Talk:Germany

Switch picture of president with picture of chancellor

The picture of president Köhler should be changend to the picture of chancellor Merkel, since she is the head of government and the president mostly has representative status. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angela_Merkel_%282008%29.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.206.18.218 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We have her depicted in the section Foreign relations. The president is the head of state. A picture of the head of state should not be missing from any country article. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The chancellor is the highest ranking politician in Germany and her picture should be shown at this place. Current Foreign Mininster is Guido Westerwelle. Please check the facts and change this. (--62.206.18.218 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Checking the facts, I found that the president is the highest ranking person in the German state. What are you trying to say about Westerwelle? Tomeasy _{T C} 20:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The chancellor ranks third. --Boson (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the chancellor is the third ranking politician in order of precedence, but also the most powerful. So i think a picture of chancellor Merkel should be shown in the article too. 84.176.222.102 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All this was said or answered above. The article already contains a picture depicting Ms Merkel. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

Under Religions in Germany: there are 165,837 Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany; why aren't they mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.180.231 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There are very many Christian denominations of similar size, which are not mentioned explicitly. Actually, only Catholics and Protestants are mentioned and Jehova's witnesses are subsumed among Protestants. Is this highly inappropriate? Te reader who wants to know more can follow the main link to Religion in Germany. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jehova's Witnesses

Under Religions in Germany: there are 165,837 Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany; why aren't they mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.180.231 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this is because they are treated as a Christian denomination and account for less than 0.25% of the population. There is probably an argument for including them in the main article Religion in Germany, but this article would get rather long if we included all such Christian denominations and went into the same level of detail on other topics. --Boson (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

The percents given for the ethnic groups are not correct (in particular: 2.4% Turkish)? The Turks_in_Germany page states that, there are over 4,000,000 Turks in Germany, while including those of ancestral descent. From other resources I've seen, I believe this number to be accurate. With a population of less than 82 million in Germany, it is clear that over 2.4% of the population belongs to the Turkish ethnic group. (and probably in reality at least around 5%). I suggest that the given percents be deleted until an accurate source is discovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.175.245 (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Natural resources

While reading the text I observed that the Geography section contains almost no information regarding natural resources such as minerals. This is an important part of Geography; therefore I propose adding the following text (copied from Economy of Germany):

Natural resources

The German soil is relatively poor in raw materials. Only lignite (brown coal) and potash salt (Kalisalz) are availabe in significant quantities. Oil, natural gas and other resources are, for the most part, imported from other countries.

The potash salt deposits are a result of the drying up of the Zechstein sea, which 250 million years ago covered large parts of North and Central Europe. Potash salt is mined in the center of the country (Niedersachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt and Thüringen). The most important producer is K+S AG (formerly Kali und Salz AG).

Germany's bituminous coal deposits were created more than 300 million years ago from swamps which extended from the present-day South England, over the Ruhr area to Poland. Lignite deposits developed in a similar way, but during a later period, about 65 million years ago. Due to the fact that the wood is not yet completely transformed into coal, brown coal contains less energy than bituminous coal.

Lignite is extracted in the extreme western and eastern pars of the country, mainly in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Sachsen and Brandenburg. Considerable amounts are burned in coal plants near to the mining areas, to produce electricity. Transporting lignite over far distances is not economically feasible, therefore the plants are located practically next to the extraction sites. Bituminous coal is mined in Nordrhein-Westfalen and Saarland. Most power plants burning bituminous coal operate on imported material, therefore the plants are located not only near to the mining sites, but throughout the country.

Could someone please consider inserting this (if you think it's a good idea; I'm new here so I may have understood something wrong, but I believe this suggestion is OK.) Tropical wind (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Image layout

Observation: The image layout does not comply with WP:MOS. There should never be text in between two images. There can only be an image on one side. Please fix so this doesn't get delisted from FA. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"There should never be text in between two images." What do you mean? Can you link to the relevant subsection of MOS? Tomeasy _{T C} 21:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.183.16.99, 26 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It says that Germany adopted the euro currency in 1999, which is not the case, I was in Germany over New Years 2000/2001 when they adopted the euro.

209.183.16.99 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

Depends what you mean by 'adopted';

The currency was introduced in non-physical form (travellers' cheques, electronic transfers, banking, etc.) at midnight on 1 January 1999, when the national currencies of participating countries (the eurozone) ceased to exist independently [...] The changeover period during which the former currencies' notes and coins were exchanged for those of the euro lasted about two months, until 28 February 2002. The official date on which the national currencies ceased to be legal tender varied from Member State to Member State. The earliest date was in Germany where the mark officially ceased to be legal tender on 31 December 2001

From Euro#Introduction_of_the_euro.

