Talk:Germany

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)

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 "FineFeatured 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) Whoops, Featured Article, not Fine article Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:40, 16 April 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)

I agree to some extent with the notion of lacking references. Addressing the problem should be welcomed. I don´t share the concerns of too many images. The illustration of the Germany article was rather a strength than a weakness. During the process of review major illustration have been culled, for instance Bismarck, Luther, The head of state (Wulff) and many more. This has lowered the quality and is not convincing. The length of the article was about average it seems, when compared to articles with the same scope (nations). KarlMathiessen (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Germany was not average at all. It was/is the sole FA country with a TOC which extended beyond the screen of my computer, and few others get close. Before the latest batch of edits began, it had the most fantastically bloated history section out of all FA countries. The History section still covers 5 lengths of my screen, the largest of any FA country articles. Before the latest batch of edits, it had 8 culture subsections, 6 demographic subsections, and at least four in every other section (I'm not going to mention History again), whereas some other FA country articles in fact have no subsections at all. The only remotely comparable FA country article is Belarus. So please, don't say it is average without actually doing anything to check. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. What is being overlooked by people who keep adding stuff back in is that this article is supposed to be an overview, and the various sections are supposed to be only short *summaries* of what appears (or should appear) in full detail in the "Main articles" (Politics, Economy, etc.). -- Alarics (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The articles dealing with nations seem to be inevitably larger because of the multifaceted scope. The Germany article "did" (over the last months and probably longer) compare in length with Russia, France, United States, China, Italy, UK, Poland and many others. The process of review so far has neglected the importance of having a comprehensive nation article. The process of review did not address the lack of sources, which was the most pressing issue. Instead article has rather collapsed and got deconstructed. This is not convincing nor desirable, nor does it serve the articles quality. If there is a fundamental contradiction in having a complete, normally sized nation article and the FA status, I´m more convinced of the first option. KarlMathiessen (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

As good as Russia, which was recently demoted in part because it was too long? Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I said the scope of a nation article obviously demands other dimensions. Many other articles could be cited like Sweden etc. etc. If the widespread defacto nation article average size can´t get in line with FA preconditions, so be it. BTW, I find it interesting that certain authors seem to be keen to only cut the content without transferring it to subarticles. I found it also very interesting, that nobody addresses the real weakness of the article, the lack of references, means to find evidence of the so far unreferenced. As much as I find it interesting I find it not convincing or constructive. KarlMathiessen (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

One very practical reason for not having articles this long is that they are very slow to load. If readers find that an article takes so long to load that they give up waiting, it will surely discourage them from using Wikipedia again. -- Alarics (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if some of the removals were too hasty and could have used more discussion (no disagreement here), re-inserting the disputed content and images without addressing stated concerns on the talk page and while the actual discussion is still ongoing, is just as unconstructive. If editors can't agree, what should be done with the article, it will fail FA. GermanJoe (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have personally never noticed the different quality levels in Wikipedia articles as a normal consumer. The whole "FA" debate, which I´m not an expert of, has made this article worse. The consequences up to now have deteriorated the amount of information and the design dramatically decreased. The whole article feels empty and does not represent the modern Germany. Kantianer (talk) 10:02, 19 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)

Making a large-scale revert like that would be inappropriate, given the improvements that have been made in the past week - even if you disagree with some changes. Is there something in particular you feel is missing from the current version of the article? See also the Featured Article Review (linked at the top of this page), where it was pointed out that the article contained too many images and too much detail for a summary article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Improvements ? The whole article has been overthrown. The removal of more than half of the pictures is vandalism not improvement. Grüße aus Hamburg Kent Kent 17:20 15.04.2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.134.43 (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is only supposed to be an overview. All the detail should go in the separate subarticles, of which the sections in this article should be only summaries. -- Alarics (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Germany article here had an even better layout than the deeutschland lemma. All of the images should be kept.Kent 12:02, 17.04.2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.134.43 (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Image discussion - request for arguments

Obviously there are different opinions, how to handle images in the Germany article and which images should be included and which not. Maybe some exchange of arguments will be helpful to find a solution, everyone (or atleast most editors) can live with. I'll start with some comments based on actual article version:

