Talk:Germany/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Germania not a region

It's a little bit "off" to say that "a region named Germania has been known and documented since 100 AD" since it sound's like it was a country of some sort named that by the inhabitans themselves but this was however just a very diffuse term that the romans used for the area where there lived germanic peoples, which streched all over northern Europe, this article makes it sound like it was specifically located were Germany is today, which is wrong. Some Romans even confused celtic areas for being germanic, so it was very undefinite of what area it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggsan (talkcontribs) 12:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign relations

A BBC poll from April 2008 shows, that 20 % of Germans think the US has a mainly positive influence in the world, while 72 % think its mainly negativ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/04_april/02/usa.pdf). It would be great if someone could add this to the footnote section of the article. I think its fair to say, that relations cooled significant not relative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.194.160 (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For a "wannabe" encyclopaedia, such analysis aren't relevant, since they change like the wind. And also, you need to have a "in depth" look at which were the points were actually asked to see if it is valid or some Cartoon channel like votation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.65.62.232 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

West-central Europe

Is there such a thing as West-central Europe (as mentioned in the introduction)?!? Shouldn't it be just Central Europe ?--Zarbi1 (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree 'Central Europe' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.212.87 (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, too. 'West-central Europe' is too specific. That would probably summarize Germany, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Austria, while 'East-central Europe' might be considered as Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary. Forgive me, if I omitted to name one country (perhaps yours). What I am trying to say is, these things are never properly defined on a 100% consent. In any case, the use of regional expressions even more specific than 'Central Europe'--even though existing--are so far less common than the term 'Central Europe' that their us is considered awkward by many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomeasy (talkcontribs) 10:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor mistake in Military section

Here: "(roughly translated as civilian service) , or a longer"... The space before the comma is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.129.203 (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

3. States

The sentence "The Germany is divided into six states" is incorrect because the six states build the Federal Republic! That is a question of legal quality! The German states could exist without the Federal republic, but the Federal Republic couldn't exist without the states!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.127.54 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is also wrong because Germany has 16 states forming the Bundesrepublik (federal republic) Xuthor (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem now is that "Germany is build up completely by the sixteen German states" is not an English language sentence, even though it uses English words. If you want to nit-pick of the wording, fine, but we need to use something comprehensible to English speakers. You won't allow the previous sentences, even though they are geographically true, so I have no clue what you will accept. - BillCJ (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would express it in that way: the Federal Republic of Germany is divided into sixteen German states("Länder") Xuthor (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So would I, but that is what the original sentence said, before is what changed (twice). The IP mistakenly wrote "six" instead of "sixteen" in his post above. - BillCJ (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Germany is not divided into states, the states (who are older) form together the Federal Republic of Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.240.180 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

JEWISH POPULATION

Does any one know what the current jewish population is in Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.17.219.250 (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Jewish population. Figure for Jewish population may be unreliable. Figures for 2002 are given here: Sergio DellaPergola. "World Jewish Population (2002)". American Jewish Year Book. The Jewish Agency for Israel. Retrieved 2007-05-03. --Boson (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The question is a little hard to answer, but according to the Central Council of Jews in Germany, there are "105,000 individual members are organized in 23 regional associations under the umbrella of the Central Council of Jews", so that is the minimum number. Lars T. (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
And at least 170.000 immigrants from former Soviet union since 1990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.3.195 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It is unclear to me whether this figure of 170,000 includes non-Jewish household members. According to the source I cited above, there were about 32,000 Jews in Germany in 1987, and by 2002 there were an additional 150.000 immigrants from the FSU, but this figure included non-Jewish household members, so that the estimate was 103,000 "core Jews" in 2002. --Boson (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Millions of Germans have Jewish ancestry. Genetic tests showed that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.94.186.41 (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And millions of Jews have German ancestry - the same tests showed that. But this doesn't make them German or the Germans Jewish. Its all about Ethnogenesis and Self-identification. The old "blood-theories" are out-dated. But of course there are German Jews, and this people would include genetic jews, genetic German-Jews and even "pure" Germans. So the persons who want to make Marx or Einstein non-German are wrong. They are Jews and German (not only officaly) but most likely also geneticaly 195.243.51.34 (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, including many officials of the Whermacht during the Nazi period had Jewish ancestry, even direct and known Jewish ancestry as showed by Wikipedia in the article "German Blood Certificate": including Field Marshall Erhard Milch, personnal friend of Hermann Göring who falsified his records to hide the fact that Milch´s father was Jew...it would make a very interesting movie: the relationship of Hermann Goring and his Jewish friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.49.59 (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

