Talk:Germany/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

"Imperial Germany"

The term "Imperial Germany" is generally used specifically to refer to the Second Reich between 1871 and 1918. It is not used to refer to the Holy Roman Empire, and certainly not to refer to the period between 1806 and 1871. I would suggest Splitting off the pre-1871 material into a "History before Unification" section, or something like that. john k 22:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest splitting of all of the volumious material added this winter to more specialized pages — where in fact much of it already resides!
Ruhrjung 01:11, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at reducing History section

From what I read on this talk page, the consensus seems to go towards a radically shorter history section. Though I personnally am indifferent to the issue, I think that the consensus should be followed. Indeed, there is a History of Germany page, which Heimdall and others can expand at will, should they consider this page as being to vague. Since many people believe that the current blocking of the page should not prevent work from happening, I took the liberty to try to develop a concise version of the History section. I put it on my User page for size reasons (headings given in bold; images deleted): User:Luis rib

It's not perfect, of course, and some may be still too long, but maybe it can be used as a start.

In my opinion, it misses the Hanseatic League, which you also hint at in your comment, but beside that it could be good to shorten it down yet much more. :-) ...I'm no expert on German history, however, and am rushing to other duties now, which are two strong reasons against making a try of my own. But you deserve much praise for your attempt. It surely can be used as a starting point!

--Johan Magnus 17:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other comments: Why is there a need for a foreign relations section? The German position on the Iraqi war can be explained in one sentence in the politics section. Also, the description of the coalition of the willing is NPOV. The fact that Vanuatu and Mongolia took part is irrelevant and only mentioned to ridicule the whole thing; other more "serious" countries took part, such as Portugal. Why not also mention the micro-states that favoured the German position??? Luis rib 17:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ths history section doesn't seem too long to me, so much as it is deeply unbalanced. I see no particular reason that World War II should get as much space as all of German history prior to 1918! john k 21:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John, that was my impression as well. However, re-reading the discussions on this page makes it clear that there is little chance of agreeing on how a balanced presentation should look. If we strictly count the number of years, Nazi Germany and WWII are but a parenthesis in German history, but it is clear that the period has been disproportionally important for how Germany is viewed abroad, so a "unbalanced" presentation could be quite appropriate. Moreover, many of us have favorite periods in German history that we might be jockeying for. (For example, the foundations for the welfare state were laid by the Bismarck administration, with profound effects on how north-western European democracies work today. This interests me a lot, so I would like at least a paragraph about it. And so on.) Which is why I would suggest to execute a drastic compression of the history section, much like Luis rib has done. This would be compatible with the policy adopted on other country's pages, like the USA page I had a look at. An alternative (which has been previously rejected, and which I don't like anyway) is to have this page be about the Federal Republic and start it in 1945. Thore 08:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with virtually all your arguments - both of yours. Except: I think at least some more problems would be solved than created by making this (whole) page a FRG-page.

However, I think there is one important issue that is mostly only touched on but not really discussed. Should the history section have focus on how the Germans today view their history, or on other peoples~' often negative experiences?

Johan Magnus 08:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Johan, I don't think we can even reach a consensus on how "Germans today view their history". From where I am standing, they are trapped in a perpetual state of mental self-flagellation, and the spectre of Nazi Germany hangs over their self-image in a way that foreigners will never understand. Others have the exact opposite impression. (What we could do might be to simply translate the German Wikipedia entry about Germany. That might be a pretty accurate image of how Germans view themselves.) However, I don't know if there is any reason to adopt a German or English or American view of German history (or a Finnish or Tamil one, for that matter). We should strive for neutrality, which is difficult enough. I am sure Japanese Wikipedians have a few things to say about how much attention Hiroshima should receive on the USA page, but as soon as we begin to accept this line of reasoning we will have even larger problems in reaching a consensus. Thore 09:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I replaced the history section with the shorter version I did. Unfortunately, the pictures are now a bit mixed up. Maybe there's too many of them as well. Also, the whole page was duplicated below the Economics section. I deleted that. Luis rib 14:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib, the Third Reich is not a subcategory of the Weimar Republic.-Heimdal 14:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. Sorry for that. Some nasty apostrophe tricked me, apparently. I'll change that. Luis rib 14:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UC)

Question: Why should the History section necessarily be shortened? I found that it was one of the major attractions of this article - no other section was edited more frequently. -Heimdal 16:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just read above. It still fits on the same talk page! --Johan Magnus 17:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do agree that there were too many subsections in "History". Four subsections should be more than enough. I do also agree that the images should be no larger than 250px. But the changes and cuts made to the article since Jiang blocked the page have gone too far. The History section looks messy and unbalanced now. This is not "my" article any longer - I don't even care to edit it anymore.-Heimdal 17:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Johan Magnus - I've read the above, but none of it has convinced me. In the end, the impression remains that a great and interesting article has been made unnecessarily a lot duller. -Heimdal 18:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Messrs Johan Magnus, Jiang and Ruhrjung should please visit the German version of this article. The history section there - Geschichte - is even longer than the section here has ever been. No nonsense there about compressing 1200 years of German history into "a few lines". I would like to thank the joker 24.210.240.148 who posted "germans love bananas" on the article. Why did Jiang revert that? The joker was quite right - after the changes made by Jiang and the others, this article has indeed gone bananas! -Heimdal 11:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr Heimdal, for a start, this is not "your" article, and it has never been "your" article. Indeed, there were some ambiguities in your text, so don't act as if you were the absolute expert on German history. Please, feel free to expand the History of Germany page, which could actually benefit a lot from an expansion. Yet this here is the general Germany page, and having too long a history section is very cumbersome for people that are not interested at all in history and that would like to get just a general overview on Germany. Also, what would be the point of having a History of Germany page if it just repeated what the Germany page says? Also, what the German wikipedia has done is only of limited concern for our discussion since this (English) wikipedia targets other people than the German wikipedia. But, since you reaise the subject, you certainly noticed that the German version has much shorter sections than the English one on the HRE (it doesn't mention the Hanseatic League, for instance) and on the post-WWII period (actually the reunification is only mentioned in 2 short sentences!). The reason why it is a bit long is the inclusion of pre-HRE history (which the English version chose to ignore) and especially a much longer part on Napoleon and the German Empire. Also, it ahs only one picture. In all, it is more similar to the current version than to yours. Luis rib 12:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy to so compare, Heimdal. Firstly, you're factually incorrect: that section was, two "minor" edits ago (BTW, User:Jiang, please don't mark significant edits as minor) 1730 words, and 10834 characters long in the English version, and is currently 1285 words and 9859 characters long in the German. Secondly, there seems to be no single Hauptartikel: Deutsche Geschichte in the section head, as it's repeatedly been pointed out there is in this article. Where to present which piece of information is a judgement call. Thirdly, the very first section is stylistically a bad place to put an overlong section -- in the German version, it's at least much later on. And lastly, the consensus of the German editors does not determine the consensus of the editors here (or vice versa); article and section lengths are legitimate subjects for editorial consensus, you don't have a basis to say "you can only revert it if you can prove it wrong". Alai 01:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib, thanks for your reply. Actually, I've never pretended to be an expert on German history, which I'm not. I think we all can learn from each other here. And if there were "ambiguities" in my text, wouldn't it have been better to correct them, instead of starting to remove all the passages that I've added to the article over the winter? I have pointed out that the history section in the "Deutschland" article on the German Wikipedia is even longer than mine was, which is just a matter of fact. The length there doesn't seem to bother anyone there, why here? As regards the images - if there are fewer pictures on the German Wikipedia, it may simply be due to the fact that copyright laws in Germany are much stricter than in the US. Heimdal 13:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What bearing does German copyright law have on one article, that it doesn't have on the other? Both are hosted in the same place (the US), and served to the same places (the US, Germany, and anyplace else). Which images in this article couldn't be used anywhere else? Alai 00:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the meta site: "Are Wikipedias in all languages subject to American copyright law? There's currently a discussion at Polish Wikipedia where it is claimed to be subject to Polish law, despite being stored on American servers, and thus it shouldn't use fair use images. Ausir 20:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At the German Wikipedia it has been decided to go according to german law, as if you take a look at court rulings the latest rulings international are done regarding "who is the target group" not "where is it stored" "

Saintswithin 12:38, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find this tiresome.

