a good reason, there are no pictures of massacred Chinese in the Japan article, no pictures of the Gulags or related massacres in the Russia/SU article, no pictures of Serbian massacres in the Bosnia/Serbia article and so on.
The problem with such discussion is always, that some people have some axe to grind when it comes to such sensisitve topics, and any arguing for a rational solution is sadly always labeled as "white-whashing". As if people, who dont want offensive pictures of a pile of dead bodies in a General country outline, are Nazi whitewhashers (this is the Germany, not the Nazi Germany article)... If a picture about the Holocaust should be added, then why not use a more moderate image, like lets say about a holocaust memorial site, an iconic picture of the Gates of Auschwitz or something similar... StoneProphet (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I think it is disgraceful - my grandfather gave his life in the fight against National Socialism, yet judging by some of these posts - I might as well be a neo-Nazi! There is no direct need for an image this shocking on the overview article for Germany - just as there is no need for photos of the victims of the USSR on the overview article for Russia, or for photos of the victims of Imperial Japan on the overview article for Japan.Surlyduff50 (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Surlyduff50, your argument has changed how many times now? Now, it's because you find it offensive... Before, it was you arguing to remove it because MILLIONS of people were killed by allied bombing (a misconception perhaps), then it was that there wasn't a photo of a wounded WWI German veteran begging on the streets of Wiemar Germany (yeah, that seemed a little strange and pushing some kind of German victim agenda). Now it's because you find it offensive? Also, no one called you a neo-nazi, you may feel that way but no one here except you has made reference to that. [User:StoneProphet|StoneProphet]], thank you for your original comments but I don't think they really make sense. For example, how does the image "reinforce stereotypes, [or] prejudices"? What stereotype or form of prejudice does this image perpetuate? The image may make people feel strong emotions but that's not against wikipedia policy and it's pretty normal that any human with empathy would feel that way when faced with mass murder. I just don't see that as a valid argument for removing it. As discussed already, the image, shows the significant and unique historical event of Nazi Geramny which is discussed in a very brief amount of text (5 paragraphs) dedicated to the most violent period in modern human history. It's a image of people who were murdered, yes, but also an image of what happened (mass murder). It's how the world first saw the Holocaust, as the allies liberated concentration camps, in Germany. Please try to see the picture as an accurate, poignant, non-violent image, which allows anyone, in one image, to see and understand the horrible purpose and result of the Holocaust.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993 has, in the past hour or two, removed a comment in favour of keeping Image B. Monopoly31121993 appears to be accusing the comment maker of sock puppetry. I am reinstating the comment for now; I do not believe it's fair to remove opposing views like this. Here is the comment that was removed:

B (or A), certainly not C. Picture B was the image kept for the last few years. I think it is in bad taste to shock people with naked dead corpses with male genitals visible. An article like this is also read by children... For example, there are no corpse pictures in featured Rwanda (had a huge genocide compared to its size). I know that its proponents here want to make a political message but Hitler leading to bombed German cities is as educating as Hitler leading to dead bodies. The former is more relevant to Germany and its cities, which is what the article should be about. (Unsigned)

Surlyduff50 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Surlyduff50, I removed it because the IP address of the unsigned user matched the IP of a user who already voted.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

They don't match. One is "85.183.206.139", and the other is "84.52.53.169". Surlyduff50 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

They appear to be in different countries. If those are the IPs in question, I think the contribution should be restored to its original position. --Boson (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User Volunteer Marek is on a constant mission to butcher Germany-related articles. It really shouldn't matter what he has to say on the topic. We should go back to Photo B, there was a reason I included it here: best quality illustration on the related topic. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

One more comment like that and off to WP:AE we go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please give a reason why picture B is more relevant to a section on Nazi Germany? --Catflap08 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the Holocaust is a horrifing event does not mean it should be suppressed. If the intensity of the picture is the problem, here is another picture for the Holocaust, Jews arriving in Auswitch. Note that nothing is said about what Auswitch means to the fate of its inmates:

[[:Image:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-N0827-318,_KZ_Auschwitz,_Ankunft_ungarischer_Juden.jpg|center|thumb|Hungarian Jews arrive at the concentration camp in Auswitch.]]

