From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Germany is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2007.

RFC: Adding Nazi Germany to Infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Rough consensus has been established to remove the "Formation" section entirely as confusing and not being being informative. There appear to be no guidelines or standards in place to determine what would be the historical dividing points. The "Should ESC be included in Formation in the facts box?" and "Infobox, why not include the Third Reich or the division (West and East) or the European Union or the Reunification?" sections below are therefore moot. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Should the Info Box contain a reference to Nazi Germany in the 'Formation' section—currently the section reads:

  • Holy Roman Empire 2 February 962
  • German Confederation 8 June 1815
  • German Empire 18 January 1871
  • Weimar Republic 11 August 1919
  • Federal Republic 23 May 1949
  • EEC Foundation 1 January 1958
  • Reunification 3 October 1990

I suggest that reference to Nazi Germany 30 January 1933 is included between Weimar Rep. and Federal Rep. --E-960 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes. The Third Reich/Nazi Germany was a distinct political period in Germany's history and should be included in the Info Box.
  • No. Nazi Germany was a political era. But not a new state. Expedian (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I cannot even find the 'Formation' section referred to, however the overall coverage of the Nazi period seems balanced and given at least adequate weight. One minor observation, the text in the lead refers to 'a genocide'. Perhaps a better text and link would be 'the Holocaust', which is the general term both for the 'Jewish dimension' but is also often used for other victim groups and is the most widely used term for Nazi persecution. Pincrete (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pincrete, this section is in the 'Info Box' at the top of the page right below 'Legislature' sub-section. --E-960 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, sort of - I'll suggest relabeling the period to "Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany" as the division the article uses, though the borders and nature of what "Germany" was did change considerably in the 1930s. I also noted the box lacks German Democratic Republic (1949) so after this one you might look at that. Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove the section entirely as excessive, convoluted, and more appropriately explained in prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove the section from the infobox; barring that, add with the Weimar Republic entry (per Markbassett). Beyond the fact that it clutters the infobox, the current "formation" header is generated by |sovereignty_type = [[Kingdom of Germany|Formation]] when (1) you would not really expect clicking on "formation" to lead you to Kingdom of Germany, (2) though the key sovereignty_type is not documented in Template:Infobox_country, I guess it is intended for "parliamentary republic" or similar. TigraanClick here to contact me 07:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename "Formation" to "Timeline" then add Nazi Germany 1933-1945. My opinion: The time periods in the infobox form a timeline instead of a single or multiple formations. I think a timeline is a better approach.
Comment: I did not find a formation parameter in template infobox Country. Is there a definition of the parameter "Formation"?CuriousMind01 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove the section entirely better explained in prose per Nikkimaria, too many 'Easter egg' links as pointed out by Tigraan, and the omission of DDR as pointed out by Markbassett, also conflation of historic 'Germanic' entities with Germany, the modern state. Barring that, add Nazi Germany to Weimar Republic as an entity. Pincrete (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove the section entirely per Pincrete and Nikkimaria. This is yet another example of an infobox trying to do too much. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No. While a distinct political era, there was no event that demonstrated a significant change to Germany's statehood. I disagree with an entire removal of the section, but agree it currently lacks focus. It should be used to give context to the sovereignty_type field. Thus, per Pincrete, it should avoid conflation of historic entities with the modern state, and so it should begin with the unification of Germany. Given it is not a full historical timeline, I am not as concerned about the lack of East Germany, as its absorption was an effective annexation rather than the creation of a new political structure, with today's Germany based upon pre-existing structures. CMD (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Nor or remove Third Reich was what they called themselves, not Nazi Germany. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 13:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes Yes, it should be added. I don't believe it should be added to the Weimar period, however. The Nazi era began later than 1919 so it should be a distinct era. 1933-1945. Call it the Third Reich era if you want to be politically correct. Do we have a consensus now? Peter K Burian (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I added Third Reich to the box yesterday and it was deleted by Thenigma. Rationale given: No consensus for this change, current discussion leaning against.
So now, it looks like the Weimar Republic lasted from 1919 to 1949.
   Weimar Republic is an unofficial, historical designation for the German state between 1919 and 1933. 
Wikipedia has a huge article about the Third Reich so it seems to be just as relevant as the Weimar Republic. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
And how does EEC Foundation 1 January 1958 fit into the Formation list?