108,000 Jews according to official German statistics. http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/Tabellen/Content50/AltersgruppenFamilienstand.psml They certainly mean the religious affiliation, not any blood thing. By the way, the word "evangelisch" in this source relates to the Evangelical Church in Germany, the by far largest Protestant denomination in Germany. I don't really like our "religion" section. Christianity is a religion, not a denomination. Actually there are only 2 denominations covering about 66 per cent of the population. One of them is the Evangelical Church in Germany. Completely ignored in the religion section. Maybe someone can include the information given by the German Statistics Office. 91.57.74.2 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Being german doesn´t exclude being Jew, and being Jew doesn´t exclude being German. German is nationality, jew is religion. There are catholic germans, prothestant germans, jew germans, muslim germans and they all are germans. And the sons/daughters of germans can claim german nationality if they want to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.65.62.232 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Enviroment "Oh we are not to blame" clause?

Currently the enviroment section reads to blame other countries for Germany's high carbon dioxide emissions, and I take aim at the "we are not responsible" clause that this basically is.

The US, at one time, was a massive exporter as well, and today most of our carbon emissions are from cars, which people use to go shopping and to work, to buy goods from foreign countries. Can it be said then that we are not responsible for these emissions, as we would not go shopping for them if foreign countries did not export?

Or what about the "work" part? Currently US Financial institutions are highly involved in financing many important projects across the globe: are the emissions created by people moving to and from work at these institutions the fault of the other countries?

No. The US is responsible for the carbon emissions it makes, regardless of what reason its making them. Similarly, Germany is accountable for the fact it has such high emissions.

For now, I am deleting that little clause out of the "enviroment" section. And until we have come to a reasonable agreement that it should be there (beyond the base reasoning currently involved), I think I'll delete any such attempts to put it back.Scryer_360 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So your argument is that the US would produce less CO2 if they produced more CO2. Lars T. (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, where in my statements do I say that? I mean the US wouldn't produce as many carbon emissions if it was not part of the global economy, but, similar to Germany, it is still responsible for the emissions it makes regardless of that fact. The same is said for Germany: it is responsible for its emissions, even if its goods are mainly consumed in other countries.

Well, I don't find it reasonable to claim that if the USA were not part of the global economy, they would reduce their consumption so much that it would even out their reduced CO2 production resulting from their trade deficit. But then I am no Bushman. Lars T. (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It also stands to reason that, of all things, the greatest strides to reduce emissions must be made at the source of the greatest emissions. Hence, the biggest reductions need to come in places like Germany, like the USA, but also like China and Japan. The environment doesn't know what "per capita" means. Signed by Scryer_360, who for some reason is being failed by the log in link... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.137.171 (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


Maybe the point is the contemporary need for many Germans to blame the USA for everything bad in the world. A curious need considering that German Democracy and the critical rebuilding of Germany post WW II are thanks to the Americans. Germany is itself a great economic power because of it's own qualities as a modern industrial nation and it's own great business culture-- but German Democracy and the huge post-war economic lift-up make many German complaints about the USA look ridiculous if not even childish. Perhaps a section in the article on post Word War II German arrogance should be included, certainly the USA has it's arrogance, but so does Germany and so do many Germans.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Germany and I'm wondering a little bit. I don't know the article in the earlier composition and what is different now. But in Germany we're not discussing whether we are responsible for our CO2 output and other pollution, we know we are. There are many problems in reducing pollution as an industrial state and there are many laws (e.g. the EU set since many years pollution standards for cars known as "Euro-Norm" 1/2/3... which is linked with higher taxes for more polluting cars) that reduces pollution more and more, but a growing economy leads in the other direction. But nobody here would say that other states are responible for our pollution. We know our responsibility and try to be a "good" pollution-reducer. But whatever, politics is mostly more slowly than the conviction of the people that economic growth and a healthy enviroment are no contrast. To 24.8.106.182: I think this is no place to discuss this. And no sentence should be wrote in wikipedia, because the "object" of description is so arrogant. But let me tell this: Both Countries (like all countries) have a historical background and all of us would be well advised to know this background of each other and to tolerate what it created and try to understand the other ones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.189.221 (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense to the USA, but i think you should not bring that on table, cause if you can drive with your bicycle, you rather take the car. And your cars, sorry, but when they need around 10- 20 Litres/100kmh then you might think about that. And as well look up what we do for the enviroment, renewable energie and so on. And now, the USA starts slowly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.123.211 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