There are several problems with this image. First, this is a picture of Hungarians (the other), at Auschwitz (in Poland) and as you mentioned, it gives no indication at all of what these people are doing there and since Auschwitz is not in the article currently, it's not appropriate. The image currently there is of Buchenwald concentration camp, IN GERMANY, where thousands of germans were imprisoned and killed. The image was taken when the camp was liberated, which is a "we" not a "them"/Other experience.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Liberated?! This explains the happy faces. The description of the image in the Commons is completely wrong. Nxavar (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this addresses the concerns of StoneProphet. I also said that if the picture of the Holocaust seems to add undue weight, we can always add another picture. The fact that the history of the Third Reich was short, has little to do with its importance. It is common ground in history to give extensive coverage for years that are rich in important events. Nxavar (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposed edit. Surlyduff50 (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another possibility:

[[:Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 152-27-13A, Dachau Konzentrationslager, Häftlinge beim Appell.jpg|center|thumb|Jewish prisoners at Dachau concentration camp]]

Surlyduff50 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? An image from 1938 showing a fat Jew? I'm starting to see why you might think people would think you were advocating like a neo-Nazi.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no problem with the illustration of this article for years. Suddenly everyone comes out and gets at it like there's no tomorrow. I have to agree with Illraute. The pair of Hitler<>destroyed Germany is a far better choice. It illustrates how devastating the results of his dictatorship were for the country. There's extensive articles on the holocaust and they should be richly illustrated. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Horst-schlaemma, you're late to this debate so don't just start saying everything was fine before. There were major problems you can read about them if you read through this page and its comments over the last few days. The reason why no images of bombed out Germany are being considered is that the text clearly focuses on the Holocaust and doesn't even have a full sentence discussing bombing.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If there were any major problems with an image of Berlin in ruins, they did not surface at the Featured Article Review - or they were resolved there. I believe there were concerns about the excessive number of images at the time, but they were successfully addressed. --Boson (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The template for the FA class, found in the top of this page, clearly says: "(...)if you can update or improve it, please do so." Nxavar (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Boson, I meant that they were discussed here. I showed above that there was insufficient text to support the image.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I do think the newly suggested image below is a slight improvement. Since we shouldn't change the original question in mid-stream, as far as the RfC is concerned, I would suggest that those who prefer an image not shown in the original RfC change their !vote above to "Support none of the above". I would let the Rfc run its course with the original long-standing image in place (since there is, as yet, no consensus to change it) and then change the image or not, according to how the RfC is closed, preferably by an admin. If there is a lot of support for "none of the above", we could have a further discussion on alternative images. Personally, I still prefer the long-standing image. Images can be used for different purposes: they can be used to show what something looks like (e.g. a picture of a dog in Dalmatian (dog) or a picture of particular mountains in a geography section) or to show an emblem (e.g. an imperial crown to represent the empire). They can also be used to elicit emotions and motivate, as in a picture of dead and suffering people in an appeal for donations or a call to arms. In this case, in a history section, I think they can best be used to tell a story: the period started with the rise of Hitler and ended with total destruction. That is why I think the long-standing image is best --Boson (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Boson, the image of a bombed Germany city is also designed to elicit emotions and motivate so don't pretend that it's somehow a neutral image. In the text above I showed in bold all of the text the related to the Holocaust and the less than half of a sentence that related to bombing or the "total destruction of Germany" as you put it. The image which Horst-schlaemma has now placed into the page is not supported by the content of the page. A picture of the Holocaust is.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is a perfectly valid standpoint, but opinions obviously differ, which is why we are having this RfC. Since the image that Horst-schlaemma "has now placed into the page" was there for over a year before being very recently removed, and is very similar (but of slightly better quality photographically) to the one that was there since 2011 when the article passed FAR, I think your claim is at least open to some doubt. Perhaps you could correct your verbatim quote of what I wrote. --Boson (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In the interest or reaching a resolution to this I'm going to suggest a new image: [[:File:Buchenwald Slave Laborers Liberation.jpg|thumb|center|Survivors of the Buchenwald concentration camp following their liberation.]] The image shows living persons so this should address the repeated concerns of having an image of a dead person and the shock that this might cause some younger viewers of the page. This image is still of the liberation of a German concentration camp (the same one as the other image). Can we get votes for or against below:Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

