Talk:Germany

Official Language

Germany has no official language to the best of my knowledge. Just like the US has none. Its de facto german but a motion to include german as the official language in the constitution failed to gather momentum., so de jure germany has no official language. http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2009-10/deutsch-grundgesetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.204.174.137 (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

German is the 'Amtssprache' which is to be used with any official correspondence and things like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.87.250.159 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

While - as far as I know - it is true, that the German constitution does not mention an official language, you will need it anyway if you want to communicate with the administration. There are (as in every county) many laws subordinary to the constitution, which may grant things the constitution doesn't forbid and forbid things the constitution doesn't grant. So most authorities are ruled to accept applications only in German. Of course there are exceptions, but not many. Trotzdem (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the German constitution does not mention a language. It seems to me, though, as if it were written in one, and I could imagine that fact might bear some meaning. --Caballito (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG ) Section 23 Amtssprache: (1) "Die Amtssprache ist deutsch." (The official langiage is German.) People wanting to put that in the Constitution (not just in the existing law) may have another agenda. --Boson (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

germany in middle europe

{{edit semi-protected}} in the first sentence the writer wrote that germany is in western europe but it's wrong, germany is in middle europe

Defo10 (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Germany is widely accepted as being part of Western Europe. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

but I'm a German and in the german page of germany was said that germany is in middle europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.62.19 (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

and my Geographie teacher said it too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.62.19 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the term "Middle Europe" is mainly used in English to refer to an older German concept of Mitteleuropa. Whether one regards Germany as part of Central Europe or Western Europe depends how you divide up Europe, which depends on the context. For the purpose of UN statistics, for instance, Germany seems to be treated as part of Western Europe (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe), but the CIA World Factbook gives Germany's location as central Europe (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gm.html). --Boson (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to edit the german perspektive we normally refer our selves as cenral european in geographcal terms and as a part of western europe if it is about political topics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.167.208 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

World War II

I would like to reopen a discussion on the inclusion of World War II into the first paragraph. Considering:

–The immense scale and violence of the conflict, its unprecedented global character and its wide-reaching effects,

–The war's indelible and ongoing mark on international affairs 70 years later, its shifting of the global balance of power, its transformation of Europe's political and social character,

–The war's precipitation of history's (arguably) most egregious organized genocide, and

–Germany's undeniable role in starting and leading the conflict,

it would probably be a good idea to include a half-sentence mention in the introduction of Germany's role in World War II. It's impossible to look at international affairs, the dynamics of European life today, or the power of the United States (just to name a few examples) without thinking about World War II. Germany is known for many great historical achievements, but this is one dark area of its existence that can't simply be ignored in a brief summary of its history.Atwardow (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I tried to make this point a few months ago but was shouted down. -- Alarics (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that unless someone vociferously objects, I will go ahead and make the addition.Atwardow (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't want to see Germany known as the country that killed millions of people, but I suppose if it's widely agreed to have this point included, I could live with it. However, if at all possible, I would like it to show that it was not Germany in general, but Adolf Hitler. Matthew.toffelmire (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As now worded by Atwardow, it says "the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler" so your point is surely met. -- Alarics (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly respect your concern, Matthew.toffelmire. That is why I hope that by mentioning Adolf Hitler, my edit will not be a universal indictment of the German nation. That itself is an issue of debate, however. Hitler did not act alone, but rather with the enthusiastic cooperation of millions. Adding a a mention of WWII is merely acknowledging the German responsibility for the war. Atwardow (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In general: The introduction has to reflect the article content as a whole. Right now the Culture of Germany for instance is not mentioned although it covers a large part in the article itself. Instead the History of Germany covers around 1/3 of the entire introduction. This seems already very long compared to the size of the History in the total article.

Please keep in mind that the History of German states, as it is presented so far, covers 2000 years. Please also keep in mind that no individuals of any period can be mentioned in the introduction in general, because the History of the STATE remains the significant focus.

The wording of the introduction needs therefore an amendment to ensure a non-personalized proportionate narrative. KarlMathiessen (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "murdered" should be replaced with "killed" in the third reich section. I understand this is a very emotional event for many but weasel words should not be acceptable even in conformance with popular sentiment. Executions are not implicitly murder, war is not inherently murder, and genocide is not intrinsically murder. But they are all killing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.225.65 (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wind farm figures no longer correct

The caption with the wind farm reads:

"The largest wind farm and solar power capacity in the world is installed in Germany."