As far as I've seen, Heimdal is trying to impose his view on all other contributors. As far as I can judge, it exists a consensus for keeping this article in lines with the Wikiproject:Countries guidelines.

At the moment, it looks to me as a defeat for Wikipedia. :-(
--Ruhrjung 16:58, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly tiresome, but it's not a defeat yet. We should a) establish what the consensus version is, and b) follow appropriate means of dispute resolution with anyone who thereafter persists in ignoring that consensus. I propose specifically to do the following:

• Listing this page on RfC to get some fresh input;
• A straw poll on which the preferred version sshould be as a working baseline (noises were made about this before, but it didn't really happen as such);
• If there's a clear output of that straw poll, and given individuals persist in reverting back to other versions, then they would themselves get RfC'd. (Other forms of dispute resolution to follow.) Alai 17:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not especially keen on page protection as a 'solution'. Firstly, if applied according to stated procedure, it's pretty arbitrary which version it gets protected on, so one shouldn't ask for it, assuming it'll be the "good" version (whichever one thinks that is) that a friendly admin happens to protect. Secondly, if no productive use is made of the time spent protected, it just slows everything down, as has happened here. Alai 17:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, page protection was tried and it failed to deter certain people from reverting everything back to their lenghty and faulty version. To me, it just looks like some people are willing to play by consensus rules and others aren't.Luis rib 19:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History section

I've noticed that the history section was partly changed back to its former (pre-blocking) version, especially the first two parts. As I said before, the length does not concern me, but i would have some comments, on which I would like to know your opinion. First of all, the removal of the picture of the HRE and replacement by a picture on WWI ship seems to be a very bad choice. The HRE was a very important player in Europe during the Middle Ages and was the centre of Reformation. This would call for a picture (maybe another one than the previous one, i don't mind). The WWI picture, however, is completely misleading, since ships had actually NO influence whatsoever on the evolution on the war. I would propose to delete it, and, if necessary, replace it with a more relevant one. Also, there is a very grave ambiguity in the first part: During these almost thousand years, the Germans expanded their influence successfully with the help of the organization of the Catholic Church, Northern Crusades and the Hanseatic League. This is wrong: the influence of the HRE was MINIMAL after the Middle Ages. Its highest level of influence was achieved around the time of the Ottonic dynasty. It disappeared after the loss of the Italian provinces, and also because of the fights with the Pope. Also, the Emperor gradually lost power, and the title became mostly symbolic after the Thirty Years War. The subsequent parts are really bad. Some totally unnecessary facts are stated (e.g. that the nazis dissolved the Länder...as if anyone would cae about that) and missed other important ones (i.e. the part on Czechoslovakia is completely wrong; it misses that Slovakia was established as a puppet state).

I would therefore recommend to revert all those sections back. If people think that some important things are missing, they should add them to it afterwards. Luis rib 18:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the section, per your recommendation. Please do not mass revert without providing reasons. --Jiang 00:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, as explained by myself and others, please do not mass revert others' edits without explaining what is exactly the problem with the current text. Consensus is to have the article shortened. If you cannot respect consensus, then I suggest you leave as you promised. If you want to keep mass reverting edits, then this article will have to be protected again. --Jiang 11:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link at art project

There ist an interesting German art project on German stereotypes: http://www.rentagerman.de/ Is there an appropriate place for this link?

History gap (1960-1990)

In my opinion at least Willy Brandt and the students demonstrations against Nazi past, which led to the new Germany and its pacifistic and green movements that dominate Germany's politics today, should be mentioned. Otherwise there is a 30 years history gap. Stern 11:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does the Antifa and RAF crap dominate Germany today? My God, why didn't tell me this before?

If you care to compare pre-1960 and post-1968-Germany, you'll notice quite a difference, and, for starters, the green party is participating in government 02:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the largest parties of Germany (CDU/CSU) being particularly pacifistic.

I'm not aware of the CDU/CSU being the largest parties of Germany, and right now they form the opposition... 02:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll

I'd like to establish a consensus as to a 'baseline' version for further edits, and cease this unproductive revert-warring. Please feel free to vote for either with qualifications, or to propose further options (compromise or otherwise). Alai 20:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jiang version[1]

1. I vote for this version. Luis rib 20:21, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. --Jiang 22:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. gidonb 14:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) not perfect, but the better between the two
4. Alai 09:26, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) I'll row in behind the majority myself. Not quite the turnout I'd hoped for, though...
5. Peter Isotalo 09:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC) - If you ask me, the history section should be even shorter than Jiang's version; that's what we have the seperate history articles for.

Neither

• Saintswithin 09:59, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) (Jiang's: first 1,000 years in one paragraph? No Hanseatic League? No Gutenberg? Heimdal's: So many enormous pictures? So much on the war?) Have Jiang or Heimdal actually suggested that their version is the be-all-and-end-it-all? Surely both need a lot of work. If we vote for one, does that mean the article will stay like that? Or are we supposed to be voting for some specific differences between Jiang's and Heimdal's versions? What would those differences be??
  • No be-all -- at all. Just "which version can we get through a whole day without reverting it en masse?", in essence. And by 'baseline' I expressly mean as a basis for further editting, not to fix anything. But if you have specific changes you have in mind, feel free to either mention them here (the talk page in general, not necessarily "the vote"), or start a draft in a sub-page... Alai 10:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • "which version can we get through a whole day without reverting it en masse?" Personally I can manage for weeks without editing the page at all :-) I imagine some people aren't voting as a) they couldn't care either way or b) they know it's completely pointless, as if Jiang wins, Heimdal will continue reverting. And no-one will vote for Heimdal as he is now the "baddy". Saintswithin 11:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • You may be right on all those counts. However, if the edit war continues, no-one is likely to do any substantial work on addressing the issues with Jiang's version -- or indeed with any version -- as Heimdal continues to disruptively exercise his largely-spurious "right" to revert the page. Why bother putting work into edits that are just going to get systematically ignored? And of course in the extreme case, the page gets protected, and no-one is even able to. Alai 14:46, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• You treat this as if it were a NPOV-dispute or a content-dispute. Although there can be found a certain bias both here andmay or may not be a NPOV dispute; it's certainly not a factual accuracy dispute. If it's not a content dispute, then what is it? Are you suggesting that this isn't an appropriate matter to form a consensus on? I don't disagree with your framing questions here, but I don't see how they help us establish whether there's a consensus (or what that consensus is), given the lack of willingness of certain parties to engage in useful dialogue on them (or anything else). Alai 23:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • • It's in any case not established that the question you here propose a poll over is the right question. Which group of Wikipedians do you intend to reach with your call for a poll? Will they be able to judge? Will it be worth their effort? How shall the result of a poll achieve legitimacy; and how shall it be enforced?