For- I think this clearly shows the Holocaust subject matter, addresses concerns about being too explicit for younger viewers of the page and still clearly conveys the horrifying nature of the event.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree- It is indeed milder. Showing people exhausted from famine is by no means an issue, advertisements from charitable organizations frequently show kids in this condition. Nxavar (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What a daunting monologue. Please, give it a rest. Thank you. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Thank YOU, Horst-schlaemma, for your valuable contributions and one-sided statements like "everything was just fine before." They really have helped us.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Your knee-jerk reactions only tell me how I'm right about the monologue part. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That way we're not getting anywhere here. As I said, the former pair of Hitler<>destroyed city (cause<>result, beginning<>end) was long established in the article and served its purpose very well. And I pointed this out. The current image selection wasn't put in question during the FA-process either. The change of the photo was a purposeful provocation to the main editors of the Germany article including me, as it wasn't even attempted to discuss it. You had to expect this and you're not getting anywhere that way. Reckon it already. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is evident that you are the one with the monologue here. Please note that this is a discussion and you don't have any right or authority to demand that it ends. Nxavar (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't demand this discussion to end. I'm demaning you to acknowledge the wrong way was chosen to change this very sensible section of the Germany article. There's more than enough illustration and text coverage on the topic throughout Wiki and in several media. For the scope of the Germany article, it just doesn't really comply. Or do we have Gulag pictures in the Russia article? I can't see any. They're not even mentioned in the text. Napalm and Atomic bombs in the US article? None. Germans admit the crimes that happened on their soil and it's part of their history. But, for the country itself, that this article represents, the destruction of most of their cities was the very result of the war and the main trigger for feelings of German guilt and the fallacy of war. It was the most striking event in the past century for the country. Holocaust images would reduce this whole effect to a minority group that suffered badly in particular, but isn't representative enough of the whole scope. And I'm saying that with having a partial Ashkenazi background. -- All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many here that do not agree with you. Nxavar (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Many profiles, not users. It's no coincidence we see so many similar posts in such short time spans. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Horst-schlaemma, there is not enough text to support that image. That's clearly been established already. You decided you were going to disrupt this whole discussion by reverting the image and placing it in there and your reasons which you provide here are completely original to this discussion (e.g. that the image best exemplifies German sufferings). Your clearly POV pushing. I don't care how many times or how long you've kept this article in its sad current state, and your claim to Ashkenazi background doesn't change a thing. You're disrupting the decision making process here and attempting to take matters into your own hands.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There initially was enough text about the bombing raids and fires in Germany cities during and following the war. It was trimmed out when the article was brought into the current very reduced shape. I suppose not enough care was put into balancing this, as all focus went into other aspects of the war. This article is often treated politically as we just experience again. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is true that the passage on German losses has been trimmed down; the passage was proportionally larger in earlier revisions - and thus the image of Berlin was more appropriate. Perhaps we could restore the original passage? (I'm not seeing any major improvement in the new passage) Surlyduff50 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is about how the article is now. Your arguments are no longer relevant. Nxavar (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Surlyduff50, please do not append a new comment to an existing one, after a reply has been made. Nxavar (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It can and should be restored. Oh and let me quote yourself here: "Please note that this is a discussion and you don't have any right or authority to demand that it ends." -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You intentionally misinterpret my comment. I just said that some arguments are irrelevant, I did not say that the discussion should stop. Nxavar (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The photo of Hungarian Jews arriving in Auschwitz is obviously not appropriate for this article - about Germany. The image of the survivors from Buchenwald is a possibility, particularly since that photo is sort of famous (Elie Weisel is in it). The photo of Jews at Dachau is just not a good substitute for the photo of Buchenwald victims.

