Talk:Germany

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

New RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the light of the discussion so far and the renewed edit warring, and in an attempt to make sure the RfC is efficient this time, I would suggest the following points for a new improved RfC to replace all other discussions about the images in this section.

1. a gallery showing all the images that have been suggested so far
2. no option to add new images once the RfC has started, but a delay of a few days before starting the RfC, enabling prior discussion of the draft RfC and possibly addition of images.
3. a question asking each editor what he/she thinks the number of images for this section should be.
4. a separate question asking each editor to support or oppose each image, indicating, for instance "Oppose" or "Choice 1", "Choice 2", etc. For instance, an editor wishing to retain the old consensus could answer
   • 2 images
   • Choice 1: Adolf Hitler
   • Choice 2: Berlin ruins
   • Oppose Paramilitaries
   • Oppose Hamburg ruins
   • Oppose Holocaust bodies
   • Oppose Hungarian Jews
   • Oppose Dachau
   • Oppose Buchenwald
   • Oppose 1945 Film
5. After approx. 3 weeks, we first assess the consensus for how many pictures and then select the image with the most support as Choice 1 (currently Hitler) , followed by the image with the most support as Choice 2, and so on until the number decided by the qestion "how many pictures?" is reached.
6. For the picture of the Berlin ruins, there seems no support for A over B, so I would remove image A.
7. If the assessment is unanimously accepted, the results are implemented. If not, we request formal closure by an uninvolved admin/experienced RfC closer.

I will propose a draft shortly. --Boson (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: Since this is not, strictly, a vote some arguments may be given greater weight than others, but this discretion should be reserved to an uninvolved closer. --Boson (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

So this is my draft: --Boson (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. The draft has been here a couple of days, so I'm taking it live. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New improved RfC: Images to illustrate the section Weimar Republic and the Third Reich in the main Germany article

How many and which images should we use to illustrate the Weimar Republic and Third Reich section? --Boson (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Instructions (new RfC)

In the survey section please answer the two questions (number of images and image preference), adding a short rationale. Please support a maximum of 1 image from each group (e.g. do not select 2 pictures of ruins) Discussion should be kept to the discussion section and may be moved there by any editor.

Choice of images (new RfC)

Civil unrest

• 
  • Paramilitaries
  • Communist Party of Germany's paramilitary RFB meeting in Berlin, May 1928. The young Weimar Republic was dominated by political unrest.

Hitler

• 
  • Hitler
  • Adolf Hitler, Führer of Nazi Germany

Ruins

• 
  • Berlin ruins
  • Berlin in ruins after World War II
• 
  • Hamburg ruins
  • Aerial photograph of Hamburg after the 1943 Allied bombing
• • 1945 film
  • A film shot by the US Air Force in July 1945 at the end of World War II, showing the destruction in central Berlin
• 
  • Brandenburger Tor
  • Brandenburg Gate, June 1945
• 
  • Reichstag
  • Ruins of the Reichstag in Berlin, 3 June 1945
• Red Army soldiers hoisting Soviet flag Red Army soldiers hoist the Soviet flag following the fall of Berlin, May 1945.
  • Red Army soldiers hoisting Soviet flag
  • Red Army soldiers hoist the Soviet flag following the fall of Berlin, May 1945.

Holocaust and concentration camps

• 
  • Holocaust bodies
  • The bodies of Holocaust victims who were prisoners at Buchenwald Concentration Camp.
• 
  • Hungarian Jews
  • Hungarian Jews arrive at the concentration camp in Auswitch.
• 
  • Dachau
  • Jewish prisoners at Dachau concentration camp
• 
  • Buchenwald
  • Survivors of the Buchenwald concentration camp following their liberation.

Discussion on the draft RfC

This section may be collapsed after the RfC starts

I think this is a very reasonable proposal that could help us find consensus about this image problem. —Kusma (t·c) 10:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have taken the poll live, and will shortly advertise it using the RfC template. Now is the time for any last-minute change requests before anyone besides me answers the survey questions. --Boson (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey Question 1 (new RfC)

How many pictures should this section contain? Please give a number between 1 and 4 and a rationale and sign your post.