    --Ruhrjung 23:54, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

    • • I'm certainly willing to hear counter-suggestions. However, my question is intended to establish a revert war truce, which ultimately comes down to not so much the rights and wrongs, as where's the ceasefire line to be drawn? Which group: in the first instance, everyone there, I don't believe that's the issue here. It's rather a matter of whether Germany is such an exceptional concept that it must be given an exceptional presentation compared to other countries of the EU, of the West and of the World. It's also a matter of what to understand as "Germany". Is it something that has existed since 1948 or since 843? In the latter case, the long history must be given much more space than the recent Federal Republic of Germany, that after all is fairly young and not much to be proud of... :-) motivated to be mentioned more or less like... parenthetically.
        --Ruhrjung 23:17, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • It may or may not be a NPOV dispute; it's certainly not a factual accuracy dispute. If it's not a content dispute, then what is it? Are you suggesting that this isn't an appropriate matter to form a consensus on? I don't disagree with your framing questions here, but I don't see how they help us establish whether there's a consensus (or what that consensus is), given the lack of willingness of certain parties to engage in useful dialogue on them (or anything else). Alai 23:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's in any case not established that the question you here propose a poll over is the right question. Which group of Wikipedians do you intend to reach with your call for a poll? Will they be able to judge? Will it be worth their effort? How shall the result of a poll achieve legitimacy; and how shall it be enforced?

    --Ruhrjung 23:54, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

    • • I'm certainly willing to hear counter-suggestions. However, my question is intended to establish a revert war truce, which ultimately comes down to not so much the rights and wrongs, as where's the ceasefire line to be drawn? Which group: in the first instance, everyone currently editting (and reverting) this article; and in the second, anyone interested enough to come by from the RfC. I'm not proposing to 'enforce' the results of a poll per se, but to use the poll, if it achieves a consensus, to inform subsequent decisions. I'm not sure I quite follow the logic of your "legitimacy" and "worthwhile" questions. Alai 00:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not so much an issue of establishing a consensus. If the discussion on this talk page could be trusted, there exists a consensus by this page's regular contributors, with the exception of one single relatively recent contributor. It's an issue of enforcing it. A poll, if properly worded and announced, could attract quite a few experienced Wikipedians who aren't usually contributing to this article. See Talk:Gdansk/Vote for an example. A large turnout is wished. Partly since it gives the result more weight, partly also since it may increase the circle of people interested in keeping the article in line with the outcome of the vote. But we ought not forget that by asking people to participate in a vote, we ask them to put in a certain amount of energy on the issue.
          --Ruhrjung 00:52, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, yes, it's reasonable to suspect that's the consensus, I just want to establish it somewhat more definitely. I'm not clear what you'd have in mind by "properly announced". It's entirely legitimate to take a straw poll merely among regular contributors, in addition to which I RfC'd the article. It's not as if we're attempting to change policy here. If we establish a consensus, and someone persistently edits contrary to it, we follow normal dispute resolution processes. Isn't that clear enough, and reasonable? Alai 02:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I would propose that everyone look at the history sections of France and United Kingdom, the two most comparable countries in Europe. There's virtually no pictures, and the content is very concise, giving a brief but good overview. Even China, which has a much longer history than Germany, has a shorter section - and no pictures. I think that if there is a History of Germany page, most things should be moved and discussed there. The Germany page is supposed to be meant for people that have general interest in Germany, and might not necessarily be interested in history. Therefore, the section should be kept short. Luis rib 23:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe I would argue that Russia would be more comparable, but... The key issue, I believe, is: Do we want a brief history-section, or do we not?
    --Ruhrjung 00:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's to make the question needlessly abstract, I think. If we decide on a brief history section, it doesn't establish which brief section. (I won't put words in Heimdal's mouth by imagining what brief sections he might agree with, but...) I don't follow why you're so resistant to the question as posed -- it almost sounds as if you want not just the right answer, but the right answer for the right reason, too. Alai 02:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Starting with either of these two versions can lead anywhere. This is clearly demonstrated by different contributors. The relevant question is which vision we have for the end result. Should this article be about Germany from Charlemagne to today? Then it's motivated to let 75% of it be a history outline. Or should this article be about the post-war republic? Then the history section ought to be made similar to that of other contemporary states. --Johan Magnus 09:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • This is a wiki; it doesn't have an 'end' result. Attempting to phrase this in terms of 'forever and ever', or as a 'policy' matter is IMO a needless complication. And more to the point, futile. The current version makes brief allusions to pre-war history; Heimdal's clearly a much longer one. Neither was drawn strictly in terms of the foundation of the modern state. As I said though, if you wish to add a third option, or qualifications to endorsing either, please feel free. Alai 09:25, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Then, what's the role of Wikipedia:Wikiprojects? (My earlier proposition wasn't received with much enthusiasm either.) --Johan Magnus 09:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't follow, how does this go to the role of Wikimay or may not be a NPOV dispute; it's certainly not a factual accuracy dispute. If it's not a content dispute, then what is it? Are you suggesting that this isn't an appropriate matter to form a consensus on? I don't disagree with your framing questions here, but I don't see how they help us establish whether there's a consensus (or what that consensus is), given the lack of willingness of certain parties to engage in useful dialogue on them (or anything else). Alai 23:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's in any case not established that the question you here propose a poll over is the right question. Which group of Wikipedians do you intend to reach with your call for a poll? Will they be able to judge? Will it be worth their effort? How shall the result of a poll achieve legitimacy; and how shall it be enforced?

    --Ruhrjung 23:54, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

    • • I'm certainly willing to hear counter-suggestions. However, my question is intended to establish a revert war truce, which ultimately comes down to not so much the rights and wrongs, as where's the ceasefire line to be drawn? Which group: in the first instance, everyone projects? I can think of several, but what specifically do you have in mind that you feel is being neglected? If people feel the country guidelines are a better basis for forming a consensus around, don't let me stop anyone. I noted -- and agreed with -- your thought of a poll, but indeed, it didn't seem to meet with spontaneous mass acclaim, so I felt the simplest thing was to start one, on as narrow grounds as possible. Alai 17:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

lead section

I expanded the lead section pursuant to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section. Please state objections or suggestions HERE if you desire to mass revert my edits. --Jiang 12:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The Federal Republic of Germany being located in Western Europe or Central Europe is a somewhat sensitive issue.
• the wording "Germany has traditionally" in the context of Germany behind the Oder-Neisse line is without any doubt too much of a slap in the face for some. Quite a few Germans will, sooner or later, react that Danzig and Krakow at the Weichsel, and Breslau and Silesia at the Oder was part of this very traditional Germany at the crossroads of Europe.
• "For centuries until 1806, Germany was a collection of independent states" may be technically true, but again unneccessarily provokative against those who argue that the HRE lasted until 1806 also in reality and not only on the paper.
• "Under Otto von Bismarck, a unified Germany rapidly industrialized, but its quest for European dominance was thwarted by its defeat in World War I" also gives hints that may seem provocative. Did Germany fight for dominance or for equality with UK–France? Did the industrialization start first and due to Bismarck? In my eyes it has too much of the ring of anti-German propaganda ito it.
• I also noted some wordings which skillfully circumvented past Wikipedia-strifes, or followed their outcome, but there is no need to waste space on that, is there? :-)
  --Ruhrjung 13:31, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

We don't need everything about Germany in the introduction. The intro should be of the same length as, approximately, that of France or Italy or other countries. Also, Jiangs behavior is highly inappropriate. His systematic mass reveverts are completely unacceptable. [83.109.165.137]

Hello, 83.109.165.137. Anyone we know? But the History section should be much, much longer, you feel? OK, as the article is substantially over-length already, I'll reinstate the shorter version in each case. BTW, please don't make large reverts (or ideally, any edits) with no edit summaries. Alai 02:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey...I'm not the one mass reverting. It's your good pal Heimdal who mass reverted the shortened section made by Luis rib after considerable discussion on the page. Your good pal is also removing interwiki links for no good reason. Now who's mass reverting? Who hasnt bothered to discuss this?