Look, the Holocaust was shocking, disturbing, etc etc etc. Part of the reason to include the photo of the victims is precisely to illustrate that very important (some would say central) aspect of the phenomenon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think its about time to get the admins involved --Catflap08 (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

German-descended USA born person responding to RfC here. First, it really, really, really would have helped if whoever started this RfC also included a separate discussion section. Taking into account the numerous additional photos proposed since this RfC started, I believe it would be preferable to have one of the images of victims, either the living or dead ones, included, because they provide, in a sense, a better example of what Germany did, rather than what was done to Germany, like the bombing photos, and on that basis I think they are probably more appropriate. Not to say that keeping one of the bombing pictures in might not also be reasonable, but I definitely support the inclusion of one of the victim pictures regardless of the presence or absence of other photos. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Mea maxima culpa. --Boson (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done worse, of course. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

For Buchenwald survivor picture and None of the above (original rfc survey response). I support the inclusion of a Holocaust-related picture instead of a picture of a bombed city because I think it better reflects Germany's role and actions during the war. However, I do not support the original Holocaust-related picture proposed as option C because, from my perspective, it adds more shock than encyclopaedic value to this particular article. The Buchenwald survivor picture is a good compromise and I support its inclusion. --Ca2james (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's ridiculous how "various" users around here try to re-establish photo C within the article without a common ground reached at this discussion! Stop it already! The page might get blocked due to your idiocy, people. Thanks for all the recent fuss. Your attempt on destroying this article or its authors' motivation won't come to fruition, though. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with StoneProphet, Ca2james, John Carter and others. My own contribution has been to highlight the arguments why it was needed and supported by the actual content in the text of the article and then move back from my support of the original photo for the sake of protecting younger viewers. The Holocaust is the major event for Germany in WWII and the text shows this. There's a long history of German attempts to portray themselves as victims during WWII and the allied bombing as well as rapes of German woman are the two strongest examples of this that I have seen. Not only does the bombed out Berlin image play right into this victim narrative but it gives undue weight to a topic not supported by the text. Horst-schlaemma's argument was that the war destroyed Germany and that picture shows it (see above). In reality the picture can just as easily be viewed as evidence of just how victimized German civilians were at the hands of the allies. I'm not saying Horst-schlaemma has an agenda but he is working really hard to keep that picture and prevent any changes to the article. He says that he's a long time member of the editors of the page and that it's Featured Aritcle status grants it certain immunity to editing. His behavior reverting the images, threatening anyone who carries out future edits, and not allowing the discussion here to take place have been clearly disruptive and he doesn't seem to be assuming or acting in good faith.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Just to sum up this part of the discussion, we have:

5 explicit supports for C

2 explicit supports for B (one of these by an IP address, with this being their only edit) +1 more or less implicit support for B by Boson (best as I can make it out Surlyduff50 voted twice)

A conditional support for the Elie Weisel ("Buchenwald survivors") picture as an alternative/compromise to C, by Monopoly31121993, Nxvar, myself, John Carter (along with what looks like a strong opposition to B), Ca2James (along with what looks like a strong opposition to B) and PointsofNoreturn (either C or the survivors, but does not oppose B)

StoneProphet appears to support the inclusion of a Holocaust related but "less-graphic" image.

Mjolnirpants doesn't care if B (or A) is included but supports inclusion of C.

Hence, there's a pretty clear consensus of inclusion of a Holocaust related image, either C or the "survivors". There does not appear to be consensus on inclusion of B (and no one really mentions A).

Pending further discussion, I will put in the "survivors" image as that appears to be a compromise version which is agreeable to most, and at the same time reflects the consensus that a Holocaust related image needs to be included. If further discussion or relevant policy reasons are presented, we could go back to putting C back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the discussion on additional images was subsequently added to an RfC originally based on the choice between three images, and can therefore be viewed as flawed, I would suggest that we formuate a new RfC with all the images that have been proposed to date. We should allow the normal 30 days and request closure of that RfC by an admin/editor with appropriate experience. Until consensus has been established by an univolved party, we should retain the status quo ante bellum editorum, rather than edit in parallel, depending on the state of the discussion. The status quo with the image of Berlin in ruins has been there for several years. It won't hurt to wait another month to see if there is consensus to replace it. --Boson (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I see some opinions have got a bit lost in the confusion (partly my fault for not including a discussion header in the RfC), so I will continue here with the survey. I would still prefer a new RfC, as I suggested elsewhere, but I haven't had much feedback on that.
Support image B The theme of this summary section is the rise and fall of Hitler and National Socialism in the aftermath of World War I and the resulting World War II, leading to Germany's complete and utter defeat. This is quite well illustrated or symbolized by a picure of Hitler and a picture of a German city in ruins. This section is a summary of a summary, so we need to keep it short. Two images is already pushing it. --Boson (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: To explain my last comment a bit, for instance IIIraute and Horst-schlaemma have clearly indicated support for image B, even if they have not written Support image B in bold type at the beginning of their contribution. Horst-schlaemma, for instance, wrote "We should go back to Photo B." This is why we should do a new RfC and ask for someone uninvolved to assess the consensus. --Boson (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I support image B. I also support a more comprehensive RfC. --IIIraute (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Same here, support for image B, and please do it right. The forner process is seriously flawed. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Could we please refrain from edit-warring? I think we should await the results of a new RfC, which I am in the process of drafting for approval (see below), and until such time, retain the last unequivocal consensus version (i.e. the version before this edit, which started a succession of BR cycles (to put it diplomatically). Any claim of a new consensus should be left to an uninvolved admin/experienced editor (or unambiguous agreement on the talk page). Just to update the above statistics to avoid unnecessary confusion in the meantime: by my count, the following supported Image B:

• Horst-schlaemma
• IIIraute
• Surlyduff50
• Boson
• 84.52.53.169 (Hamburg IP)
• 85.183.206.139 (Tallinn IP)

--Boson (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2014 (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.

Current discussion is flawed and chaotic

The survey was obv too hastened, given the very diverse opinions and discussions here; including the proposal of various more pictures. If there is consensus to change the picture (step #1), then at first an array of pictures should be selected (step #2), and then a new survey or straw poll should be created (step #3). Currently it is just chaotic including lots of attacks between people. We should also remember that this is a stable FA article, so everything should be conducted orderly with a consensus. StoneProphet (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you here StoneProphet. If people really would have a genuine interest in changing a pic for whatever reason here in this very sensible section, then they should do it right. Nothing should be changed here so far. If done again, I'll ask an admin to block the article. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there's already a consensus that the image should be changed. Horst-schlaemma is the only editor adamantly arguing not including any Holocaust image. The majority of editors here clearly support a Holocaust related image whether it be in place of the current image or addition to it.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You obviously are unable to filter the discussion then, as I'm not the only opposing. And btw I'm not opposing to including any such image either. But I'm against having a holocaust photo instead of a bombing photo. And anyway, there shouldn't be more than 2 pics per section in this trimmed FA-class article. So if you want to replace Hitler, go ahead. We surely won't miss him. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

When is Consensus reached? When enough Schlämmer like minded are gathered? I have not the faintest clue why there is even a discussion on the fact that a picture like the Buchenwald one is included as it describes what the article or rather the article's section is about. The effect of the Nazi regime which Germans brought on themselves is not Berlin in ruins but the atrocities committed by a regime brought into power with the support of the then German population – pictures of that are even published in German textbooks on history. If Wikipedia is in support of revisionist views its okay, but it should be made public. Certainly if the State of Virginia legally supports the denial of the Holocaust then there is a problem. In the light of this I will also delete the Berlin in Ruins picture until CONCENSUS is reached. I do also wonder how openly gay living German Comedian Harald Kerkling might react to the fact that his Horst Schlämmer character is in a somewhat alienated version used to edit Wikipedia with a revisionist agenda. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh man... again such "you dont want an extreme picture of dead bodies in the article, therefore you are a Nazi revisionist". How is this even an argument? Thats why I usually never engage in WP discussions. Insults, insults, insults. Lots of people have no problem with a picture about the Holocaust, it is just that the picture in this survey is a bad choice. This is neither the Holocaust nor the Nazi Germany article, it is an article about a current country which has been stable for a long time and has FA status. As explained above pictures should therefore be chosen carefully and not with the intention to just cause emotions or judgement in hastened edit wars. StoneProphet (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Stop politicising this matter Catflap08, you're being ridiculous. I didn't say any of that sort. I just said that I feel both this photo is inappropriate and that it shouldn't replace a picture of WW2 destructions. There's nothing revisionist about that. But we're still talking about the main article on Germany as a whole here. Its history doesn't span just merely a decade, get over it. Again, there's no Gulags in the Russian article, no Atomic bombs and Napalm victims in the US article, no corpses from the Mao-regime in China, etc.pp. - why don't you complain there? The German guilt cult is what's bugging really. If you're to include a holocaust photo, go for an appropriate one for a country's FA-class article. This is NOT the holocaust article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Horst whatever we are Talking about THIS article not Gulags. Its more than obvious where you are coming from--Catflap08 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where I'm coming from and frankly you can't have a clue. It matters what's relevant to this article's scope and what's not. I agree the holocaust is relevant and I don't oppose adding a picture, but not corpses. We owe some respect to the victims of these horrid events. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The way forward