Responses to Question 1

2 images. This is the long-standing status. There is a recommendation for 1 image per section, and the history section is already rather long for summary style. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• 3 images The length of the text is sufficient to host three images. I would rather include photos than exclude them. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey Question 2 (new RfC)

Which of the above pictures would you choose. Please give answers for each picture, in the form

• Choice 1: designation of picture
• Choice 2: designation of picture
• Oppose: Designations of picture(s).

Please also give a rationale (if you wish) and sign your post. . . .

Responses to Question 2

• Choice 1: Adolf Hitler. Long-standing consensus. Symbolizes rise of Hitler and Nazism.--Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Choice 2: Berlin ruins. Long-standing consensus. Illustrates defeat of Germany, without excessive emotionality of dead or suffering people.--Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weakly Oppose Paramilitaries. If there is a consensus for more than 2 pictures, this would be a possibility, because it illustrates the Weimar period.--Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose Hamburg ruins, because Berlin ruins are more symbolic, and on the basis of photographic quality. But would be OK if others prefer.--Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Very strongly oppose Holocaust bodies. Insufficient justification in this article for degrading and possibly offensive depiction of dead bodies. Too emotional.--Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Hungarian Jews. Not sufficiently relevant to this high-level article. Does not sufficiently symbolize defeat. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Dachau. Not sufficiently relevant to this high-level article. Does not sufficiently symbolize defeat. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Buchenwald. Not sufficiently relevant to this high-level article. Does not sufficiently symbolize defeat. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose 1945 Film. On the positive side, it contains a lot of information, but the image before clicking is visually unappealing. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Brandenburger Tor. Not sufficiently symbolic. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose Reichstag. Other pictures are better. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose Red Army soldiers hoisting Soviet flag. On the positive side, it symbolizes German defeat, but it gives undue weight to the Soviets. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Choice 1:Adolf Hitler Symbolic of the era. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Choice 2:Brandenburger Tor I think it's a better illustration of destruction than "Berlin Ruins" and although the "1945 film" is great, it has to be played to be appreciated.
• Oppose Dachau not sufficiently horrific to adequately portray reality. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Hungarian Jews same reason as above, not horrific enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the images (not the RfC structure)