I'll see if I can add a reference for it though. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your New Year's trip to Germany was probably 2001/02, when Euro notes and coins substituted their DM equivalents. The non-physical migration happened 3 years earlier. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

After some research, I've added this.  Chzz  ►  17:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The extended new version about the euro introduction does not sound elegant. The previous shorter sentence was more concise I think. KarlMathiessen (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But it missed a very important point: People did not touch the new currency before 2002. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess the detailed circumstances of the Euro introduction are covered in the History. As I understand the article-intro it should be very condensed to the important facts, but nothing more. KarlMathiessen (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to add fact to international ranking section

{{editsemiprotected}}

I request to add a specific information to the international ranking section.

A table showing the situation of the Global Press Freedom for 2010 was recently released as a ranking on freedomhouse.org.

Accodring to the Freedom House’s annual report for 2010, Germany is ranked on position 19 together with Estonia.

With the help of this report an informative overview is given, in which countries the freedom of press is free, partly free or not free.

Freedom Of The Press 2010

Mischen (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 DoneSpitfire19 (Talk) 20:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of passive voice in summary of Holocaust deaths

This article uses the passive voice in describing the 17 million deaths attributed to the Holocaust. This construction may be ambiguous or misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnlandry (talk • contribs) 11:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate further what you object. I do not get your point. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, could you explain what is ambiguous and/or misleading. The only sentence I can see that uses the passive voice in this context is "About seventeen million people were murdered during the Holocaust . . .", which seems to be an entirely appropriate, unambiguous and non-misleading use of the passive voice. I suppose you could replace it with the active "About seventeen million people died during the Holocaust", which would be equally unambiguous (though different). As I see it, in the original sentence, the use of "during" might be ambiguous, misleading, or incorrect - but not the use of the passive voice. --Boson (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he would like a statement such as "The Germans killed 17 million during the Holocaust." The passive voice may imply that the crimes were not committed by the Germans but, simply, in their country. Although I can't imagine that anyone would find the original statement to be misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.34.96 (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly that's what was meant, but it has nothing to do with the passive voice. In a statement about the deaths, rather than the Germans, the passive is quite appropriate, possibly adding "by the Germans", but that would probably be more than misleading if a few of those millions were murdered by people other than Germans, so we would need some statistics about who committed the murders. --Boson (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Passive voice in an excellent solution here for the issue you mentioned. "The Germans" would be a very bad solution. Did all Germans kill all 17 million, or did some Germans kill most of the 17 million? Not only would such a phrase be bad style, it would bring all the POV discussions that we do not want to have. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have another problem with this sentence: To me, Holocaust means foremost the genocide on the Jews, the killing of about 6 million people. I know that it is sometimes used to refer to other genocidal acts and war crimes committed on civilians as well. However, this usage is by far less common and also less clear (as to what kind of acts are included). Hence, I think that we should reserve the term Holocaust to what it is usually used for. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo

"from a Gallic term for the peoples" should be "people" Abdulshafy (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

1937 borders

@Tomeasy, re this. Actually Lysy was very wrong in 2 respects. 1: the year 1937 was chosen specifically for a purpose, which is why we, just as everybody else does, should use it. and 2: 1919 has nothing to do with the external borders of the map.

1. In the London protocol of December 12th, 1944 the Allies decided that; "For occupational purposes, Germany will be divided into three zones, within her borders of December 31st 1937, to each of which one of the three powers will be assigned, as well as a special zone for Berlin, which is governed by the joint occupation of the three powers". (France was added at Yalta) The choice of the 1937 date is itself twofold.

a. this way they could somehow ignore the legally binding Munich Agreement of 1938 and also negate the right to self determination of the Sudetenland-Germans, thus forcing them to come under Czech domination again. (however brief, since most of them were ethnically cleansed thereafter.)

b. the 1937 borders do not correspond to the 1919 borders.

2. Germany did not have a fixed external border in the years 1919 - 1937, as your edit implies.

• The Free City of Danzig was created in 1920.
• The Area of Soldau was removed to Poland in 1920
• The Memelland was put under Allied (French) Administration in 1920 and allowed to be annexed by Lithuania in 1923
• The East Prussian plebiscite did not take place until 1920.
• The Schleswig Plebiscites also took place in 1920.
• The Upper Silesia plebiscite did not take place until 1921.
• For the sake of curiosity we can also note that the Saar (League of Nations) was under occupation by the French, and then ruled by Britain and France from 1920 to 1935. (Note also that the independent Saar (protectorate) that lasted until December 1956 was larger than the pre-war one, since France had annexed to it parts of the Rhineland etc.