Ok, Everyone let's take a break. Can we all agree to vote on which 2 images we would like in the section? I propose that we agree to accept however the vote turns out, even if we didn't vote that way. The vote should last at least 4 days and have at least 5 editors voting. Agreed?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC) AgreedMonopoly31121993 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to stick to the normal procedure in contentious cases: we ask for closure by an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin. Unless there is a clear outcome before that, the RfC should last about 30 days, before closure is requested). Since I must take some blame for the chaos, an alternative would be for me, as the original poster, to withdraw the RfC, and replace it with a new one which, for instance

• has a separate discussion section, with discussion (apart from a short rationale) prohibited in the survey section
• assumes that the picture of Hitler stays and asks two separate questions
  1. Should the section include a picture illustrating widespread destruction (such as a picture of Berlin in ruins)? If so, which picture (specify a letter, A, B or other (together with the suggested picture)).
  2. Should the section include a picture illustrating the holocaust (such as a picture of a concentration camp)? If so, which picture (specify a letter, C, D, E, F or other (together with the suggested picture)).

If both questions are answered in the affirmative, that is equivalent to supporting an increase in the number of images from 2 to 3. --Boson (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Pro - I support this procedure Boson. That's how it should be done. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. However, if there are concerns that editors who seem to be coming up out of nowhere (like me) come to this discussion and potentially cause the results to be lopsided, that editors involved could, politely, remark on that in response to their comments as a bit of a heads-up to the closing admin. Comments like, "hey, Bill, good to see you back after being gone so long" and similar are perfectly acceptable comments. If the number of surprising editors proves to be so many as to possibly overbalance the other editors, it would always be possible to start a second-stage RfC on the most widely supported images. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion of both kinds of images. Considering the comparatively huge number of casualties on both sides, ugly as the image is, maybe we might consider File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-08778-0001, Dresden, Tote nach Bombenangriff.jpg or similar for the domestic damage image particularly is the Jewish corpses image is used. Otherwise, one of the bombed-out Berlin images would be fine. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement that the RfC is flawed and some support for my suggestion of starting a new RfC with more options. I therefore think the best way forward is to withdraw my RfC and start a new one, as suggested. --Boson (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC) PS: That would also include and replace the images suggested by walkee in the separate proposal if they are in agreement. --Boson (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

Jesus Christt this sectiion is not about German history over all but exactly on the time span these crimes took place !!!! --Catflap08 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm commenting here just so someone might read it. I say yes to both of the questions above, with the further answers of "it doesn't matter to me" and C, respectively. Which picture of a bombed-out German city is used is immaterial IMHO, however, an image illustrating the Holocaust must contain certain elements. In this case, emaciated bodies stacked like firewood conveys the essential inhumanity of the Holocaust quite well, whereas (for instance) an overweight Jewish man in a German Ghetto near the beginning of the Third Reich doesn't. Even the emaciated prisoners doesn't convey it all.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that the photo showing emaciated prisoners "doesn't convey (the inhumanity) of it at all". I think that the photo does convey the inhumanity of the Holocaust.

There is no direct need for an image of this sort on the overview article for Germany - just as there is no need for photos of the victims of the USSR on the overview article for Russia, or for photos of the victims of Imperial Japan on the overview article for Japan. Surlyduff50 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a direct need to include an image of the Holocaust, though perhaps not as graphic as this one. Maybe an image of the survivors would be more appropriate. The image of bombed Berlin is still important, so maybe it could be used too. However, if I had to choose between A, B, or C, I would choose C. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Lobbying Editors to Participate in this Discussion for a Specific Reason

I just saw that Surlyduff50 has been lobbying at least one other user (IIIraute) to participate in this discussion in order to exclude a Holocaust related image from the article. Lobbying which promotes a specific view is prohibited by Wikipedia. Users should remember that any talk page comments should not be attempts at drawing in editors to a conversation who support your point of view. Below is Surlyduff50 comment: Hello,

If you are opposed to the introduction of the Bunchenwald image on the article for Germany, please say so on the Talk page (I've added a new section).