I think the article should stay the way it is. Perhaps with another image for Weimar but not necesarily the Weimar picture above. I think i know where the opposition to the bombing picture is coming from. There are almost no English documentaries on bombing Germany and in those that exist you mainly see the bombers and their peril and little of the bombed. Today every visitor of Bremen seems surprised of the bombings of Germany and just about all its cities. "Oh, Bremen was destroyed too?" Ask them how many bombs were dropped on Germany and you'll find estimates between 500 and 10,000 bombs on Germany. But little Bremen alone, for example, received around a million bombs. Germany received an absolutely unprecedented 1.6 million TONS of bombs (=more than 16 thousand times the infamous bombing of Rotterdam, which was 97 tons). Every day some 15 still unexploded bombs are found and some 100,000 bombs remain (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/luftmine-bei-koblenz-killer-im-schlick-a-801397.html). Cleaning off the 400 million cubic meters of rubble took many years. Because of the bombed cities hundreds of thousands more died in the hunger winter of 1946-47 (http://www.ndr.de/kultur/geschichte/Hungerwinter-194647,hungerwinter166.html), the white death, but the Allies helped provide food and aid for the population. Berlin wasn't fully rebuilt until the 80's (http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/berlin-end-war-1945/). Cleaning Germany of the bombs will take some 50 years more and cleaning the North sea will take some 60 years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic5Nc0cRNmQ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.115.111 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear misunderstanding of cause and effect here. Any pictures of bombings during World War II are an effect of the war that Germany at the time started. Pictures of concentration camps show atrocities that took place during the time the regime was in power. Could anyone enlighten me that the atrocities that took place in German concentration camps are in any causal connection to the war? They were considered to be a crime against humanity and are therefore a distinct icon of the Nazi regime – on which this section of the article is about. Keep the Buchenwald picture. As an alternative simply show BOTH pictures--Catflap08 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the IP address user - though Berlin wasn't actually the worst hit city; cities such as Hamburg, Bochum and Mainz came off worse. In my opinion, any illustration showing the aftermath of the air raids should feature one of these cities. Surlyduff50 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Again one picture shows Berlin in ruins the other Buchenwald victims. What has one to do with other if the section is about the subject of concentration camps ??? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Showing a picture of destroyed Berlin is in my eyes unappropriate when looking at the article’s (sections) content. Even when we look at the statistics the result of the Nazi regime was not so much Germany’s destruction, but the number of victims. If one looks at the victims of allied bombings and German soldiers that were killed one gets a number of roughly 6.8 Million (3.2 Million German soldiers and 3.6 Million German civilians). If we look at the Holocaust there were between 5.0 and 6.0 million murdered Jews. Keeping this in mind the total number of victims of Nazi mass murder is about 13.0 Million victims which includes Jews, Sinti and Roma, mentally handicapped, Homosexuals, political imprisoned, etc. etc. As a result of World War II there were about 50.0 Million victims world wide. So in my opinion the picture of Berlin in ruins does not reflect the sections content, but the victims of mass murder does. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The main theme of this summary section (which still needs pruning) is the rise and fall of Hitler and National Socialism in the aftermath of World War I and the resulting World War II, leading to Germany's complete and utter defeat. The concentration camps are a sub-topic of that, dealt with in sub-articles. If the concentration camps are given undue weight for this top-level article that should be dealt with. The image of Hitler symbolizes all the things associated with Nazism (including the concentration camps). The image of the ruins symbolizes the war and the defeat of Nazi Germany. Pictures illustrating or symbolizing individual aspects of this period (such as the invasion of other countries , Stalingrad, concentration camps, the alliance with Italy and Japan, motorways, etc.) belong in the sub-articles. --Boson (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I find this rather disturbing given that all together 13 Million victims carry less weight that than a few rubbles. The most destructive outcome of the Nazi Regime, and that’s what we are talking about as this is not the article on World War II , is the mass murder of what was also partly the country’s own population. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to thank Catflap08 for his comments. Attempts by editors to prevent ANY changes to the Nazi era history section, reverting hours of research, editing and improvements in order to keep the text in it's current state and consistently pushing for images which show Germany as a victim, but THE victim, is revisionist to say the least and amounts to POV pushing.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Historians underline that the war left Germany in ruins, with civil institutions broken and the (surviving) population starving. This article should say so because it is about Germany, and we should have images that show this. Shabratha (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Womans football

> The Frauen-Bundesliga is the top league of women's club football in Germany. > The German women's national football team won the FIFA Women's World Cup in 2003 and 2007 and the UEFA European Women's Championship in 1989, 1991, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, and 2013.

In Germany, womans football has no relevance at all. Is is neither present in media nor in the heads of the people. Therefore womans football is absolutely not worth being mentioned in this article as nearly every other sport is more important here. --109.125.90.49 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would remove the lines mentioned above as womans football doesn't play any role in germany. Please raise your hands ;-) --109.125.90.49 (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I raise my hand. The World Cup in 2011 was quite an event in Germany and the matches of the national team are usually shown on TV. The treble of VfL Wolfsburg in the 2012–13 and the defense of the Champions League title 2013–14 in was definitely noted. Claiming that is has no relevance is exaggerated. --Jaellee (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It has indeed some relevance in the context of German football. But it's not notable enough to get a section at the country's main article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Fully aggreed. --109.125.90.49 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

World Cup 2011 indeed was a quite popular event, but it's been the only one so far. Maybe this will change in future. --109.125.90.49 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Reichstag image

The Reichstag image (the one with the flags) is wrongly dated. Since the reconstruction (including the construction of the glass dome) took place in the late 90s the picture cannot be from 1990. Please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian A. Schneider (talk • contribs) 08:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Christian A. Schneider (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the caption to mean that this is a picture of the German Unity Flag, which was first raised in 1990 (oh, and that is the Reichstag in the background). I understand the caption as a rationale for including this image where it is, suggesting that the image illustrates the text on German unity. Since it clearly doesn't, it is causing image stacking, and the article has too man images in any case, I would suggest removing it. --Boson (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

How about "annually raised ... since "Christian A. Schneider (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)?

