Talk:Germany

Grammar mistake

"Occupied during the Napoleonic Wars, with the rising of Pan-Germanism inside the German Confederation resulted in the unification of most of the German states" I'd suggest changing it to: "Occupied during the Napoleonic Wars, the rise of Pan-Germanism inside the German Confederation resulted in the unification of most of the German states"

German brands

Especially if we list brands not included in the cited source (in which case we need more sources), we need to avoid original research, including synthesis, and we need to specify criteria. For instance, one of the "global" German brands recently added was Wella. It is true that Wella is - amongst other things - a German brand, but it is , I presume, ultimately owned by Procter & Gamble. So it's not really the best one to choose as an example of a global German brand. I presume we do not wish to mention all of the 1,000 brands mentioned. This is one reason to stick to a small list selected as being particulary relevant by a single source. --Boson (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The sentence starts with "Well-known global brands are . . ." yet none of the cited sources seems to claim that Wella (for instance) is a global German brand. I haven't checked, but I assume that the Wella mark, like the others, is also registered in other countries; so what makes it a global German brand? The same question needs to be asked for all the brands. We also need to consider which brands to mention: the top ten German brands, the German brands among the top 50 global brands, or what? --Boson (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The new sources don't cut it at all. There's no way to tell what they're sourcing, and some brands in the sources aren't in the list (which is two and a half lines long on my screen). We should stick to the one list, which showed which of the top 100 global brands were German. CMD (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"A global brand is one which is perceived to reflect the same set of values around the world." Just because some brands are not in your list of 100, doesn't mean that they are not global brands. To claim that Deutsche Bank, Lufthansa, Continental, T-mobile, Bayer, BASF, etc. are not well known global brands is just nonsense. I think the following do qualify for this (globally present & revenue higher than 1 billion USD): Mercedes-Benz, BMW, SAP, Siemens, Volkswagen, ThyssenKrupp, BASF, PUMA, Deutsche Bank, Adidas, Bayer, Audi, Allianz, Infineon, Bosch, Continental, Porsche, Lufthansa, Henkel, MAN, Hochtief (Turner Construction), T-mobile, Haribo, Osram, Hugo Boss, DHL, Beiersdorf (Nivea).--IIIraute (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia article states "Well-known global brands are..." so here are the Global 500 2011: http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global_500_2011 - I guess, since they all belong to the world's top 500 brands in 2011, the are "Well-known global brands."--IIIraute (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a general encyclopaedia article, not a directory, I would suggest, provisionally, taking (at most) the first five 'German' brands listed here. That would be Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Siemens, Deutsche Bank, and Volkswagen. I would be happier with a source that stated which are the five German brands that are most well known globally, rather than ranking brands by value (without stating how the brands are valued).

In the longer term, I don't think there is reason to mention as many as five brands. Do we have any other country articles that list more than 2 brands?

I also wonder about the rationale for listing brands rather than enterprises. I can understand why the United States article mentions McDonalds and Coca-Cola as brands, since they are claimed to be the two best-known brands (not just of US brands) but, as long as Germany doesn't have the most well-known brand, mentioning any German brands (in this high-level article) is a bit iffy from the notability point of view, anyway. Anything more than the first two (say, the first five) probably belongs somewhere like Economy of Germany. --Boson (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the status quo before IIIraute´s edits. As mentioned, this is not a directory nor is it the place for extended namedropping. We do have a list of leading companies AND global brands, that should be sufficient. All new source supported lists of brands should better go to the subarticle. Herr Kent (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source to the "best known" brands: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/most-famous-brands.html --IIIraute (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Status quo?? When deciding for the "best known" brands, it can only be: Mercedes, VW, Adidas, Puma (Maradona, Matthäus, Buffon, Bolt, Eto'o, etc.).... also Nivea, BMW, Porsche, Haribo, Audi, Lufthansa, Deutsche Post (DHL). I mean, ask some kids in Kinshasa if the know "SAP or Allianz"? ...they will know Mercedes, VW, Adidas, Puma, Nivea and Haribo.--IIIraute (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted my previous edit; I will take my edits to the "Economy of Germany" article.--IIIraute (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Haribo is the biggest manufacturer of gummi and jelly sweets in the world. Haribo produces 100 million gummi bears per day; they are produced in 14 European factories, then distributed to more than 100 countries from where they are sold to another (estimated) 100 countries (that's 6 gummi bears per annum for every single human on earth)--IIIraute (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Third Reich

Hello, i would like to propose to alter the end of the small Third Reich Text, it says

"war resulted in large territorial losses; the expulsion of about 15 million Germans from the eastern areas of Germany and other countries; mass rape of German women; and the destruction of multiple major cities."