Surlyduff50 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC) -Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, do not prevaricate - you are very aware of the fact, that I did revert your changes almost two days before Surlyduff50 did post this message on my talk page. --IIIraute (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If the final goal is to victimise Germany during the period between 1933 and 1945 by displaying an image of Hitler and some rubbles then this is to my mind irritating and a cause for worry. Furthermore as an editor previously argued about the amount of bombs dropped on Germany during World War II in this discussion – this is disturbing to say the least. If the discussion continues this whole issue is bound to be brought to a higher level of attention. Even within Germany this era is not so much referred to as a “dark era” because of the destruction that took place but because of the atrocities that were committed. Also as those atrocities were committed by Germans against Germans who happened to have another faith, disability, sexual orientation or political opinion. It is my honest fear that revisionist views are given a platform that is unseen on the German Wikipedia. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by your reference to German Wikipedia. Their article on Germany seems to manage without any harrowing pictures of dead or starving victims, even though the German article is almost twice as long and contains well over twice the number of images (German Wikipedia has different views on summary style and images). --Boson (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is not on what images are displayed but what reasons are given NOT to show certain pictures. It is a fair estimate to say that revisionist views are given a 0-tolrence policy on the German Wikipdia. The discussion going on HERE is on what grounds the image of victims was contested in the first place. I am not saying that revisionist views do not flare up in the German Wikipedia but they are much faster contested than this is the case here. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The zero-tolerance policy toward revisionist views on German Wikipedia is, of course, related to German law on the topic. Any arguments for or against certain images based on a deliberate association with holocaust denial or revisionist attitudes is not only invalid but also uncivil. --Boson (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I reminded Surlyduff50 of WP:CANVASS at the time. I think that was appropriate and sufficient. But it was obvious at the time that, in the light of IIIraute's revertsions, the message was intended as an exhortation to conduct the discussion on the talk page rather than in edit summaries, rather than being intended to canvass support. --Boson (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC) (edited (struck through) in the light of following comment --Boson (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC))

Surlyduff50 did see my "revert" (singular form) of Monopoly31121993's changes - my revert did suggest to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; Surlyduff50 opened the discussion and invited me to take part in it - this has absolutely nothing to do with canvassing. --IIIraute (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly's new changes

It looks like the dispute about the image is now expanding to the rest of the article by Monopoly, draining all space from the section on the Weimar Republic except for one small paragraph. Compare that to the entry in the German Wikipedia.--walkee^talkee 18:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you reading the same article as me? 1) My edits which took hours and hours of work took the number of paragraphs on Weimar from 1 paragraph to 2. And 2) my edits had nothing to do with the image discussion we've been having. Articles on wikipedia, especially those that have such holes in them, evolve. That's the point of open source editing. That's why we're all here. Please feel free to read and add as many , etc. as needed but mass reverting is not acceptable behavior.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• No opinion on these particular changes, but we should not use the article's FA status (2007, reviewed in 2011) as a reason to resist improvement. It wouldn't pass FA nowadays, and there is much room for improvement. --John (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This is totally unbelievable. Now IIIraute starts reverting. Did you even read it? These are entirely legitimate edits. Things that have no citations were removed, edits added references, links to related pages and frankly, make the prior sad attempt at historical overview relatively comprehensible.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through Monopoly31121993's edits and they seem like an improvement to the article. They fill in some missing gap, for example, the lack of mention of the German interwar hyperinflation. IIIraute and walkee have a history of tag-teaming and supporting each other mindlessly in contentious discussions. Their edit warring on this particular article appears to be based on misplaced ownership (though I don't think either really contributed to bringing this article to FA) and some kind of revenge for the fact that Monopoly31131993 supported/proposed the inclusion of an image they vehemently disagree with.