I guess we should have a translation of de:Fahne der Einheit if we want to make this clear (the flag seems to be there all the time). However, given that we have more than enough images in the article already, I guess removing this image is the best course of action. —Kusma (t·c) 09:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's one of the best images in the article, it should remain. However, a translation for the Unity Flag article should be put into focus. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

German Asians- German Turks?

How is this a featured article? There is an ethnic ignorance. What is a German Asian? It's clearly Asian or Turk. I'm sorry but it's like neo-faschism in a different way. This section is disputed and needs to be solved. We should who they are. Not Germanize them. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The only reliable source that talks of ethnicity (as opposed to nationality, migrant background, etc.) seems to be the CIA Factbook, so -- if we must have the section on ethnic groups -- I would suggest reproducing that information (without links, which might lead to reinterpretation):

• 91.5% Germans
• 2.4% Turks
• 6.1% other (mainly Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish)

Alternatively, we could remove the section completely. --Boson (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Addition of 2 new photos of German police

The typical police car image is some years old. I have uploaded three more images of typical German police cars. One undercover police car, one undercover police car with special security protection and one regular typical German police car. Here are the links, I would like them to being added: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Typical_German_police_undercover_car_(BMW_530d).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Typical_German_police_undercover_car_with_high_security_protection.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Typical_German_police_car.jpg The cars were photographed on an exhibition and are now in use (www.bundesregierung.de / Bundesministerium für Inneres) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello today 2014 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

In this high-level article that is two stages removed from "German police car" I would prefer an image that was not just of a car in garage or exhibition, and I don't think we want more than one police car in this article. On the other hand, it is a more recent image, so I would not object strongly to replacing the current image with the new image of a typical police car. I think the new images should be suggested for Police vehicles in Germany (currently a section of Law enforcement in Germany but it could later be made into a separate sub-article). --Boson (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Concentration Camp image removals and enlargement of post-WWII bomb damage images

U.S. Army soldiers show German civilians corpses found in Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

It is clear that certain editors have an agenda and are attempting to shape the WWII section into a German victim portrayal. In the past few weeks an image of Berlin post WWII was changed to a much larger image of the ruins of Dresden, a german city's whose bombing is associated with the killing of large numbers of civilians and a the near total destruction of the city.

At the same time I added this image of German civilians being shown inside Buchenwald Concentration camp following its liberation. This image was immediately removed by one the same editors who has added the Dresden image.