• "Germanic tribes and Frankish Empire" 170px-Nebra_Scheibe.jpg should be replaced with the tribe migration map. The existing picture is pretty and all, but the migration map provides far more insight within the given context of "tribes".
• "Holy Roman Empire" - OK, though the crown is a bit decorative.
• "German Confederation and Empire" - The Versailles foundation picture should go (also the caption is misleading, foundation of "modern" Germany only in the most general meaning of the word. After 2 World Wars the German Confederation has little in common with todays Germany).
• "Weimar Republic" - OK
• "East and West Germany" - OK
• "Berlin Republic and the EU" - The Euro-image is just awful (sorry to the contributor). Is the actual period really best represented by some banknotes, which add no additional value to the text? We should try and find a better suiting image for the Berlin Republic.
• "Geography" - OK (i like the map)
• "Climate", "Biodiversity", "Environment" - we should stick with 1 image per section (no preference, which). The article is not meant to be a tourist guide or a picture gallery.
• "Politics" with all respect to the presidential office, the image of President Wulff should go. He hasn't achieved much (yet) and is not notable enough (yet) to be included here - in some years another one will take his place (or should we switch the image every few years?).
• "Foreign relation" - 3 images are too many in my opinion, suggest trimming to 2 most significant (no preference, which).
• most others OK, though i would remove the Religion statistics box - it's numbers partially contradict numbers in article text, they add no new information and the graph doesn't fit with the other images.

==> This would remove 6-7 images out of 43. I strongly believe, the removal of some images was simply done in good faith within the FAR process, so accusations of vandalism are unwarranted - but we should probably come to a more common consens, if possible. GermanJoe (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable to me, subject to future possible moves of some pictures to the more detailed specific articles if and when corresponding text is moved there. -- Alarics (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Before discussing individual images, I think it would be helpful to discuss general criteria and principles.

In addition to the normal issues of copyright, concise captions, etc., the main points for me are that the images and other media

• are pertinent to the article topic
• are pertinent to the section in which they are included
• illustrate the text in some meaningful way
• are not too detailled for such a high-level article (as opposed to a sub-article).
• are not too numerous (e.g compared with other featured country articles)
• Since this is a featured article, any additions should improve the article over the version that was awarded FA status.

As regards the number, I have looked at 9 other featured country articles. The number of 'File:' links ranged between 12 and 26, with a median of 17. Before recent culling as a result of the FARC concerns, Germany had 68 such files. Since little progress was being made on maintaining FA status, the number was boldly reduced to 34, still twice the median and far more than any other featured country article. This reduction apparently resulted in the FARC objection to the excessive number of images being withdrawn. The number is currently changing between about 34 and 60, depending on who last edited. --Boson (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your points. Clearly, 34 pictures is still rather too many. -- Alarics (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll take a look at all the FA's later, but your analysis sounds correct. However, looking through the article, there seems to be no point (other than the two pictures in the top of demographics) where pictures squash out text or anything like that; I think now that the easy culling has been done the number of images will be dependent on the amount of text in the article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Broadly agree with the analysis above; personally I would advocate one musical example (likely Bach or Beethoven). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Germany had the best design of all country lemmas. Those who deleted most parts of it are vandalists not honest writersKent 17:27, 16.04.2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.134.43 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has "deleted all parts of it" -- most of it is still there -- and it is absurd to throw around accusations of vandalism here. According to Wikipedia guidelines, this article should be an overview, and should not go into great detail. Such detail should instead be incorporated into the various sub-articles, if it is not there already. -- Alarics (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is however a need to try and make sure that the removed information is located on the subpages. Maybe after this is all over it would be worth checking, if this has not been done. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I had started looking into this today (until I found that another editor had seen fit to paste all the deleted material back in without further discussion). It is quite a fiddly editorial job in some cases, but needs doing. -- Alarics (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Editors should also take the time and add a brief edit summary, especially when controversial edits are made to help other editors understand bigger changes. That's still faster than having to revert back and forth several times. GermanJoe (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Amen to that. -- Alarics (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can judge the situation, the normal procedure in the case of a questioned content (images), is to propose a single talk topic on a single item (image). This discussion is done before content and images are removed and not after. The images presented in the previous versions (last month) were in general useful, informative and directly linked to section issue. Im not convinced that the removal of more than half the images has served to maintain a high quality, quite the opposite. I advocate the complete maintanance of most of the images. KarlMathiessen (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll put some images back (Holy Roman Empire, Military and Environment) together with a brief summary argument and check others. I agree with general trimming to reduce the overall number of images, but the latest image culls have been a bit too much. We should not try to reach a certain number "at all cost" - we need to weigh every single image and its value for the article. If other images will need to be restored, please give a qualified summary argument, why they are valuable. GermanJoe (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Image restoration done - we still could use a good representative image for the "Berlin Republic" and one more for each section "Economy" and "Science" (as important German topics they deserve a bit more attention). With 3 more we would be at 30 images, a good number for such a long article. GermanJoe (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Images should be proportional to the amount of text in the article. As it stands now, I see no areas where GermanJoe's image restorations have caused any issues in terms of format (eg no sandwiching of text). Perhaps however an image of fauna or flora can replace the current biodiversity image, as it currently has a landscape which is similar to the picture immediately below it for environment. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The Germany article here had an even better layout than the deeutschland lemma. All of the images should be kept.Kent 12:02, 17.04.2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.134.43 (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Where pictures are concerned, "less is more". Do we really need a boring picture of a middle-aged man in a suit who happens to be the current head of state, a position of only ceremonial significance? -- Alarics (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Some specific questions and comments about the actual image status (apologies upfront for some irony):