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes -- otherwise it looks like Germany went from the Weimar Republic straight to the Federal Republic. Separately, where is the German Democratic Republic? Germany existed as two states for many decades, which I believe should be acknowledged in the infobox. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Since we will never get a consensus to add Third Reich, I am changing my vote to Remove Formation section from the infobox. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The whole section is terrible. If we list all constitutions, something like the Peace of Westphalia would also need to be included. Or perhaps the Frankfurt Constitution. Adding the Nazi era isn't going to make this complete or even particularly useful, as German history is so complicated. If we need this section at all, I would rather reduce it to just the Federal Republic: founded in 1949, last enlarged in 1990 by the accession of the GDR. —Kusma (t·c) 10:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, but... It can't stay the way it is: jumping from Weimar to Federal Republic. If the article keeps "Formation" (or "Timeline" as was suggested), it must include the Third Reich. (That would be preferable to "Nazi-something," which is purely political and not a description of nationhood status, as others in the list appear to be). If the list is retained, it must also include the GDR with an appropriate post-WWII date. I won't oppose deletion of the list, but I believe it can be repaired without great difficulty and offer useful info. I think, however, that Holy Roman Empire could be eliminated and the list can start with Kingdom of Germany, which currently is hidden in the "Formation" header, which doesn't make much sense; it should be explicitly named. DonFB (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


  • Yes, add Nazi Germany OR Third Reich: 4
    • No, ignore this aspect of the history: 3
    • Remove the entire Formation section from the infobox: 5

I believe we are close to a consensus to remove it.

     WP:CONS Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • No. Rather reshape that section. It looks stupid and unencyclopedic. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove formation section entirely The facts are too nuanced for a section like that. This RfC is proof this idea was poorly thought. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove formation section if without Nazism Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove Germany is not more related to the HRE than Nederlands or the Czech Republic. It's anachronic ans misleading. Bertdrunk (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove the formation section. It overloads the infobox, and there is no generally acceptable criterion for deciding which changes ín territory or constitution to include and which dates to use.--Boson (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, can we agree on consensus to remove this section all together? --E-960 (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should ESC be included in Formation in the facts box?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as moot due to RfC above. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this a distinct era in Germany? Should it be included with the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich?

The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was proposed by Robert Schuman in his declaration on 9 May 1950 and involved the pooling of the coal and steel industries of France and West Germany.[30] Half of the project states, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, had already achieved a great degree of integration amongst themselves with the organs of Benelux and earlier bilateral agreements. These five countries were joined by Italy and they all signed the Treaty of Paris on 23 July 1952. These six members, dubbed the 'inner six' (as opposed to the 'outer seven' who formed the European Free Trade Association who were suspicious of such plans for integration) went on to sign the Treaties of Rome Peter K Burian (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • No -- does not apply. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It is apparently important enough to be in the location map, so given that its EU predecessor ascension makes sense. CMD (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I just ask a general question ? Why is it that people with no edit experience in Germany related themes can come up with answers about the article ? Why are there votings about content and no discussions ? Is this Facebook or what ? I have not yet made up my mind about the EEC inclusion, but after checking some other European country entries it seems that many list this note. My 2 cents Expedian (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is a community of editors with equal rights. And nearly always, articles about a country benefit from editors who have experience in editing articles about other countries.
How much experience in editing Germany related themes does one need to say, "Add the Third Reich" to the infobox, for example? Or "delete ECSC because it was a project for free trade and not one of the governmental eras of the country". But neither change will happen because the people who feel a proprietary right to the Germany article refuse to consider any change. Unless some Administrators get involved and force a change, it will not happen. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Procedural no - the whole "Formation" section should go. Even if it stays, I would rather support removing the EEC foundation than adding another EU-related mention - other entries are significant change in government structures and/or territory. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I support deleting the Formation section. (That would be preferable to leaving it as is, omitting the Third Reich era and including EEC). Peter K Burian (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