Iam from Germany myself, when i read this i feel very unconfortable because the consequences of Germanys actions during the Third Reich, which led to millions of deaths, destroyed cities and mass rapes across europe are not mentioned inside the text. Only what Germany "suffered", this creates a wrong picture in which Germany is the victim or receives a victim like position.

Germany also suffered casualities and warcrimes but at a much less scale than Europe and Russia. It is our responisbility to reflect the history correctly. First we should mention what Germany, during the Third Reich, was responsible for in Europe, and then to mention that Germany also suffered loss of lifes and warcrimes, but on a much less scale than the suffering for what the Third Reich was responsible for.

I would propose to alter the text to :

"World War II, started by the Third Reich involving the Axis powers, led to more than 60 million dead in Europe, multiple destroyed and devastated cities and mass rapes. The Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals were held after World War II. The war casualties for Germany are estimated at 5.3 million German soldiers and 1 to 2.5 million German civilians. The end of the war resulted in territorial loss for Germany and the expulsion of about 10 million Germans from former German territory and East European countries; devastation of multiple cities and rape of women."

I already added sources, i would welcome further suggestions, additions and changes for the text. The article is restricted so i have to ask another author if he would be willing to do the change. Thank you.

The current text documents your proposal already: "In what later became known as The Holocaust, the Third Reich regime had enacted policies directly subjugating many dissidents and minorities. Millions of people were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, including a sizeable number of Jews, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, Poles and other Slavs, including Soviet POWs, people with mental and/or physical disabilities, homosexuals, and members of the political opposition.[34] World War II was responsible for more than 40 million dead in Europe.[35] The Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals were held after World War II."--89.204.153.69 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I will not start a discussion here, the correct moralic assignments of the reflection of history are at a disproportional level within the current text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.78.49.202 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

...well, I guess that means that this discussion is finished.--89.204.139.170 (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Germany installs tax machines to make paying taxes easier for Prostitutes.

Prostitution is not illegal in Germany?? why? ```operation warlord — Preceding unsigned comment added by Project warlord (talk • contribs) 06:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Remaining problematic source links

After some cleanup 2 links remain problematic, where i couldn't find high-quality replacements:

• Link 104 "Autobahn-Temporegelung". While the ADAC article is still available, the article itself doesn't support the Wiki-text (no mention of length or comparison worldwide). The motorway statement could use a rewrite with a solid source.
• Link 168 "Land of ideas". This source appears lost, the description of the German book market could also use a rewrite with a solid source. GermanJoe (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Literature and philosophy

What does the following sentence mean: "In the 21st century Germany has contributed to the development of contemporary analytic philosophy in continental Europe, along with France, Austria, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries." ...why exactly Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries only? - and why has this phrase about the 21st Century, a reference from 1987?? - just asking... --IIIraute (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Can't tell, but can't be correct. It appears (if cited correctly) to be a single author's opinion, rephrased in an awfully general way. I'd support deleting that line.

By the way, I disagree with naming Ratzinger along with Mann, Brecht, Böll, Hesse, Grass as influential authors. He is an author and he may be influential. Then why not list the "autobiographer" Hitler? I don't think the Pope's literary work of the 20th century is among the most influential. --Zahnradzacken (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Culture

I replaced the top culture Beethoven image because the picture of him and another composer related media in the arts section (with again Beethoven mentioned) below seems to add no extra value. In fact the information seems duplicated. Thats why I took the top image from the main culture article, which identifies two strong images IMHO. I think Neuschwanstein is one Germany´s top archictures and Berlin as a culture center is also well known and famous.

I want to add that the culture section in general seems to be very short. Italiano111 (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)