Restored. Please point out specific problems with the edit on talk page before reverting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would help, Monopoly31121993, if you provided more of a rationale for your changes on the talk page. Edit summaries are not the ideal place to discuss subtleties. I think we should all also be aware of WP:Consensus and WP:Be bold. Anyway, I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so perhaps someone else can check the rest of the changes, but here are a couple of points that I have checked, to try to get the message across and get the ball rolling:

• This edit had the edit summary "tightening and re-write" and inter alia changed the long-standing version

"After 1945, Germany was divided by allied occupation, and evolved into two states, East Germany and West Germany. "

to

"After 1945, Germany was divided and occupied by the Allied nations into two states, East Germany and West Germany. "

In the hope of avoiding more drama, I will leave it to you to fix this, either by self-reverting or replacing it with something actually better. The English needs fixing, and the content needs fixing in the light of the complications of the actual (probably politically controversial) timeline and the Alleinvertretungsanspruch .

• As regards the demographics of Germany, this change, with the edit summary "I have removed the images as the citation, which is from a document written in Germany, does not provide which it claims, don't revert this double check it first and only revert when a correct source is found and cited" reverted a lot of work by Sdg198. Perhaps you could join the discussion, started some time ago at Talk:Germany# Demographics, migrant background.

--Boson (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Boson for these two points. You are correct, this needs to be fixed and I will change this first sentence back to the clearer version you mentioned. I was editing for hours when this happened and this part of the text was at the very end so I was pretty tired. In the future, please feel free to just change this yourself. As long as you point out why it's better in a fair way I'm not upset. It's the mass reverting that upsets me and goes so against the "anyone can contribute" code of Wikipedia.

--As far as the demographic section, I'm also at fault for not seeing the discussion on the talk page before hand. But I think my edit was a fair one since the source that was cited does nto provide that information. I know it takes a lot of time to make a chart or a table but if its source does actually say what it says then it doesn't belong on the page. P.S. I wanted to write that the source was written in German not in "Germany". Still the reference doesn't match the pages that are cited as you already mentioned above in the talk section. ---Moving forward I just hope everyone can calm down and not be so quick to revert things simply because they happen. There needs to be fair assessment of the edits, respecting Wikipedia's foundational principle that anyone can edit and that nothing is perfect and can't be improved.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont want to complain to not sound biased, but after the recent changes, the longest paragraph in this general article of Germany, is now the section about Nazi Germany. I find that a bit off, but maybe its just me... StoneProphet (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Some properly sourced and crucial sections went out of the article due to Monopoly's edits. Why so? Seriously, you're constantly downgrading. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Horst-schlaemma, tell me where I removed any properly sourced and crucial sections.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Size of articles

The Article size guideline says:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub.

The size of this article and its (direct or indirect) sub-articles (listing only those with more than 55 KB readable prose) is as follows:

Readable prose size	Article
Germany	70 kB
History of Germany	132 kB
Weimar Republic	69 kB
Nazi Germany	81 kB
Nazism	57 kB
The Holocaust	111 kB
Unification of Germany	68 kB
German Revolution of 1918–19	71 kB
German Empire	59 kB
East Germany	65 kB

--Boson (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC) ---Boson, please see my suggestions above about sections that can be merged or have text removed. Also I would be curious to see not how Germany ranks amongst other Germany related articles but how it ranks amongst other country level articles. That seems like a more logical point of comparison for assessing what you're describing.Either way the article is currently in the "Probably [needs downsizing]" category.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of the table. It was not intended for assessing how Germany ranks among those articles. The point is that these are direct of indirect sub-articles of Germany. The articles should be seen as a single complex of articles, and they are all potentially too large. Another one I forgot was History of Germany (1945–90), which is also too large at 111 kB of readable prose. The importance is that, ideally, the "lowest" level article is fixed first, because, for instance Nazi Germany is summarized in one section of History of Germany and that, in turn, is summarized in one section of Germany. So what this article says on Nazi Germany is a summary of a summary and should therefore not contain details. This is the principle of summary style. It is not (just) the size itself that is important, but it is a good proxy for other things and indicates where best to look to see if summary style is being properly employed. The size of articles (including images etc.) can, of course, also be important for people with slower connections (e.g. in rural America) but here I have shown the "readable prose size", which is more important for things like reader comprehension and appropriate level of detail. As regards the size compared with other articles, the appropriate comparison is other "featured" country articles, and as I pointed out elsewhere, the history section in Germany is significantly longer than the equivalent section in other such articles. I did have some more statistics somewhere, but the history section looks like the obvious place to start pruning. --Boson (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)