I fail to see how this article is an exception to the guidelines set at Wikipedia:Lead section. You might want to note how long the lead sections are for the wikipedia:featured articles. It's the France and Italy articles that need expanding. For comparable articles, look to Cambodia, People's Republic of China, and India because they are featured articles. France and Italy are not. --Jiang 02:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, you are both mass-reverting, in point of fact. So am I, indeed. The difference would be concensus, and willingness to talk about this.

I didn't get around to changing it, but I'm not especially big on the lead section. It's not over-length (though the article as a whole is), but it is over-detailed. This would be the place to discuss the scope of the article (present FDR vs. broader senses/definitions of "Germany"), but it doesn't need this level of detail. Alai 04:22, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More reverts

The page history seems to be a bit screwy -- I did a revert, then a minor change, only the latter seems to be showing up in the history. Server's so slow as to made this next to impossible to "diff" to check. At any rate, not trying to be misleading.

About three days ago, Heimdal left me this message:

Therefore, in order not to disrupt the editing process, I've decided to revert the page to the older version only once a day

Which is a pretty modest "concession" in the first place -- the only person in favour of "the older version" seems to be Heimdal himself, and several fly-by-night anon IP addresses that pop up, make a few edits on German-related matters, then disappear again. But he's not even sticking to it. This is becoming very disruptive; no-one is going to try to make any substantiative improvements to a page that gets systematically reverted many times a day. I can think of few other options but to move to the next step of dispute resolution, which would seem to be an RfC. But if anyone has any better ideas on how to proceed I'd be much obliged. Alai 18:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page protection considered pointless

I'm rather dismayed that there's been no discussion at all on this talk page since the article was protected. As support for the current version seems to be rather lukewarm, and because no-one other than Heimdal (and of course the mysterious anons) seem to support for the rival version (and won't discuss it in any event), page protection seems to me to be a very poor solution, and not getting any better with repeated use. If the problem is purely Heimdal, then dispute resolution with Heimdal is what needs to happen; not to keep the page in long-term lockdown while nothing is being progressed as regards the content. I'm going to strongly argue that the page be unprotected (and against any future reprotection under such circumstances). If Heimdal continues to exercise his spurious "right to revert" without even bothering to try to argue against the consensus, then RfC (followed if necessary by mediation; followed if necessary by arbitration) would seem to be the indicated course. Alai 01:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If this gets unprotected, another edit war will ensue. Heimdal seems not to be interested in any discussion. Any compromise somehow seems to be set under "his" terms.

We should not hesitate to file a RfC. I was contemplating trying to send this directly to arbritration, since Heimdal has refused mediation and there is plenty of community chatter condemining his behavior. But let's just file a RfC now and I'll ask him again if he wants mediation--Jiang 01:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm agreeable; if an RfC is filed now, I'll endorse it (for any reasonable wording). Left to my own devices, I'd wait until after his next unilateral revert. I'd be opposed to immediate arbcomming, since they'll very likely say "no RfC, reject". If there's an RfC concensus against him, and he subsequently rejects a formal offer of mediation, then it's arbcom time. Alai 02:04, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have now had to protect other German related articles because of Heimdal and his bizarre behaviour (and FRG/GDR fetish). He needs to be dealt with ASAP. PMA 18:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. --Ruhrjung 08:34, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dear collegues, I agree that an RfC should be filed, and perhaps the entire process should be completed, before the unprotection. Unfortunately, Heimdal has made it impossible to improve this page in a more amicable way. I will continue to follow the progress from time to time. Please leave me a note if anything needs a quick response. Best regards, gidonb 21:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The page is still protected, and no advance has been made to settle this dispute. It is time to proceed to the next level of appeal and ask for Arbitration. The worst part of it being, that Heimdal has simply moved from this article to History of Germany to continue to make his excesive edits, and is seriously screwing up that article to the point that it's now close to loose its Featured status. All atempts of talking the way out ot the stalemate with him are useless, as you've experienced here. So now, we have two messed up articles instead of one. -- Shauri 22:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there some way to get him banned? Luis rib 22:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Page protection is pointless in the absence of substantive ongoing debate. I also note that at least one user among those whose edit warring seems to have provoked the protection of this page hasn't even made an edit on the talk page since March 9th, a good week before it was protected.

Unprotecting. Y'all be good now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article seems protected again. gidonb 10:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is the article still protected. Is there any debate going on indeed ? Lysy 11:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Military section

Again here, like in many articles on modern nation states, i think a section about the national defence forces is missing. We should not make the existence of such a section dependant on the real military power and its (non-)influence on the society of each state. Either, we put one in every state like in the article about the United States of America, or we leave them out altogether. At least all Western states should have such a section including manpower, speding, and, if the army is "interesting enough", a main article. Especially the Bundeswehr with its rather civilian attitude i.e. traditions and rethorics should be included and linked into this article.

How about a new map?

I have composed a much more informative map than the CIA map currently used on this page. Please consider its advantages:

• It names many more cities than the old map;
• It shows many more rivers, and names most;
• It names some geographical regions;
• Latitude and longitude are shown;
• It is quite a bit bigger (once you click on it);
• It marks and names Germany's highest and lowest points.

I would be less than honest if I didn't draw everyone's attention to the fact that my maps have stirred up controversy in some other articles, but I see that this article has had its share of controversies; so you're used to it. Feel free to say whatever you like about the advantages or disadvantages of either map. Kelisi 01:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

File:Germanymap.gif

Old on the left — new on the right. My apologies for the continual changes in the right map's size. Another user thinks I'm trying to hoodwink everybody by thumbnailing it, and reckons that no-one can figure out how to point and click. Yes, the map on the right is certainly much bigger, but that could be considered an advantage: bigger map, more room for information.

Alas, it seems clear that I can only resolve Jooler's objections like this: File:Germanymap.gif

There, now we can compare maps side by side, and see the big version at the same time. Kelisi 18:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too detailed to be usable as the main "thumbnailed" image, I think. But why not add it to Geography of Germany? That looks as if it's really in need of a good map, and what's more, I don't think it's currently Heimdal-proofed (hope I didn't just jinx that). Alai 01:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Alai!