So in theory, for the sake of encyclopedic accuracy you should write the rather meaningless 1921 - 1937, and even that is probably wrong as there may be some later border modifications beyond my list. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Stor stark7 is right on this, I have removed "1919" accordingly. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are of course right. I got somehow on the wrong track, because by your edit, I thought you misunderstood Lysy as if he wanted to call the map 1939 border instead of 1919. Since this was not the case, I acted to fast and forgot about the many territorial changes you mentioned above that indeed make a difference, and you are right that it is for this reason that the allies (and all text books) specifically talk about 1937 borders. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

President

The infobox sais that Horst Köhler is a member of the CDU. That's wrong. He was a member of the CDU and when he leaves office he surely will become member of the CDU again. But as long as he is President, he is no member of any political party. --Harald Meier (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that his party affiliation should be removed from the infobox; as head of state in a parliamentary democracy, he is above party politics. His membership is dormant while he is in office. His (currently dormant) membership of the CDU should be mentioned in his biography, but not in the infobox for the president of Germany.

• "Lebenslauf von Bundespräsident Horst Köhler" (in German). Retrieved 2010-05-17. Horst Köhler, evangelisch, ist verheiratet mit Eva Luise Köhler. Sie haben zwei Kinder. Er ist seit 1981 Mitglied der CDU. Die Mitgliedschaft ruht während der Amtszeit als Bundespräsident.

--Boson (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace the current photo of Horst Köhler by File:Koehlerhorst08032007.jpg which is both more recent and used on the German wikipedia site on Horst Köhler. 78.55.245.125 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't. I think, we are better of with the professional and formal picture we are currently having than the snapshot you proposed. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Demographics in Germany: Ethnic Groups

The article in Wikipedia entitled "Demographics in Germany" states that 81% of the country's population is descended from indigenous (non-immigrant) inhabitants. However, the infobox for this article states that 91% of the German population is ethnically German. This presents a discrepancy. As per the aforementioned article, 91% have German citizenship, supposedly, but this in no way implies that 91% are ethnically German. Also, Germany, like France, does not collect or retain information on the population regarding ancestry, so how can we derive any figure at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.34.96 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Germany collects some information about ancestry, see: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrationshintergrund -- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.216.98.205, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The part about the government isn't right. I'm German and the chancellor, Angela Merkel, is the head of state not Jens Böhrnsen. She has the main power and she is from the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) which has in a coalition with the FDP the power. Please change that.

85.216.98.205 (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The head of state of Germany is the president, not the chancellor. Being head of state does not necessarily involve wielding any power. Algebraist 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way: The link Head of state should be replaced with President of the German Bundesrat or even better Head of state. --Harald Meier (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

New Map

The new map.

Hello everyone. I created a new map for Germany. A lot of big countries using orthographic projection maps. I think we should use it in Germany too. I hope you share the same idea and enjoy this map. Also there is red, black and flag versions. In order to be harmonious. Have a good day.  The Emirr Disscussion 19:47, 06 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you have been doing, but your map is not an orthographic projection as is claimed by the title. Compare it to other maps that are used on Wikipedia (e.g., for the EU) and, I hope, you will find lots of things to improve. An orthographical projection shows exactly half of the globe's surface.

Assuming that Emirr will be able to provide the orthographical map with the quality we are used to, we should discuss the question whether we endorse using them. I am open to such a change, because it would improve consistency of the locator maps being used on Wikipedia while more and more countries use this type. 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think this is not a orthographic projection?  The Emirr Disscussion 11:19, 07 June 2010 (UTC)

"Compare it to other maps that are used on Wikipedia (e.g., for the EU) and, I hope, you will find lots of things to improve. An orthographical projection shows exactly half of the globe's surface." Tomeasy _{T C} 07:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion dozens of times before, and the current map has become the de facto standard for all European country articles. An orthographic projection is not particularly suitable for Europe's smaller countries, so in my opinion, we should stick with the existing style consistently. Also, The Emirr, your map is highly simplified and does not portray particularly accurate borders for Germany. Hayden120 (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall different discussions on the locator map, but not a discussion whether to use the new style (i.e., orthographical) that is currently used for larger territories. If I am mistaken here, please Hayden, provide a link to the discussion you mean.

I am not neccessarily for this change, but I think it is a valid question to bring up. A neccessary condition, however, is that we can dispose over a high quality map, which is currently not the case. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There have been various discussions for all kinds of maps... but I can't think of any significant ones for the orthographical style (except a few small ones here and here, but I'm sure there are more across Wikipedia). Regardless, what we have now is a relatively stable result that is finally uniform – after years of inconsistency – across Europe-related articles. If it isn't broken, why fix it? Hayden120 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

request for something better , less superficial , then the reference to claudia schiffer ...

... request for something better , less superficial , then the reference to claudia schiffer ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wernergerman (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Davidscoville, 13 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the title "Government," starting with "The President--currently vacant,..." says "of state ist Jens Böhrnsen." "Ist" should be changed to "is" . Davidscoville (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Favonian (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Frigate

There is a discussion on the Frigate article which editors here may be interested in. 88.106.74.159 (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)