Talk:Germany

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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Germany (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Lutheranism (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Germany is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries / Prussia  (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Prussia.
 
WikiProject Silesia (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Silesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Frisia (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Frisia, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Frisia-related articles to a feature-quality standard. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Since we only have a handful of active members at the moment, we are in urgent need of help right now.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hanseatic League (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Hanseatic League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 


Unsourced material[edit]

Per WP:BURDEN, unsourced material has been removed from this article and should not be restored without reliable sourcing. This article has accumulated large amounts of such materials since its most recent review, which is problematic in terms of retaining its quality status. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, since this article is meant to be a broad summary of the topic, very specific details are undue weight here. They should instead be added to the more specific subarticles. The problem of excessive article size and detail has been raised several times here, most recently in June 2014 - see the archives. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The issue with the FA quality status is seriously flawed. When this status was declared the aim to gear towards, the article totally went down the drain. Large portions were deleted without any consideration to move them to appropriate sub articles. You didn't do that either. Compared to most other country articles, the Germany article's merely a sceleton today. We better get rid of the FA status asap. My 2 cents. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
If there is material that you feel should be included in subarticles, you are welcome to help with that process. I can't agree that seeking to "get rid of the FA status" would be a good solution, though. On English Wikipedia we have guidelines regarding article size and summary style that indicate that broad articles like this one should be an overview of the topic - more detailed than a skeleton (as this one is), but certainly not as detailed as it was becoming. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Stop it, Nikkimaria. There's no consensus for your actions. You're not improving but ruining this article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am working to bring it in line with English Wikipedia's guidelines and policies with regards to verifiability, summary style, and others. If there are specific edits you feel do not approach that goal, I am happy to discuss them, but wholesale reverting (including the readdition of unsourced material) is not a solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
While you rightfully think that "unsourced" material can be removed without hesitation, I'd much more like to see you to make an effort looking for sources/references, as there are plenty of, not only in the linked main articles. But so far you seem to be looking to strip off information from this article, rather than validating information you feel should be referenced. By the way, not each and every clause needs to be referenced, as per WP:CS. So I'm looking forward to see taking action and look for references by yourself, instead of leaving us with double the work, reinstating missing information and citations. That'd be great. Thank you and all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, being unsourced is not the only reason to exclude information: this article is meant to be a very broad summary, not to provide minute details on each topic area. Therefore, it might be a more productive use of your time, once you have located sources, to use them to further develop the daughter articles that are meant to contain such details. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
And you're right again. But even using summary style this is not meant to be a mere redirect collection. We need to give the reader the means to develop a comprehension of what makes a country/topic. This is one of the most compact country articles already, considering its population size and global meaning. There's no need to make it a mere flip-book with only rudimentary information. Compare this to the German article in its comprehensive scope. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The German and English Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines: while it's possible I might have missed them, it does not appear that de.wiki has any equivalent to the en.wiki guidelines WP:Article size or WP:Summary style. On English Wikipedia, this is far from being among the most compact country articles. It currently has over 11,000 words of readable prose. By comparison, looking at List of countries by population, 13 of the top 20 are smaller, including all of the ones that are GA or FA. While we need not go so far as making this a "mere redirect collection", this is meant to be a broad summary article, not a detailed description of everything related to Germany. That is why we have daughter articles at all: so that Germany#History has a broad overview, History of Germany has more detail on a more specific topic, then Germany in World War II, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Who is we? Are you using the pluralis majestatis for you? --Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Music in Germany[edit]

The previous text on German music from the 1700s to the 2000s is a bare list. It is not "in order", chronologically (Early Romantic composer Beethoven appears first...then Baroque era Bach, then six names later, Bach's contemporary Handel). I understand that a summary style needs to be used, but there needs to be a middle ground between the bare list, given here, and my newest proposal, which is 2nd:

OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the current version OnBeyondZebrax, well done and way better than before. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2014[edit]

Wrong information about Finland in the Languages section map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#mediaviewer/File:Knowledge_German_EU_map.png Percentage of German speakers in Finland NOT 10% - 19%. Corrected 0.09% [1] [2] [3] Will need new image. Ouuo0100 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: @Ouuo0100: ask at [1] to have the map updated with preferably an english souce stating these statistics Avono (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The map is about language knowledge not native language.93.209.110.204 (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The confusion is understandable, when the caption refers to native speakers. A reader expects to see this information in the map of course. I moved the caption info to the main text to avoid that problem (maybe the caption could be clarified a bit more, showing that the map depicts some kind of basic knowledge afaik). GermanJoe (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2015[edit]

The Anthem of Germany is only the the third stanza of "Das Lied der Deutschen".