But it's a good initiative, Kelisi! Ruhrjung 06:45, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Even better would be to convert it to png, which I think is the preferred format. --Stephan Schulz 14:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PNG version is now here (click for full size). --Stephan Schulz 10:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC):

The new map is almost comically pixellated—it looks like it is out of a NES video game. Surely we can do better than that, "more information" or not. --Fastfission 22:50, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you can do better, by all means post it here and let's have a look. Kelisi 23:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Kelisi,

great map you have. IMHO it's much better than the CIA version. But may I add some small corrections: The "Erz Gebirge" is normally called Erzgebirge in German (or Ore Mountains in English), the Böhmer Wald is normally called Bayerischer Wald, Hannover (Hanover) and Braunschweig (Brunswick) have english names. The lowest point in Germany is close to Itzehoe with -3,54 meter. And, maybe it's just regional patriotism, but somehow I miss the Eider River (historical border to Denmark), the Wadden Sea and maybe even the Harz. -- southgeist 22:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with respect to the Eider. It's historically significant. The Kiel Canal is of course relevant too, and maybe it would be too crowded to depict both of them. ...well, ahem... ...maybe the Kiel Canal is the most important anyway? :-)

--Ruhrjung 22:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm all for ditching the CIA smudges. Zeitgeist, as to the corrections, I ought to point out a few things. I have a map here at home which would have us believe that the Böhmer Wald and the Bayerischer Wald are two different places, with the former parallelling the Czech border and the latter a bit farther inside Germany, parallelling the Danube. Meanwhile, over on the Czech side, there are two names parallelling the Böhmer Wald: Český Les and Šumava. I'm a bit confused now as to what the local usage is. Do people in the region consider the Bohemian Forest to be part of the Bavarian Forest? I have to admit that writing Erzgebirge as one word seems "more German". As for Hannover and Braunschweig, yes I knew about the English names, but I thought that most people would guess that Hannover were the same as Hanover, and as for Braunschweig, the English name doesn't seem to be used nowadays, except when you say New Brunswick. As for Germany's lowest point, there is a contradiction in the Geography of Germany article. I took the point mentioned under "Elevation extremes" as accurate, and only noticed later that another point, the Wilstermarsch, is given as Germany's lowest point further down the page (and this after I'd ploughed through several websites trying to find out where the Freepsumer Meer was). Now you say it's Itzehoe? I see that's near Wilster. Is it the same place as the Wilstermarsch? Corrections are a bit tricky anyway. I can change the original .gif version, but not the .png version.

If we have a final version, I'll gladly reconvert it to PNG. I'm not really following this part of Wikipedia, so leave me a message. --Stephan Schulz 10:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The rivers are doubly problematic. The ones on the map come from the original base map from Online Map Creation. It would be a bit difficult to trace the Eider onto the map, although I suppose no more difficult than it was to trace the Kiel Canal, which wasn't on the OMC base map. Kelisi 23:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, Böhmerwald must be one word, as Böhmer- (unlike bayrischer) is not an adjective. But if other placenames are going to be in English, why not Bohemian Forest bzw. Bavarian Forest?--Doric Loon 05:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Wilstermarsch is "close to Itzehoe". It's the same point we're talking about. With the Eider; Ruhrjung is probably right, it would be too messed up and the Kiel Canal is definitely more important. The Böhmerwald is a bit more tricky. In German, the Böhmerwald is the whole mountain range in Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic. But different names are given to different parts of the whole range. The mountains in Austria are commonly called Österreichischer Böhmerwald (Austrian Böhmerwald), the mountains in the Czech Republic are just called Böhmerwald (or ''Šumava), and the German part of the range is called in most of its parts Bayerischer Wald and in some Oberpfälzer Wald. IMHO Bayerischer Wald is the most common of these names (since it's a tourist region and there is a national park Bayerischer Wald). So, I'm afraid, whatever you do, it will be kind of wrong :-( . -- southgeist 10:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have now made a few changes which I hope will improve the map. You will notice that the Wilstermarsch is now identified as Germany's lowest spot (I'll change the geography article to remove the contradiction), and I have made other suggested changes. Notice that Harz now appears on the map, but not the Wadden Sea. I couldn't quite see where to put that in. I have just consulted the Wadden Sea article, and it says there that the Wadden Sea stretches all the way along the coast to Esbjerg — in Denmark! Do you agree with that? I was sure it was the body of water between the West Frisian Islands and the mainland, possibly also including the waters between the East Frisian Islands and the mainland. Kelisi 17:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I surely agree about the Wadden Sea reaching till Esbjerg. I live on the coastline close to the North Frisian Islands and there is the Wadden Sea :-) But it's not really water and it's not really land. Sometimes its water and sometimes it looks like this. We have a German map about the national parks in tje German Wadden Sea. It's almost everything inside the white lines. -- southgeist 22:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right, point taken, but I don't really see how I can fit the name in there. It's quite a small space. Kelisi 03:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hallo

Vielleicht könntet ihr bei diesem Voting mitmachen Warsaw/Vote. Für ein Kreuz an der richtigen Stelle währe ich dankbar!--Schlesier 09:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Translation, so that everybody can share the fun: "Perhaps you can participate in this vote. I'd be grateful for a vote mark in the right position". Schlesier, translation by Stephan Schulz. The double entendre is introduced by the translation, but fitting. I'd suggest that someone also posts this to Talk:Poland for fairness, but seeing how the vote is going, that would be a waste of time. --Stephan Schulz 14:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Schlesier, jetzt kannst Du mein Kreuz an der richtigen Stelle sehen. Ich muß aber sagen, daß die ganze Sache ein bißchen doof ist! Warum würde man einer polnischen Stadt einen deutschen Namen auf Englisch geben? Kelisi 16:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) Schlesier, now you can see my cross in the right place. I have to say, though, that the whole thing is a bit stupid! Why would you give a Polish town a German name in English?

Tja, dein Kreuz ist eben nicht an der richtigen Stelle... Warschau ist keine "polnische" stadt (propaganda). Bevor Slaven in das Land kammen, war es von Deutschen bewohnt. Die Stadt war auch Teil Preußens. Ich hoffe dass sich andere Landsleute anders entscheiden als du...--Schlesier 18:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh, your cross actually isn't in the right place... Warsaw isn't "Polish" town (propaganda). Before Slavs came into the country, it was populated by Germans. The town was also part of Prussia. I hope that other Germans decide differently to you ...

Deine Unkenntnis der deutschen Geschichte is amüsant. Luis rib 18:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your ignorance of German history is amusing.

Ich befürchte eher, dass du der Nachkriegs-Propaganda der Allierten gegen Deutschland erliegen bist...--Schlesier 18:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I'm afraid you have fallen for the post-war Allied propaganda...

Lerne erst mal richtiges deutsch zu schreiben ehe du dich als deutscher Nationalist ausgibst. Luis rib 19:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Learn to write proper german before you call yourself a German nationalist.

Deine Aussagen sind unter meinem Nivoe. Du solltest Nationaldenken erlernen, dann können wir weiter reden--Schlesier 19:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are below my levvel. You should learn national thinking then we can carry on the discuassion

This is the English WP, so let the English speaking people figure this out! Discuss your nationalist fervor somewhere else, please! Awolf002 23:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is only one participant here displaying "nationalist fervor" and he is likely hypocritical. If you don't like seeing things in other languages, too bad for you.

Schlesier! Luis hat recht. Dein Deutsch ist scheußlich! Kelisi 14:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) Schlesier! Luis is right. Your German is awful!

