Talk:Germany

• /archive1
• /archive2
• /archive3

---

"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 (UTC)

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 care 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)

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...

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 and 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 Wikiprojects? 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 ? Wojsyl 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)

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 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)

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.

Local politics of Saxony belongs in the Saxony article. And NPD is not a "neonazi" party, but a nationalist party (they use the term national democrats). Alleged similarities with national socialism may be described in the article dealing with the party, though.