Source: English Wikipedia article on the "Deutschlandlied"

Suggested wording: 'Third stanza of "Das Lied der Deutschen"' Themulticaster (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Only ??? --Kgfleischmann (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 17:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The song "Das Lied der Deutschen" consists of three stanzas, but only the third one ("Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit") is the official German anthem. Thus, in the sidebar, change "Anthem: Das Lied der Deutschen" to "Anthem: Third stanza of Das Lied der Deutschen". Themulticaster (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
That would add another ugly linebreak in the 1st line. If the clarification is really needed (?), it would probably be better in the second line as "(Song of the Germans, third stanza)". But I am unsure, if we should add it at all - all details are covered in the anthem article. No preference either way. GermanJoe (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The article on "Das Lied der Deutschen" is not the "anthem article", it's about the song whose third stanza happens to be used as the German anthem. "Das Lied der Deutschen" is not the German anthem. The third stanza is. And since we don't have a page on the German anthem per se, we really need to point out that it's only the third stanza if we only point at the article about the song "Das Lied der Deutschen".
If you understand German, here is the original wording of the Federal President (Bundespräsident) about the national anthem: "Die 3. Strophe des Liedes der Deutschen von Hoffmann von Fallersleben mit der Melodie von Joseph Haydn ist die Nationalhymne für das deutsche Volk."
I can't say anything about the formatting since I don't have access to it, but if your suggestion (Das Lied der Deutschen, third stanza) works out, it seems good. Themulticaster (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Went ahead and included the requested minor clarification as uncontroversial (imo). Please feel free to revert and join this discussion, if anyone disagrees. GermanJoe (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Language map[edit]

There is a newer language map: File:Knowledge of German EU map.svg (Bosnia added, different colours), but it seems to be missing references... --Mika1h (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Weimar Republic and the Third Reich[edit]