Please stop posting in German, or the discussions will be deleted. RickK 04:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Übrigens Schlesier, Du sollst ja wissen dass die Verteidigung von Nazi-Standpunkte sowie Holocaustverleugnung höchst illegal in Deutschland ist. Mach weiter so, und dich wird bestimmt jemand mit deinem IP-Adresse bei der Polizei melden (wenn Du in Deutschland bist, natürlich). By the way Schlesier, you should know that defending Nazi views and holocaust denial is highly illegal in Germany. Keep it up, and someone will surely report you with your IP address to the police (of course, only if you're in Germany). -Jamyskis 10:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Schlesier is not a regular contributor to this page. So what's the fuss. - Heimdal 10:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm sure Mr. Schlesier is locked up in a prison right now for saying this, I love German "democracy" and "freedom of speech" absolutely love it!

Federal Assembly

Currently the term "Federal Assembly" is used within the article with two different meanings. Perhaps the translation could be changed to "Federal Electoral College" or something similar for the body which elects the President. It may be inaccurate, but some distinction must be made to differentiate the two bodies. Feldmarschall 13:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The second example should actually read "He is elected every five years by the Federal Convention (Bundesversammlung)". Anyone feel free to change it when the article happens to be unprotected! Saintswithin 14:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this page still protected? It has been protected for months, making it impossible to work on it. This is outrageous!

I have unprotected the page, two weeks is a bit excessive. I will, however, not hesitate to reprotect the article if the revert wars start up again. Happy editing everyone. Rje 21:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Help Needed

Could someone please keep an eye out for IP 83.109.xxx.xx - he/she doesn't seem to understand that we don't use terms like "Middle Germany", "Federal Republic of Germany" and "German Democratic Republic" in English - i have just had to revert West Germany again because of it. PMA 22:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was it Heimdal again? Thought he had enough to do with the History of Germany page, which he is currently "improving". Luis rib 22:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've mentioned it before, but "Cassell's Dictionary of Modern German History" uses "German Democratic Republic" ("the formal name of the East German state of 1949-90") as do Mary Fulbrook's "20th Century Germany" and "A concise history of Germany", and Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders Großwörterbuch Deutsch-English, 2004 gives the translation of "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" as "German Democratic Republic", with no mention of "East Germany". Please provide some proof that "we" don't use the name "German Democratic Republic" in English. Saintswithin 09:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the economic data from the first article!

I removed the first sentence of the last paragraph from the first section because the same thing - Germany's position as the world's third largest economy -is mentioned in the Economy section.

Harold--84.153.15.80 22:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

83.109.165.234 is now claiming on the West Germany talk page that i am a vandal - i'm tempted to block him. His edits to the West Germany page would have readers belive for example that the West German government proclaimed in 1949 was "the only legitimate and true German government" - POV in itself. He objects to any use of "East Germany" or "the two Germanys" on the Germany page as "communist POV"! He has a bizzare fetish for using GDR and FRG everywhere as well. PMA 08:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is just simply lies of the usual sort from PMA. See unvandalized and vandalized version here: [3]. I have never written "the only legitimate and true German government". This is a lie by PMA. The German government was proclaimed in 1949 (presented) as the only legitimate German government, this was the position of the democratic German government, and this is a historical fact, like it or not.

It is unacceptable that someone with zero knowledge of German politics and history is messing up articles on German topcis. It is also very disturbing that someone seems to claim that the Stalinist regime in occupied part of Germany should be a legitimate government and should be equated with the democratic government of Germany.

And yes, I insist on using the actual official English names. This is an encyclopedia, and if you don't accept that, you should get your own home page where you can use your colloquial slang and/or propaganda forms as much as you want. User:83.109.142.0 12:00, 16 Apr 2005

PMA version is better because it is much more neutral. --Hhielscher 10:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, the "Stalinist regime in occupier part of Germany" was accepted as a legitime government by many states. BTW, user 83.109.142.0 claims that East Germany was called Middle Germany by Germans. That's absolutely wrong. Middle Germany is a geographical term that refers, well, to the middle part of Germany, and by no means to the East. Luis rib 11:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've had similar troubles when they try to state that Bonn was the "provisional" capital of West Germany - while it may have been considered that, it's also POV, giving support to the view that the government in Bonn was the rightfull government of Germany as a whole. Just saying Bonn was the capital of West Germany should suffice. PMA 01:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact states (themselves Stalin-occupied)? LOL. This Stalin apologetism is unacceptable. Middle Germany is a geographical term with many meanings, among them the territory of the former SBZ.

NPD (Neonazi party) in the eastern states?

Do we have any mention of modern neonazi activity in Germany? The NPD managed to gain seats in a number of local elections last year in the former East. I feel that this would be of interest to readers of this article.

State politics of Saxony belongs in the Saxony article. And NPD is not a "neonazi" party, but a nationalist and populist anti-EU, anti-capitalist and anti-immigration party (they use the term national democrats) of the sort that also exists in Britain, France or Austria. Alleged similarities with national socialism may be described in the article dealing with the party, though.

I'm afraid the NPD is neo-nazi in many respects, and this is something that they've more or less openly admitted. There are other far-right parties (DVU, Republikaner) but the NPD is the one that the neonazis (basically the skinheads) flock to. -Jamyskis 10:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Jamyski is right. If the NPD is not neo-Nazi, I don't know what else is. But it should also be said that the NPD is a very small party. In no way is it comparable to the Front National of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France. Yes, I do think that right-wing extremism should be mentioned in the article. I would suggest the section on "Social issues". - Heimdal 10:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is deciding whether the word "neonazi" is loaded. If it is, then we have a problem, and the article Neonazism should be deleted immediately. While the party has never been "proven" to follow Nazi ideology, it is generally accepted that it does, and we should at the very least make a mention of the strong link between neonazi activity and the success of the NPD in Saxony. --Jamyskis 11:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the NPD would never admit that its ultimate goal is to abolish democracy in Germany and establish a new Nazi state. Because, otherwise, the party would be ruled unconstitutional and banned immediately under current German law. Regarding the terminology. I think that the word "neo-Nazi" is used specifically in US American media. Germans, on the other hand, may prefer the term "right-wing extremist", because it is less charged. - Heimdal 14:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the reason why everyone has a go at you. The idea (or in many people's eye, fact) that the NPD wants to get rid of democracy and reinstate a Nazi regime has never been proven - it is speculation and therefore POV. In fact, the accusation that they want a totalitarian state has rarely come up so this appears to be your point of view, no matter how much I agree with you. Incidentally, Neonazi is used in German more often than any other term, though "Rechtsradikalen" (radical right) is also in common use. Jamyskis 18:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh Germans should just shut up, they think everyone who says anything out mainstream thought is a Nazi. George Bush=Nazi, etc. Germans should stick to what their best at, Science, Classical Music and Business, they have no political sense whatsoever and certainly know little of democracy.User:24.141.214.87

Ridiculous generalizations such as these reflect a great political sense ... NightBeAsT 21:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the National Democratic Party (NPD) in the "Social issues" section. The numbers that I posted are by the German Interior Ministry. I suggest that we avoid the term "neo-nazi" here (too charged) and use the words "right-wing" or "right-wing extremist" instead. - Heimdal 16:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

sketch

I am a little surprised that the Weimar hyperinflation is not listed in the history of Germany, a land of culture (Goethe Bach Beethoven Brahms , etc.) with over 1000 years of civilization. To demonstrate that it is an essential point, I include it in the following sketch of history:

1. A central part of Holy Roman Empire
2. a new polity 19th century
3. political treaties leading to entanglements, leading to
4. World War I and the destruction of the political system of the land
5. punitive economic terms laid down by Treaty of Versailles 1919
6. hyperinflation during Weimar republic, which was then doomed by
7. destruction of savings of a thrifty populace
8. social unrest, leading to takeover by a leader who was a genius at voicing the feelings of the populace
9. World War II essentially the same war as WWI, but from another set of leadership.
10. defeat, but with reconstruction (the obverse of Versailles)
11. Economic miracle: steady gains due to thrift and steadiness of populace, which had to include guest workers to maintain productivity. Vigilance of the government about inflation.
12. Post-industrialization (falling population etc., but popular resentment of the guest workers, etc.)
13. Further integration into a stronger successor to the Holy Roman Empire, with projections of another long period of essentially positive civilization, but as a member of a global community with more migration etc.