After going deeper in analysis I came to the following conclusion. I reject this kind voting pattern with thumbs up- thumbs down. In this Wikipedia project good answers should be convincing. (My 2 cents). Concerning the ESC issue I have two comments: After checking more country entries it becomes clear that the "Formation" part is very widely spread. Obviously many people have come to the conclusion that this is a useful information. If the Formation part is going to be kept so the ESC mentioning makes sense. I´m here with CMD. Because what followed after the ESC is almost a development of a supra constitutional structure. Namely the EU, with a parliament, a currency and governmental institutions. Have a nice weekend Expedian (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Infobox, why not include the Third Reich or the division (West and East) or the European Union or the Reunification?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as moot due to RfC above. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Surely these are as significant as the EEC (European Economic Community) era. And if we list the EEC, why do we not list the European Union era?

Nazi Germany Dritte Reich (Third Reich) redirects here. ... the common English name for the period in German history from 1933 to 1945, when Germany was governed by a dictatorship under the control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP) ..... the official name of the state was Deutsches Reich' from 1933 to 1943 and Großdeutsches Reich ("Greater German Reich") from 1943 to 1945. (or call it the Third Reich).

AND The division: 1949 when two states emerged: History of Germany (1945–90) Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), commonly known as West Germany, . ... German Democratic Republic (GDR), commonly known as East Germany...]

AND The reunification of East Germany and West Germany Main article: German reunification

If the Infobox cannot include all of these, how is the Formation item valid? Perhaps it should be deleted.

Peter K Burian (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017[edit]

GERMAN president IS Frank Walter Steinmeyer. Lindwurm9 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Change of office will not occur until 19 March.[1] -- AxG /   18:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Who are Europeans?[edit]

Who are Europeans in the infobox and who decide it. Why Turks are mentioned seperately? If it is about the continent, I'm sure that there are lots of Germany-born Turks and Gastarbeiter from Eastern Thrace. I suggest that it should be changed as Other EU-Citizens. kazekagetr 15:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Well, the whole origin part of the infobox seems fishy. Reading the source, I think it considers Turks as Europeans, so it could be 11.6% other Europeans, including Turks 3.7%. But it seems to me that the source does not really support the 11.6% number, either, by searching for it in the text.
Do we have a fluent German speaker to check this? TigraanClick here to contact me 18:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I checked the document and updated the stats for 2015 vs 2012. Turks are included in Europeans, but given their high number, I added a line for them. Same for Middle-Eastern people our of the Asia total. — JFG talk 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture of Einstein, really?[edit]

He was persecuted by the Nazi regime. Neither the germans or himself saw him as a german. He had an american citizenship and was more linked to the United States. I think putting a picture of him on "Germany" article is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh he was persecuted by the Nazi regime.. So we should still do it the same way? --Jonny84 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

this is exactly why I hate to talk with leftist trolls in Wiki. Did I say we should persecute him? no. I said that his picture shouldn't be on "Germany" article. He wasn't considered "German" by neither the germans or himself. If anything he was American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

He was born and raised as a German. Till the age of 54 he was a honored Professor at a German University. Due to Nazi persecution he spent his last 20 years in the USA (and did not return after the Nazis were defeated). So what could be wrong depicting the Germany article with his image? --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
In addition to that, Albert Einstein got his Nobel prize in 1924 for work from 1905, which is arguably the most important reason why he is notable. That was more than 10 years before he fled to the US. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, when he did his most notable work in 1905, he was a patent examiner in Switzerland, and a Swiss citizen since 1901… And in 1911 he became Austrian to teach in Prague. We can pick any other German scientist to illustrate the article. — JFG talk 16:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I replaced him with contemporary Max Planck, to provide some diversity to readers in the "notable physicist" area, and to avoid nitpicking on nationality or residence. — JFG talk 16:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Horst-schlaemma: You reverted to Einstein; did you notice this thread? Planck is a great representative of German science too… — JFG talk 21:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)