The article is from 2008, and the stats they use are from 2006. The United States (see Wind power in the United States) at the end of 2010 is now approaching twice the wind capacity of Germany.

So, I'm modifying this claim. Ufwuct (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

some is missing...

I would appreciate in Literatur to see as third sentence: Influential authors of the 20th century include Thomas Mann, Bertolt Brecht, and Nobel Prize winners Hermann Hesse, Heinrich Böll, and Günter Grass.[131]

In section Music i miss some very popular and successful bands (if Tokio Hotel is named, who was founded 2001):

Sodom from Gelsenkirchen (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sodom_%28band%29), formed in 1981

Kreator from Essen (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kreator), formed in 1984

In section Sports should also table tennis named as popular sport. With Timo Boll (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Timo_Boll) plays the best european player in the Bundesliga, with is one of the top leagues in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.239.173 (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In the audio file, the pronunciation sounds more like Bundesrepublig than Bundesrepublik. Is it only me or would any fellow German agree? --91.89.230.62 (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your are right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.213.226 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The pronunciation is right - because of the word-final devoicing/final obstruent devoicing (Auslautverhaertung) in German. --U-bahnsurfer (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought the comment was complaining that the 'k' of Bundesrepublik was (erroneously) being voiced. --Boson (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Please delete the insulting entries on the right side under "iso"...

Please delete the insulting entries on the right side under "iso"... Lamasshu (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific?--Boson (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? I have no idea what you mean. 91.89.230.62 (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Population rank

according to List of countries by population germany has the 14th highest population worldwide not the 15th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.216.102.110 (talk) 12 February 2011

For comparisons and ranking, it is often appropriate to use the same source for all countries involved. If the UN figures for 2010 are used, Egypt has a larger population than Germany. Using figures from different sources, as done at List of countries by population, switches the order of Germany and Egypt. --Boson (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic article

Germany is part of Central Europe According to German Brockhaus Encyclopedia and English Britannica Encyclopedia and CIA World's factbook.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldka (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this before ... In modern geopolitical terms it is regarded as being in Western Europe, but as a matter of pure geography it also at least partly includes some of what was historically regarded as Central Europe. The plain fact is, there is no hard and fast dividing line, and Germany is in both, so I have amended the intro accordingly. -- Alarics (talk) 09:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request Removal of Ethnicity section in information box.

{{Edit semi-protected}}

The information in the section Ethnicity of the information box is false and misleading. It should be removed. See this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spanish_people#Number_of_Spanish_people_in_Spain and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grondolf for more information. --Grondolf (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

the information is important-- Germans discuss it all the time--and comes from a reliable source. The data matches other RS, such as the Statesman's Year Book. If the critic has some alternative statistics from a Reliable Source then that can also be included, but no alternative has been offered. Wikipedia is all about verifiability from Reliable Sources (RS). Grondolf is not proposing better information--he seems to be proposing no information on this important topic.Rjensen (talk) 13:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the source and see the talk pages I linked to, you will see that the source is in fact for citizenship. The data matches other places where it talks about citizenship/nationality which isn't the same as ethnicity. According to the Wikipedia definition of ethnicity the percentage is wrong. Please provide a source where it states the percentage of ethnic Germans in Germany. I agree the information is important, but since there is not a source because the German government doesn't keep track of ethnicity, are you suggesting that it is better to have wrong information than none at all? That is pointless and misleading. The Y in "change X to Y" is to remove the section or at least rename it to citizenship instead of ethnicity. This is an issue across many articles for European countries--Grondolf (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have still not found the original source of this number, but as Grondolf points out, in the case of other countries the CIA WFB does indeed use statistics for citizenship and then wrongly claims this is about "ethnicity". The CIA WFB does not specify what it means by "ethnically German" or "ethnically Greek" nor where it obtained its data. I have lived in Germany for 20 years, and I'm quite sure I never had anyone from the CIA visiting me to investigate what ethnicity (however defined) I have, so they must be relying on the data from other sources, most likely the Statistisches Bundesamt. --Johanneswilm (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Numbers for supposed "ethnic Germans" is highly dubious -- percentage of German citizens in Germany according to Statistisches Bundesamt is (1-6695/81904.0)*100% = 91.8% [1] while the supposed number of "ethnic Germans" is 91.5% according to the CIA. The percentage of Turkish citizens is (1658/81904.0)*100% = 2.0% [2]. Most likely the CIA just copied these figures and made some calculation errors and then additionally put a label "ethnic whatever" on them without specifying what that means. At any rate, the CIA figure is not referenced and "ethnic German" is not defined (according to language? genetic? culturally?) nor is it specified how people with ancestors from both Germany and Turkey are classified, so I'll go ahead and delete that figure again. If you find a reliable source which defines what it means by "ethnic German", please feel free to add it again. You will however not find such a source, as ethnicity for people living in Germany is not kept track off by any institution. --Johanneswilm (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