I list these in a chain as a cautionary tale. The same sorts of events could happen in the land of the free and the home of the brave. It would be completely unfair to lay the blame for hyperinflation at the feet of Woodrow Wilson, but the popular demand for punitive terms certainly backfired. Ancheta Wis 05:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very valid point. Added minimally, please edit to taste... Alai 07:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More Heimdalisms

So the new strategy is if he can't disproportionately lengthen the history section, he'll selectively shorten it? What possible reason is there for completely deleting the paragraph on WW1 (which coincidentally or otherwise, I'd just reworked)? Alai 05:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverted from vandalism

Someone had apparently decided to use the article as their personal sandbox. Reverted it back to the most recent version. --Kross 22:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

East Germany/GDR

I did a search of the newsgroup archives from the 1980s and the overwhelming term used is East Germany not GDR. i have a feeling that "German Democratic Republic/GDR" is being used by many post facto to imply that that East Germany was not a 'real' country and unequal to West Germany - a POV that Wikipedia should not endorse. East Germany was the main informal term used in the English speaking world when the country existed and we should respect that fact PMA 13:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. In ENGLISH there may have been a preference for "East" and "West Germany", but THAT was POV, a post-war playing down of statehood. The Germans always preferred BRD and DDR. Mind you, in the 50s and 60s some West Germans did call the East "die Zone" - a historical piece of biased language use which is worth noting in passing. --Doric Loon 18:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi PMA, I've been leaving little notes on all the pages where this has come up, including this one, but here's another... perhaps "East Germany" is simply used more in the USA, as I don't have the same feeling about it as you? Anyway, once again: "Cassell's Dictionary of Modern German History" uses "German Democratic Republic" ("the formal name of the East German state of 1949-90") as does Mary Fulbrook's "20th Century Germany", and Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders Großwörterbuch Deutsch-English, 2004 gives the translation of "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" as "German Democratic Republic", with no mention of "East Germany".

I don't understand the point you make about the name GDR implying that the country was not a "real" one - surely using the official name actually confirms its official status? Is there a Wikipedia policy only to use the informal name, or can we use the official name too? Saintswithin 10:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Germany, East Germany was never known as Ost-Deutschland (the literal translation) but always as DDR (GDR). In France, RDA (GDR) was also the commonly used name for the country. West or East Germany were colloquilly used, just as America is colloquially used instead of USA. Luis rib 12:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean "in West Germany"? The German article says: In der BRD wurde die DDR anfangs und bis in die sechziger Jahre als Sowjetzone, Ostzone, Zone und als "die sogenannte DDR" bezeichnet. In other words, it was known in the FRG as the Soviet Zone, the East Zone and the "so-called GDR" until the 60s. This reflected the FR's refusal at first to recognise the GDR as a separate nation. It was only in 1972, in the Basic Treaty, that they recognised the GDR as a separate state, although not as a separate nation. I thought, until reading his remark above, that PMA was refusing to use the name GDR as he did not recognise it as a nation, the same as it was in West Germany in the 60s. Saintswithin 13:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My mistake: of course I meant West Germany. But still nowadays people in unified Germany refer to it as DDR (though never by the full name of Deutsche Demokratische Republik - as if it didn't deserve to have a full name), or simply as "the East". Concerning the current discussion, I don't mind keeping the name of East (and West) Germany, as indeed it was the most common in English, and this is English wikipedia after all. I just wanted to point out that the real official name was used quite a lot in Europe. BTW, West Germans used to refer to their country as Bundesrepublik (Federal Republic - see also how the Union and the Confederates called themselves during Civil war). Deutschland was, afaik, used to refer to the nation, West and East together. Luis rib 18:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nitpicking: We've hardly recognised Austria as a separate nation yet. East Germany could be recognized as a separate German state (similarly of the German nation) by increasing number of West Germans, but particularly for many non-Socialists there were mental blockings against giving up Bismarck's legacy and the idea of a unitary German state (although a hybrid-federation), since this seemed too much as turning the clock back to the disasters of the Thirthy Years War and the Napoleonic Wars. The dislike for Socialism and the bad experiences of totalitarism enhanced this tendency.

I agree with PMA. East and West Germany are the best known terms. No term is without bias-package. For instance "East and West Germany" carried the hope that Germany would be reunited, and now after the reunion it may even seem more natural to use these terms for that reason. But the important reasons to use "East and West Germany" is that this is easiest to understand for a English reader without in-dept knowledge. The formal official names ought of course to be mentioned prominently in the introductions to the specific articles on East and West Germany, but in texts in general the long names would give a too pompous style and the abbreviations would seem too cryptic.

When Europeans use the term German Democratic Republic, I'm convinced it carries not so little of either irony, disappointment, or Schadenfreude. Democratic it was least of all.

--Ruhrjung 14:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing against the use of "East Germany", I was just rather surprised to see that PMA had changed someone's use of GDR to "East Germany" with a note on the talk page telling them "we don't use GDR in English". I just presumed there was a political aspect to it - no doubt the result of living more than a decade in the ex-GDR! (Where what you call "nitpicking" was a matter of huge significance :-)) And I didn't realise the abbreviation would be so unknown, as it is certainly well-known enough in Britain.

Still, I don't see why there should be a general rule that people can not use GDR, even in articles about Germany. It doesn't cost a great deal of effort to write the full name once in parenthesis at the start, and people can after all click on the link if they are still confused. Actually banning the use of GDR does sound like a political statement. And people will continue to use it unknowingly, as they will find it in all good dictionaries and textbooks, so PMA will have his job cut out for him going around changing it... Saintswithin 19:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both West and East Germans predominantly used the term "DDR" (German Democratic Republic), denominating what in Anglo-Saxon countries was called "East Germany". The latter was not used at all by anyone in either of the two states, with the exception of politically conservative West German groups, who were referring to the former German territories located in what is now Poland and Russia, but not to the GDR. It was only after the reunification that "Ostdeutschland" slowly became one of the common terms for the eastern part of the new German state, hence for the then former GDR. This is a bit of a complicated issue with subtle nuances included and not really easy to cope with. For instance, while West Germans mostly called the East German state "DDR" and their own state "The Federal Republic" or "Germany", GDR officials called West Germany the "BRD" and their own state "DDR". This on the one hand reflects the attempts of West Germany to demonstrate their status as the legal successor of the German Reich, while labeling East Germany a de facto illegitimate, artificial state. On the other hand, the East German's inflationary usage of acronyms to describe both their own and the opposing western state (which was strongly influenced by the Soviet Union's abbreviation fetish) originated from their struggle for recognition and the claim to be completely separated and independent from, but at eye level with the nation's western part. Greetings from Germany ;) --InDepth