At least Germany should be thankful to the US, which is nowadays the `bad fella´ of the global-media-discussion. After two disastrous enequities like the WW1 and WW2, germans should be more than thankful for their state in the world! My grandmother lost eight brothers(!!!) in 1915 and both of my grandfathers survived the time after 1945! So I am a product of WW2, which urged my grandmother to flee from east-prussia! We must not complain, despite every professionality of complaining, which became a genuin german-skill. Besides: what would hollywood have done without any german bad boy? I like this page - it is better than the german-wiki itself.--139.30.24.101 (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The political role of Bonn today

It should be mentioned, that Bonn still is chief seat of six ministries and also that the majority of Germany's ministerial employees are working in Bonn according to de:Berlin/Bonn-Gesetz (Berlin/Bonn law). Therefore, although beeing capital of Germany, Berlin shares the country's political power with Bonn. What about a footnote about these circumstances within the table? 85.179.35.157 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I have just performed a string search for "bonn" in the article and found that the city is not mentioned at all. I think a section, e.g. as you propose it, should be really be added. So, if you have the time, just go ahead. Tomeasy (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I think the section Division and reunification (1945–1990) should also mention that Bonn was the provisional capital. I think the page is semi-protected. --Boson (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note, it says that the law deciding the political fate of Bonn was passed in 2004, yet states it was implimented in 1999, which is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.14 (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the german Wikipedia, that act was passed in 1994, so 2004 is incorrect. Actually, it says it was passed on 26 April in 1994, not 10 March.
217.230.15.160 (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely right and I think not controversial. You can get this information also from the appended source. So, I simply fixed it. Tomeasytalk 10:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
As regards the exact date, as I understand it:
  • the law was passed 10 March
  • the official date of the law is 26 April , because that was the date it was signed by the President;
  • it was published in the Bundesgesetzblatt 6 May (No. 27, page 918) ;(http://archiv.jura.uni-saarland.de/BGBl/199427_1.HTML)
  • it came into force one day after publication, i.e. 7 May.
--Boson (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Kosowo Deutschland 2008

http://cgi-host.uni-marburg.de/~hlgl/atlas/id.cgi?ex=inhalt&lines=0&page=2&current=22&id=23 Helsinki 193.208.90.130 (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Weblinks

The inclusion of Kosovo

Germany has accepted Kosovo independence. The map showing where Germany is should be changed, containing an independent Kosovo. Bardhylius (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Without taking sides for one side or the other, I'd just want to add that this really is a non-problem. There are many articles where a decision over Kosovo is of some importance, but definitely not in this article nor in articles of the same kind (France, Spain, Monaco etc.) I can guarantee you that not one person comes to the article on Germany with the intention of finding Kosovo on the map. I can understand those who feel it is important to have it included and those who object to its inclusion, but it's really irrelevant to this article and many similar articles where there's currently a big argument over Kosovo. These disputes should be settled at the discussion over Kosovo, not exported to every second Wikipedia articles as they are at the moment. JdeJ (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone come to see France on this article? Yet it is still there. So is Montenegro, smaller than Kosovo. Let's look up to what's official, Kosovo is. Bardhylius (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JdeJ. It's really no issue here. Just have a look how people are fighting about this subject right now on the more relevant articles. Those are the sites, where you should contribute and look for consensus. Afterwards the remaining articles can be updated to ensure consistency within wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, if you have the map at hand, from my POV you may use it here. However, there might be others just as insistent as you but with an opposite stance, who might change it back. And then you come again, and so forth. For the sake of your energy, I think it is better you contribute to the talk pages of Serbia and Kosovo. Tomeasy (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you mean Tomeasy. But I am fully convinced that the decisions that I have made are very well backed-up with facts. I see these maps as representatives of country locations and their views on the world around them. Bardhylius (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor grammatical mistake

In the Third Reich section, a picture is captioned as "Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during a official visit to occupied Yugoslavia", when it should be captioned as "Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during an official visit to occupied Yugoslavia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fumbingehmer (talkcontribs) 23:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Be bold! Just correct these things... Tomeasy (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
How is he going to do that if the article is locked? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Look under the Weimar Republic section

"There were COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS AND SOCIALISTS THAT PRETTY MUCH ruined the country." I'm not going to deny that, but could a registered user please take care of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.77.47 (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

According to the articleIn the PISA Study, a test of thirty-one countries, in 2000 Germany ranked twenty-first in reading and twentieth in both mathematics and the natural sciences, prompting calls for reform.. However the reference given (Experts: Germany Needs to Step up School Reforms) does not give any information about the number of countries participating. Also it does not give any information about Germany ranking 21st.