These numbers appear to be sourced and seem more accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Germany#Ethnic_groups 81% as of 2005. However, I followed the link to a German government website and the information wasn't there. It would be interesting to have a figure from the German government if it does keep that statistic but I can't find it. By the way the figure didn't get deleted. Maybe it's protected or something or user Rjensen restored it again, if that's the case you might be accused of vandalism, so maybe you should wait until a more senior editor intervenes, even if Rjensen's claims are factually wrong and the source is wrong too. --Grondolf (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Those appear to be the same numbers that I found above. In them there is only a category of "people with migration background" and a category of "foreign citizens". "People with migration background" are defined as: "All people who moved to the current area of the Federal Republic of Germany after 1949, as well as all those with foreign citizenship born in Germany and all those who were born in Germany who have at least one parent who was either born as a foreign citizen in Germany or who immigrated to Germany." (my translation)[3] In other words, this does not correspond with Wikipedia's definition of Ethnic Germans. The CIA figures are therefore both wrongly labeled and misleading. I will therefore now delete this section once again. Please find numbers that correspond to the definition of Ethnic Germans if you want to reinclude them. --Johanneswilm (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, I agree.--Grondolf (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Crystal ball

This is getting a bit silly. The population forecast is very sourced and does not breach WP:CRYSTAL. Saying that the world population will exceed X billion by 20XY is crystal balling. Saying that W predicts that the world population will exceed X billion by 20XY, isn't. It's just citing a forecast. Once the body giving the forecast is respectable - which is ostensibly the case here - and the opinion is sourced - which is also clearly the case - it's acceptable. Verifiability does not mean that have to be able to verify the future population of Germany; just that the forecast's authorship can be verified. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The forecast should not be removed again without discussion on the Talk page leading to consensus.--Boson (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Boson and Blue-Haired Lawyer. Rjensen (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please consider, that the forecast is not a simple projection on current trends. It deliberately includes several scenarios on net income migration. Net migration is dependent on many factors, the most important being political decisions. The forecast method should be seen not only as crystal balling but also as gambling. Its not reliable and therefore should not considered to be part of the article. KarlMathiessen (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

KarlMathiessen has been aggressively hostile to the other editors in erasing their work with no reasonable cause. He rejects Wikipedia policies and shows an ignorance of demography--which he calls "gambling". Rjensen (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

KarlMathiessen's objection would be relevant if Wikipedia were forecasting future population. However, we are merely reporting the forecasts made by the Statistisches Bundesamt, the relevant federal authority. Demographic forecasts are noteworthy, particularly in relation to Germany, where the issue is widely discussed. There is no reason to doubt the methods used, with different detailed predictions broken down by age and sex based on various assumptions regarding net migration; even if there were, that would not be relevant to the decision to include the predictions, which are important in their own right. It would, of course, be interesting to consider the likelihood of the various assumptions being realized - but not here. --Boson (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, right now the forecasters in Germany are not even able to produce valid numbers for the next years. I was always sceptical about these demographic figures. Kantianer (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

City table

The only reason I reverted changes to the city list was because it replaced the names of German regions written in English with abbreviations with which few readers would be familiar. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The older template had several advantages compared to the new one: It didn't emphasize the states, which have nothing to do with urbanized areas in the first place. The city pictures were larger and easy to read. The list character did enhance the comparability and was easy to read as well as everyone can. KarlMathiessen (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FA concerns