Let me put it this way: were the opposing parties in the American Civil War called "the North" and "the South"? Lars T. 22:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Both GDR and East Germany are acceptible, just as much as FRG and West Germany are. In a pre-90s encyclopedia you would expect to see "Federal Republic of Germany and "German Democratic Republic", but West and East Germany are de facto official terms as well. While naming conventions under Wikipedia go for the most well-known ("Bill Clinton" as opposed to "William Jefferson Clinton") as opposed to the official one, encyclopedias would generally name the official name and use a chosen short form thereafter - a better example in this case would be the UK. Do we name it "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain"? The official title is actually the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so the two names are different officially, but de facto they are one and the same. And what about Korea? Do we say "North Korea" and "South Korea", or "Democratic Republic of Korea" and "Republic of Korea"? We say both, and both are officially accepted, though the latter is the officially sanctioned term that would be the title of encyclopedic prose. In Germany it's the same - even during the times of the Iron Curtain, people in the West referred to the East in terms of "Im Osten" or "DDR", and likewise the East referred to the West as "der West" or "BRD" or more incorrectly "Bundesland". The curtain fell, and the colloquialism "DDR" fell with it, oddly enough "BRD" did too even though that is what remained. The point of this rather long and pointless post is that both titles should be mentioned once at the start as both are accepted with no POV, but one should be chosen to avoid over-repeating. --Jamyskis 10:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Pope

Is the pope (important as he no doubt is) really relevant enough to get his photo on the Germany page? There's a lot of excitement here in Germany about this election, but I think it will be a seven day wonder. What did strike me is that the article on the new pope has a dead link to the University of Regensburg. Why doesn't someone write that article (Regensburg is one of the few German universities we don't have an article on) and include the pope's photo THERE, as the most famous former professor. (All the necessary info is on the Regensburg University website!) --Doric Loon 18:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I think its bragging or something. I mean, the Poland article didn't have a picture of JPII, did it? --Kross 19:44, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the photo is overkill but I think it's relevant to say that "The current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, is German." and so I'm adding that one line. Moncrief 06:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Seven-day wonder? I live in Paderborn, probably one of the most Catholic cities outside of Bavaria and practically nobody batted an eyelid. Doesn't deserve a photo, just a link to his page. -Jamyskis 10:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Ich bin auch aus NRW ;). Perhaps nobody battered an eye in Paderborn. But elsewhere, the German pope has surely got a lot of attention. Even the Protestant media have reported extensively about it. - Heimdal 10:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It has been indeed extensively reported in the media (here in Paderborn too on Hochstift radio) but only because it is international news. The BBC wouldn't stop covering it for ages. So while the media was cooking up a frenzy about it, nobody else seemed to be too bothered except the most devoted Catholics and Gerd Schröder. --Jamyskis 11:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Bismarck?!

Bismarck and his wars that are the grounds for the Empire. He also settled peace for Europe till th end of his government. He was probably the most important politician at that time. His humilation of France is regarded by historians as a reason for the first World War. He prevented imperialism in Germany till the end of his reign. Not mentioning him and his wars is unacceptable.NightBeAsT 22:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Heimdal had added a section on Bismarck, but this was recently removed by User:Luis rib as part of the ongoing revert war which has made editing this page a complete waste of time. Go ahead and add Bismarck if you like, Nightbeast, but don't expect him to stay there! Saintswithin 06:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bah, I'm giving up on this page. Heimdal's appropriation of this page's content seems to have been tacitly accepted by editors. Too bad. I'll check on it periodically to see how much the damage is growing. Luis rib 17:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, is Luis rib right? Has everyone abandoned this page?

At the risk of it being too little, too late, I’ll give my opinion. The History section could stand to be shortened to a third of its current size, at a minimum! For it to remain this bloated on the main country page detracts from the proper History of Germany page and exhausts readers coming to the country page for a broad overview of the German state. I’d really like to see discussion started up again. --Infamouskitty 06:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've not been very active lately due to large doses of the dreaded "RL", but when I am I make a point of dropping in here, if only to shake my head sadly. The basic problem is that Heimdal's edits are article-worsening, but not "wrong"; and his behaviour is very tiresome, but not obviously sanctionable, so people feel unable, or demotivated, to try and do anything about him: or more to the point, simply give up after a while, while Heimdal steam-rolls on, "rebalancing" the article according to his own agenda, and arbitrarily messing around with the text wherever takes his fancy. However, if there's a consensus to remove his recent edits, I'll support it, and if anyone ever gets around to starting an RfC or mediation process, I'll participate. Alai 23:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Infamouskitty. The current history section should be merged with History of Germany and the history section here should be brought back to about one third of its present size. I do not have much interest in improving the article much myself, because of Heimdal's impossible behavior, but will help and endorse any process outside the page. gidonb 11:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge it with History of Germany? Unfortunately, Heimdal has also managed to increase that page to impossible lengths. Luis rib 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a newb here, especially when it comes to dispute resolution. What has to occur for this process to move forward? This was posted on the RfC page a while ago, but now what? Infamouskitty 00:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The article was, but that's simply to get comment on the article content, not on "user behaviour". The main reference is Wikipedia:Resolving disputes; in this case I'd imagine the next step would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Comment about individual users, or perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I'm not sure which would be the more useful at this point. Alai 00:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Do -it is necessary - Wikipedia:Requests for comment --ClemMcGann 01:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Nationaldenken

A little offtopic but...

Someone above mentioned Nationaldenken however there are very few English references on the meaning of it and the googleable german resources were mostly forums and slang. I get a little bit from the context but not enough to derive a formal meaning. Primarily its google is associated with Hitler, and indeed Hitler used the term but it seems to have several different subtleties and I think the direct literal english translation "national thinking" is flawed (perhaps "Nationalist thinking" or for most uses "National Socialist Thinking" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22national+thinking%22+german&btnG=Search) Anyone interested in giving a hand with this as an article?

Well, in germany this word is not very common and probably only used simmilar to the word nationalism. I found it not in this dictionary http://dict.leo.org/ --Ot 06:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Very difficult topic. "Nationaldenken" is very uncommon indeed. There only few words in German starting with National that are not associated more or less with Nationalism. de:Nationalgefühl (national feeling) = de:Nationalbewusstsein (national consciousness (and pride)) refers to historical affords to build one German state =>Romantic nationalism. de:Patriotismus is used sometimes. --Abe Lincoln 07:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

interwikilink os

A technical problem: Why is the interwikilink os:Герман not recognized as an interwikilink? This problem also occurs in the German wikipedia. It should lead here. --Abe Lincoln 12:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Nietzsche

I think Nietzsche deserves to be emphasized more in this article. --Orz

Nietzsche's work is in itself worthy of an article. It doesn't belong in this article save for a short mention and link. --Jamyskis 11:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Third Reich

I think the article focuses to much on the atrocities of the Third Reich. It would be better focused on how the Third Reich contributed to Germanys culture today, the Autobahn for example.

The Autobahns are older than the Third Reich. Lars T. 22:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The Third Reich didn't contribute much to german culture when you leave the atrocities aside. Most achievements were either myths or can hardly be seen as an achievement of nazi politics.

Examples: The autobahns were planned in the late twenties and only executed during after 1933. That under Hitler milions of jobless had work again was a result of the nazies starting to spent money regardless of income for infrastructure and rearmament. This however is not a specific achievement of the Third Reich but was policy in many countries with similar results (e.g. Roosevelts New Deal). The only specific thing different from most countries was that Reich spent the money on weapons in preparation of planned wars. Nevfennas 19:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)