According to this article 43 countries participated in PISA in 2000.

Would someone please take a look at this?

Thanks! Patrick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.252.63 (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Introduction

Currently User: Matthead is extending the introduction again and again. I find it too long now. It has this overboarding history part, which should rather go to the respective section. I am very fine with the added content. It is both interesting and relevant, but does it really need to go in the introduction, while the whole Saar issue is not even mentioned in the history section.Tomeasy (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Not your taste, but Wikipedia:Lead section determines the intro, and e.g. states "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The history, beginning with the Romans, is important as it both defines the English name derived from Germania, the Western border along the Rhine, and the distinction from Roman language area. The article (and especially the bogus "West Germany") is not in a good shape as to many under-informed people edit it. Your revert eg. was no improvement and was quickly reverted. -- Matthead  Discuß   22:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, don't get me wrong. I am not criticizing your edits. Actually, I like the contents very much, but the introduction should be concise. This is also a guideline. There is space for the details in the body of the articles. The truth is usually somewhere in between and of course a matter of taste. So, let's see if others are willing to give their opinion on whether all this is in deed needed to have a complete lead, as you think, or whether it might be improved by moving some things down. Of course we can leave your edits as long as my opinion remains sole.
The other small thing is about the 5 states of the GDR, which you quickly re-reverted. I am sure you know that the GDR was not organized as this part of Germany is today. These 5 states were only formed very shortly before re-unification (and might also have existed long before this date). However, I find your formulation puts the reader on the wrong track that those were the 5 states during the existence of the GDR. I hope you understand what I mean. Tomeasy (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The GDR was organised in Ländern between 1949 and 1953 as it finally was by the "Verfassungsgesetz zur Bildung von Ländern in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik - Ländereinführungsgesetz -" (constitutional law to form Länder in the German Democratic Republik - Ländereinführungsgesetz -"). This five Länder acceded to the Bundesrepublik while East Berlin was merged with West Berlin into Berlin. That's why Germany is build up by 16 German States not by 12. Geo-Loge (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
See also:
Geo-Loge (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I emphasised that the five states in the GDR were founded in preparation of the German reunification (The Bundesrepublik is not willing to found its member states by an own act, that is why this information is important). It is wrong to write, that the GDR joined the German Federation and it is - as you said - uncomely to have too much details in the introduction. Geo-Loge (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the details. That's what I meant: the five states in the GDR were founded in preparation of the German reunification, while during the core phase of its existence it was not organized in states. Of course, you have put this on much more solid grounds. I like the current formulation very much.
Having already been forced to cede territory after World War I what do you think about this piece? Isn't it too emotional. In my opinion definitely not encyclopedic. How about After WWI Germany ceded territory according to the Treaty of Versailles.
Let's see what Matthead thinks about the detailed lead now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomeasy (talkcontribs) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Often, mistakes are made which I am not willing to tolerate, as Wikipedia would proliferate them even more:

-- Matthead  Discuß   03:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, somebody User: Lear 21 was very bold, much bolder than I! Apparently, he also found the introduction too long. I hope we'll all stay calm and civilized :-) Tomeasy (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you guys want to shorten the intro, I suggest to delete the long list of neighboring countries (more than most others, I guess). It's like starting an article about a football player by first mentioning all his neighbors, school mates, team mates, coaches etc. before discussing the person itself. On the other hand, the result of World War I is significant, setting the stage for WWII (as e.g. Foch predicted). Some even call the two WWs "the second 30 years war, against Germany", or similar. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God. I hope your not going to do that here.Tomeasy (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The list of neighbors is a standard part among country articles. Lear 21 (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Czech territory in Germany

The Czech Republic article currently states: "The Czech Republic also possesses a 30,000-square-metre (7.4-acre) exclave in the middle of the Hamburg Docks, which was awarded to Czechoslovakia by Article 363 of the Treaty of Versailles to allow the landlocked country a place where goods transported downriver could be transferred to seagoing ships. The territory reverts to Germany in 2018."