This article was promoted in 2007, but has changed greatly since then, and I have some concerns. The article fails WP:Summary style, especially with the extra long history section. Some areas seem underdeveloped, such as the geography section. Additionally, sourcing doesn't seem that well done, and in some cases entire paragraphs are unsourced. I think there also exists a problem with way too many pictures being included. Each level 3 section should probably only have one. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

General issues

• The lead has sources not present in the rest of the article, suggesting it is presenting new information and therefore not being a summary of the article.
• History section clearly fails summary style. In addition, a fair number of paragraphs in history are unsourced.
• Geography section is shockingly undersourced.
• There is basically no information about the administrative divisions. Just an unsourced sentence and an unsourced list.
• Climate has just one citation.
• 3/4 paragraphs in biodiversity are uncited.
• Environment section seems to be slightly promotional, as well as half unsourced.
• The Politics, government, and law sections are almost unsourced.
• Half of military unsourced
• Much of Energy unsourced
• Unsourced statistics in demographics section
• Media has two small pointless unsourced paragraphs.
• Some writing seems promotional, eg. "Germany has established a positive reputation around the globe. (Claudia Schiffer, model)"

This is just an overview of major issues. Generally there is a massive lack of sourcing. Compounding upon this is the general length of the article. Note FAC "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents." The table of contents here is, well, overwhelming. Considering I posted this about 3 weeks ago and nothing has happened, I'll open a FAR soon. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What does FA mean ? Kantianer (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Shorthand for "Fine article", which is the highest rank of quality in wikipeida articles. This article currently has this status. Check WP:FA for more detailed criteria etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Addressing FA concerns

I agree with many of the concerns raised at the Featured Article Review, in particular that there are far too many images (and other media). If we want to keep FA status, I suggest we address the concerns, starting with a massive cull of the images, many of which are not particularly illustrativce of the text. Anybody else support that?--Boson (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Also the article is way too long, and the references are a mess. -- Alarics (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

bordering countries

France borders the south-west corner of Germany, France does not lies west or Germany, but south-west of it. The western German border is consituted with Belgium and Netherlands, not by France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Geography" section already has more detailed information about Germany's land borders, including stating that "Germany shares borders with [...] France and Luxembourg in the south-west". I would say that for brevity the use of just north, east, south and west in the opening section suffices. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 14:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Chapter: Military

Citation: "Military service is compulsory for men at the age of 18." Currently, this rule is suspended. Officially, the "Wehrpflicht" ends on July 2011. --84.133.154.34 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is changing currently. But we should probably wait and see, how that ends. There are a lot of sceptical voices, who claim, the Bundeswehr won't be able to uphold it's numbers with the current concept. I am betting, this will change 1 or 2 more times before the issue is settled. Maybe add a small note, that the rule is suspended and under current political discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that has to be changed completely, because "Currently, this rule is suspended." That's more than just a small sidenote and Wikipedia does not utilize your own interpretations of "what will come in the future". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.237.150.52 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Classification Of The German

Perhaps some mention should be made of the upcoming technological research that will allow biometric identification of the German for future reference. Frequently illegitimate Germans may bear deceptively western names.

68.84.25.148 (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Admiral Electric

What do you mean? 86.150.194.120 (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ban on Nazi symbols

Discussion of Nazism banned in Germany

Could someone please add a section regarding government's ban of nazi symbols, discussion of the party, etc. Seems to be conveniently left out... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob0010 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no ban on discussion of the party. I presume you are referring to sections 86 and 86a of the German Criminal Code, which prohibits the use and dissemination of Nazi symbols. There is no reason to include this in the main Germany article. --Boson (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Article gone ?

The whole article seems to be erased. What happened ? Please repair. Kantianer (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article does not appear to be erased, nor do I see any vandalism in the edit history. Is it there for you now? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has been vandalised all the informative images are deleted! Kent (talk 10:45, 15.04.2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.149.143 (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Informative images like this one? --Boson (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Or this picture of some bookshelves? --Boson (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The articles has lost completely its value. Please change to the former version of the last week ASAP. Kantianer (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)