Added new images to the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich section to better illustrate the chain of events during this time period and emphasize the importance of the most significant topics of WWII. --E-960 (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed 2 of them back, let me quickly explain, why:
  • The old Hitler image showed him in his typical "speech pose" and is easily recognizable with good EV. The new one was badly colored and showed him in a completely staged photo posture, and it is a lot less known afaik. However, I left the caption alone, as it included more detail.
  • The destruction of large parts of Germany during WWII is a historical fact and can (must) be illustrated in the country article without risking any undue weight. The new image had less encyclopedic information and was less illustrating for the section.
Please see also the lengthy previous discussions about this topic in the archives. GermanJoe (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Ok, included a more iconic image of Berlin after WWII, previous picture was a bit too generic and nondescript. Also, added a new image of Hitler, it's extraordinarily important to illustrate the fanaticism of that regime and not gloss it over. I think that the previous items completely de-emphasized the subject matter, the images simply made Hitler look like Paul von Hindenburg of Frederic the Great (military leaders) that all; hiding the madness and fanaticism that he advocated. --E-960 (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Fanaticism and madness are not encyclopaedic concepts. Wikipedia is not a sensationalistic tabloid.Blaue Max (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but Wikipedia documents history and during this time period German hyper nationalism resulted in the biggest war in humanity (madness and fanaticism are psychological conditions not sensationalistic tabloid jargon). --E-960 (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Text and images have to be impartial and neutral, regardless of the topic; all encyclopedic topics need to be treated in the same editorial manner. That has nothing to do with "glossing over" or belittling the importance of such topics - it's one of Wikipedia's core principles to keep the articles' content impartial in all cases. GermanJoe (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I re-added an image associated with the Holocaust (events leading up to), it needs to be included in this section. I ensured that the image is not in any way graphic or heavy handed. I'd like to point out that the Austria article has a image of a liberated concentration camp in the Interwar period and World War II section, so including an image of the Dachau concentration camp which is mentioned in the text as being the first German concentration camp is appropriate in this case. --E-960 (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I also believe that the "Weimar Republic and the Third Reich" (1918-1945) history part should be illustrated with 3 pics. But one should represent the Weimar Republic. A third one for the (1933-1945) period would unbalanced the whole part. Please remember, that the era afterwards (1945-2015) only has 3 images. So we need to keep a balanced History here. Ciao Italiano111 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Please note that the Weimar Republic part is only made up of one paragraph, while the text about the Third Reich contain 5 paragraphs (the most paragraphs about a specific topic in the entire article). So, having three picture is not excessive give the size of the text and it's significance to German history. --E-960 (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that 3 WW2 pictures are just too much, when this short period is compared to millennia of history like the Holy Roman Empire. It gives undue weight; even though WW2 was a very relevant and fateful event in German history, it really isn't the only period of relevance. It'd be better to have a 3rd picture in this section illustrating the first free democratic order in Germany. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
In this case I would recommend that we keep the Dachau image and remove the "Cologne Allied aerial bombing" picture. I understand that Germany was bombed severely, but it's definitely not the paramount event of German history during WWII, for several reasons — a major one being that Germany lost far more soldiers than civilians during the war (unlike Poland and Soviet Union) and despite the bombing German infrastructure was still in better shape then that of some occupied countries — so having an image referring to the 'Allied aerial bombing' may not be the best option. Bombing of Germay in WWII (Very bad) < Final Solution/Holocaust (Unprecedented). --E-960 (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with you if the article was about World War II in general. But this article is about Germany. I'm not sure you can comprehend how severe the foreign and self-caused destructions were for Germany. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The more research I´m doing the more I´m questioning myself if we need even 3 pictures in this part. In the end it spans 26 years (1919-1945). Certainly the massive destruction in the country seems to be the most relevant impact during this time. Another picture should be dedicated to the Weimar Republic. Italiano111 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use a compromise solution and do an example like in the Religion section, where you have two images: Cologne Cathedral and Frauenkirche in one picture frame — striking a balance between the two topics. Then there would be space for an image from the Weimar Rep. --E-960 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stop expanding all details concerning war developments. These information belong to the specific WW2 articles. Thanks Italiano111 (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, please note that all additions are minor grammatical adjustments and closing an incomplete thought; not creating new paragraphs in the section. Example of fixes… from: "In 1941, invaded the Soviet Union." to: "In 1941, German troops invaded the Soviet Union." and from: "The British repelled the German attacks…" to: "The British repelled German air attacks…" and from: "...were also killed." to: "died from Nazi policies of…" — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-960 (talkcontribs) 11:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Updating per FA review committee underway[edit]

This article is overdue for FAR; I am starting an update pursuant to a pending review. Please do not undo edits or updates. Tasks include: updating/streamlining text; verifying footnotes and citations; additional information; format compliance with FA standards; editorial compliance with FA standards, etc. If you with to assist in this, please contact me. auntieruth (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I did some update and some overhaul recently. Of course, re-checking is always important but to me the article looks fine now. Italiano111 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is pretty good, but Sandy just asked me to have a look. To do list is below. If you want to help out, please do! auntieruth (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

to do list as of 6 May 2015[edit]

  • The Peace of Westphalia (1648) ended religious warfare among the German states. needs source
  • confirm that the population figures are still good? (and if not update here and on related pages)
  • West Germany joined NATO in 1955 and was a founding member of the European Economic Community in 1957. has no source.
  • hence its fall in 1989 became a symbol of the Fall of Communism, German Reunification and Die Wende. has no source
  • The united Germany is considered to be the enlarged continuation of the Federal Republic of Germany and not a successor state. As such, it retained all of West Germany's memberships in international organizations. has no source
  • third paragraph of EU section... has no source.
  • Since reunification, Germany has taken a more active role in the European Union. Together with its European partners Germany signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, established the Eurozone in 1999, and signed the Lisbon Treaty in 2007. no source
  • modest expansion of urbanization section (needs a slight perspective)
  • expansion of political section to explain party system and regulations governing election in the mixed proportional system. this may be clear to Commonwealth English speakers, but not necessarily to Americans.