It seems entirely one-sided to only include images of Adolf Hitler and the ruins of a German city when apx. 200,000 German civilians were murdered by the own government, hundreds of thousands more were sent to concentration camps and the Holocaust, humanity's largest modern genocide, was the result of a policy created by the Nazi government.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that certain editors have an agenda and are attempting to shape the WWII section into a politically motivated campaign against modern Germany. If certain editors really would be interested in a balanced historical view for the sake of it, they would lobby for similar "improvements" on other country articles (USA, Russia, Cambodia and easily a dozen more). Maybe certain editors would like to read WP:AGF and start discussions in a less aggressive, more collaborative manner. Then suggestions from said certain editors would be taken more seriously. GermanJoe (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that one is not clear at all. This has nothing to do with any "politically motivated campaign against modern Germany". That's just some ludicrous fantasy, paranoia, and bad faith (and I always love it when editors who lecture others about AGF are so quick to assume bad faith in others). What does the Holocaust have to do with modern Germany anyway? On the other hand, we have editors removing photos illustrating the Holocaust and replacing them with photos showing "how much Germany suffered" as result of WWII. How can a "balanced historical view" exclude the Holocaust? Oh yeah, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you want to suggest some photos or improvements to the articles on USA, Russia or Cambodia, nobody's stopping you. But quit trying to use them as an excuse to prevent improvements here. Volunteer Marek  06:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The current addition is not an improvement, the images display as a cluttered mess and partially outside the WWII-section. And quit distorting the events here, the Holocaust image got added to a long-standing article version without previous consensus (if you like essays, WP:BRD is also a nice one). Despite the last RfC's closing recommendation a graphic image was chosen for shock value. GermanJoe (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How can the section on History of WW2 in Germany NOT have an image illustrating the Holocaust? Why is such an image being replaced by an image of "destruction of Germany by the Allies"? If that particular image is outside the WW2 section, remove the destruction one. The image was absolutely NOT chosen for shock value. In fact that's quite an offensive suggestion (and may I remind you one more time that you're the kind that started lecturing people about AGF?) which says more about your POV than about others. Yes, the image is graphic, because what happened was "graphic". We have all sorts of stupid graphic images all over the encyclopedia and if you try and remove one of those, bunch of people will show up and cry "WP:NOTCENSORED". But here we have an image which yes, is graphic, but which also has tremendous educational value - it illustrates the Holocaust and you gonna argue we should remove it because it might upset someone's sensibilities? And seriously, as far as the graphic-ness of images that could be chosen, this one's pretty mild. Volunteer Marek  17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not gonna enroll this all over again after such a short time span. We didn't reach consensus and won't now. Are you out of your mind, got nothing better to do? Seriously, get work to do. And contribute constructively. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that you were the first one to start messing with the images. Volunteer Marek  18:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this picture is a must. Without that and the casual link to Germanization of Poles this article will never be complete. Advice Polack (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. Volunteer Marek  18:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How about the "Polonization of German cities" then? Perhaps we could stop politicing this and start treating it like an encyclopedic work again. Thank you. It's not all about some clumsy pictures. Content is what matters. While of course a picture of heavy-bombed Hamburg or Dresden is more suitable to illustrate the bombing aspect of the article. Please keep in mind: the article is about Germany itself. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Please keep in mind: the article is about Germany itself" - Which is why a picture of the Holocaust should be in that section. BTW, the user above "Advice Polack", was just a banned sock puppet trolling. Volunteer Marek  19:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And that's exactly why the image is of a German concentration camp (not a polish death camp like on the German language version of the page). In my opinion it's better than any possible other image since 1)it's not overtly graphic (the bodies are far away and can only be seen clearly if the user chooses to click the image), 2) it places the viewer in the same position (visually) as those German civilians when they confronted the Holocaust, and last but not least 3) it's entirely necessary due to the text of the article and the historical gravity of the event.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

While I very much welcome your idea to improve this section visually, I think it's important to keep an eye on the overall visual arc of the history section as a whole. The pictures in the history section show either single events or people, that were of utmost importance in the history of Germany.

While the Holocaust is definitely an important part of German history, it was not a single event but a process spanning several years, which might be the reason, why it is so difficult for you to agree on any image about it in the first place. Monopoly31121993 delivers some reasons for the image he proposed, but couldn't similar reasons be made for any other image about the Holocaust as well?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not challenging the reasons he provided, I just think that there are literally thousands of other images, that could be brought forth and reasoned for just as well. This is why I do not believe that arguing about specific images here can therefore ever settle the debate or change any opinions about it.

Maybe if we go about it in another way, and adopt a different perspective, we might find a compromise. As I wrote before, the history section of the article displays single events or people, that were of enormous historical significance. So if we cannot find an image that captures the Holocaust as a single event, since it was a lengthy process, we might be able to find the image of a person, who represents this. And I think there is just 1 person, who embodies this part of German history in all its horror, and that is Hitler himself.

Since Hitler is already shown at the beginning of the section on The Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, I suggest we move his picture further down, so that it is closer to the Holocaust part, and that we introduce a third picture at the top about the Weimar Republic. This compromise would also solve the issue of not having any images about the first German republic/democracy in the article, something quite significant after more than a millenium of feudal rule in Germany. I suggest the following image as it depicts a single event of greatest historic significance, and would therefore fit well within the overall history section image arc: Scheidemann proclaims the Weimar Republic.

Please don't focus so much on the image itself, and more upon the idea of the compromise. The image is just a suggestion, that I think would fit well and is used in many other articles on the Weimar Republic around other language versions of Wikipedia. If you find a better image to represent the Weimar Republic, please share it here. My main idea is the compromise. --Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)