• Euro_banknotes.png (already mentioned) - which specific information or additional context does the image provide in the actual historical section? How a Euro banknote looks like? (should go)
• Climate, Biodiversity and Environment would be better with 1 image each (also the grouped formatting breaks the article layout - the box is shown overly large).
• Christian Wulff - see comments above.
• Religion statistics - the numbers seem wrong and add no information to article.
• Kindergarten in Hessen - very cute, but with zero additional value for the article.
• Frankfurt Book Fair - no additional value for article (most readers know, how a bookshelf looks like). Image should be replaced with something more "media-related".
• Michael Schumacher - motor sport already has undue weight in "sports" (1/3 of Germany's sport live is motor racing, really?), the image just adds to it. Motorsport should be reduced, other sports slightly expanded. GermanJoe (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all that. -- Alarics (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• The introduction of the euro currency is widely seen as the single most important change in German post-1990 history, it also exemplifies the interdependent cohesion with Europe.
• As there are no other images of Germany´s landscape/geography including coast/mountains/forest/species, more than a single image per section seems to provide a comprehensive information. Due to the special format, the total image size is somewhat smaller.
• Wulff is the head of state. End of story. Nobody would question the Queen or Obama in the respective nation articles.
• Religion statistics are accurate.
• The kindergarten image seems to serve a higher purpose in the Demographics section. It is the only evidence of the actual typical German populace. I believe in such an article it is important to inform the readers on how the Germans (admittedly very young ones) look like.
• The Book Fair image has relation to the written part. The message here is that Germany is an important publisher. If there are other media related images it should be no problem to change this one though.
• I agree that motorsports has a large (maybe too large presence). Nevertheless (addressing the image issue), Schumacher is one of highest paid athletes of all time, globally, and the most successfull in this sport.

The strong part of the article seems to be the varied use of media which is creative and informative. The nation is presented in a multifaceted way. I can´t say that of all the prose. KarlMathiessen (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and detailed response, KarlMathiessen. Seems we disagree on what the article and its images should accomplish, but that's ok. Some comments to your points:

• Euro: It's unfortunate, that the euro is seen this way, as it's only one, albeit important, facet of a whole list of European topics and processes (the treaty reforms, planned deeper security co-operations, problems with finance crisis in several countries, integration of new members, ...). We could still remove the Euro image and replace it with the far more informative eurozone map.
• Additional landscape images could (and should) go into the proper subarticles (f.e. Geography of Germany could use a few more).
• Wulff can't really be compared with Queen Elizabeth (a life-long serving, internationally widely recognized monarch) or Obama (arguably one of the most powerful men on Earth today). They don't even play in the same league as President Wulff (with a very limited function and publicity).
• Religion statictics - hm, the numbers for Islam, Hinduism and Buddishm differ from the main text. Maybe we simply need to bring them up to the same statistical source (still, it's repetitive information with no apparent additional value).
• Kindergarten: we already have Angela Merkel and Albert Einstein as perfect examples, how Germans look like ;).
• Frankfurt Book Fair - agreed, let's try to find a better image.
• Let's tone down the motorsport stuff and keep looking for alternatives - no problem for now. GermanJoe (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Wulff is the head of state. End of story. Nobody would question the Queen or Obama in the respective nation articles." (KarlMathiessen) -- It is true that the UK article has a picture of the Queen, but I wouldn't mind if it didn't. She is at least a famous international figure and notable if nothing else for being a head of state who is an elderly lady and has been there an extremely long time. Obama is an entirely different matter because he is head of government as well as head of state. Wulff, a middle-aged man in a suit temporarily holding a purely ceremonial office, looks just like every other middle-aged man in a suit anywhere in the western world. The picture just isn't at all interesting. "End of story" is not any kind of an argument for anything. -- Alarics (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the pic of the Bundesverfassungsgericht and where is the president ? Why is Frankfurt banking centre gone ? Sorry, the article gets worse and worse. In my resolution the box with the data on the top right reaches totally in the History part. Why is the menu under the introduction so small ? This all does not make sense. It looks amateur. Kantianer (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the rationale, in a featured article on Germany that is already too long and contains too many images, of including a photograph of a rather nondescript building in Karlsruhe. In an article on the Federal Constitutional Court, the picture would be appropriate. In an an article on the architecture of Karlsruhe, it might be justified (assuming the building has some sort of special architectural value). If we were really short of pictures, I suppose one could make a case for including a picture of the judges, as a symbol of the institution. But, even if there weren't too many pictures already, I don't see the case for including a picture of a building that has no apparent symbolic value. This is why I suggested discussing the criteria for inclusion first (hopefully agreeing on some general principles derived from Wikipedia featured article criteria and other policies, guidelines, and recommendations). The question should not be "Where has the picture gone?" but "Why should the picture be included?" We should remember that not all readers have a broadband connection. --Boson (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You ask "Why is the menu under the introduction so small ?". I presume you are referring to the Table of Contents. The length of the ToC was mentioned at the Featured Article Review. The featured article criteria specify that the ToC should not be overwhelming. In the past, 31 entries has been given as an example of an overwhelming ToC. Our ToC had 37 entries. Someone presumably decided quite pragmatically that the quick fix was to display only the top level of the ToC. Ideally, this issue should perhaps be re-visited later, but that would involve some restructuring of the sections. If you are thinking of tackling that problem, I would suggest going for less than 20 entries. --Boson (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Wulff is the head of state. The image is indispensable.
• The Constitutional Court is the highest Court and the guardian of the Basic Law. The image is indispensable. KarlMathiessen (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is rubbish. Where in the rules does it say a country article has to have a photograph of the head of state or a photograph of a court building? Images should be included only if they are interesting in themselves and/or add something of value to the article. If readers especially want to see a picture of Christian Wulff they can find it at Christian Wulff. -- Alarics (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please everybody, take a look at the Deutschland lemma in German. Those who removed images play roulette. Vandalists or not, these people obviously don´t know what is important and what not. I don't want to borrow the cliché, but this seems to be a good example, why the German Wiki still has a higher reputation than the English one.Kent 21:30; 18.04.2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.197.4 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Different projects have different policies and guidelines. For example, I don't know whether such a thing as WP:CIV exists on de-wiki, but here on en-wiki we frown upon making personal attacks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems odd, then, that all the other featured country articles on the English Wikipedia manage with far fewer images. Perhaps the German Wikipedia is more oriented toward visual representation and less toward other things that are regarded as important on the English Wikipedia. There are many thousands of things that are important, but we also need to know if a picture of them is useful and important enough to included in the limited amount of space /bandwidth. We need to know what is important, but we aslo need to prioritize. This is why we should agree on a reasonable number of images and then decide what is important enough to be included in that number. --Boson (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have argued very rationale an very clean so far. I hope I can maintain this. Recently repeated deletions of hardcore major content, like the images of the highest court in Germany and the highest ranking political figure (Christian Wulff) of the country makes this discussion here a farce. Also, the deleted images of one of the world centers of finance (Frankfurt) in Economy and one of the world centers of arts (Berlin) in Culture truly makes me questioning the editors motivations and actual knowledge. I hope insight grows that certain information is simply vital to inform readers of the most significant features of Germany. Thanks for attention. KarlMathiessen (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There is already an image of both Berlin and Frankfurt in the article; there's no need to include two. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that the highest court in Germany is important, but that has very little to do with whether a picture of the building that houses it needs to be in the article on Germany. The picture is where it belongs: in the article on the Constitutional Court. The article on Belgium has no picture of its highest court, the article on India has no such picture, the article on Japan has no such picture, and the article on Australia has no such picture. So why is a picture showing the outside of the building housing the German Constitutional Court so indispensable to the understanding of the topic (Germany) to an English-speaking readership? --Boson (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is the menu under the introduction still so small ? Please repair. Kantianer (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)