Is the above true? While it may have been in the Versaille Treaty, is this still legally the position? Can any one provide a source for this? I have found one source:[1], but it is a magazine article and I would not consider it reliable. The Czech-German territory is not on the list of exclaves so if it can be properly shown that it is true, it should presumably be added to the list. The topic is also being discussed at Talk:Czech Republic. Could any one help in verifying the claim? Redking7 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Moldauhafen (litarally: the Vltava harbour) in Hamburg is leased to the Czech Republic until 2028 (99 years from 1929 until 2028 declared by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919). But I think the territory's state is more comparable with the state of embassies and consulates and not an exclave? Geo-Loge (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Moldauhafen. I've let the Czech editors know about this. Redking7 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I have not found any information about the legal position of the area according to law of nations. I just suppose that the area is under german jurisdiction. Geo-Loge (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Moldauhafen" is in the Free port (Freihafen) in Hamburg. The Versaille treaty says: The "Moldauhafen" is leased for 99 years to the former Czechoslovakia. The "Moldauhafen" is under the jurisdiction of Germany. "Freihafen" means that it is a foreign country related to tariffs (as long as goods are in the "Freihafen" there are no german taxes or tariffs duty), but part of Germany not of the Czech republic. The "Moldauhafen" gave the possibility to the Czech republic to transport goods through Hamburg or store it there without paying taxes or tariffs. After the entry of the Czech republic to the EU these advantages don't matter anymore, because there are no tariffs anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.189.221 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Names of country articles (Ireland)

This post does not directly concern German topics but might benefit from the fresh perspectives of editors of German articles getting involved.

I have proposed that the articles “foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland; civil service of the Republic of Ireland and public service of the Republic of Ireland" be renamed in each case by deleting the words “the Republic of”.

The main article concerning the Irish state is called Republic of Ireland because the island of Ireland already occupies the Ireland page. I do not propose to move this. However, the correct name of the Irish state is simply "Ireland". "Republic of Ireland" is not correct. This is discussed at length at an article I contributed to, Names of the Irish state.

If you are sufficiently interested, you may wish to read the Names of the Irish state article and then contribute your opinions, whatever they may be here. Irish contributors are always a small minority on WP and even the most rational edits often get 'voted down' for essentially political reasons. I think I've put forward pretty convincing reasons for the three moves (and only three moves - try not to be distracted by the smokescreens of those opposed to the moves).

I appreciate few German people are even likely to read this post so we will all still bring our English-speaking perspectives to the debate. However, I am desperate for the level of debate concerning this matter to improve (much of the discussion has consisted of stale rantings over Irish history and politics). Many thanks if you decide to get involved. Redking7 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of Precedence

Order of Precedence

It is incoorrect that the chancellor is third in the order of precedensce. The chancellor is fourth in the order. True is that the Federal President is first, second is the President of Bundestag, but here lies the mistake: third in the order is the President of the Bundesrat, who is elected for a half year period and is always a Ministerpräsident (Minister-President) of a Bundesland (state). The President of the Bundesrat is also the debuty to the Federal President if abscent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.232.53 (talk) 2008-03-29

According to the German Home Office (See http://www.bund.de/nn_168112/Microsites/Protokoll/Rang-und-:Titulierung/Protokollarische-Rangfragen/Protokollarische-Rangfragen-knoten.html http://www.bund.de/nn_168112/Microsites/Protokoll/Rang-und-Titulierung/Protokollarische-Rangfragen/Protokollarische-Rangfragen-knoten.html), precedence is:
  1. Federal President
  2. President of the Bundestag
  3. Chancellor
  4. President of the Bundesrat
  5. President of the Federal Constitutional Court
The article would appear to be correct.--Boson (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the link does not work. I am really eager to see a reference for the stated ranking. So please fix if possible. Tomeasy (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I found http://www.bund.de/nn_168112/Microsites/Protokoll/Rang-und-Titulierung/Protokollarische-Rangfragen/Protokollarische-Rangfragen-knoten.html and hope it helps. Greetings, --Joachim Weckermann (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. Tomeasy (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Languages

There are 3 protected minority languages in Germany: Sorbian in Lusatia, Danish in the north and North Frisian in the north west of Schleswig-Holstein. Would that be worth mentioning? VEB Text (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They are all mentioned in the info box (footnote of language entry). Geo-Loge (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Flag Error

Only a minor comment, but I believe that the German flag was (relatively) recently updated to include an eagle emblem in the centre? Thus, the flag on the page should probably be updated. Gturkey (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Your believe's wrong. The flag that you mention is frequently seen, and that not only recently but since I can remember. However, the official national flag is as simple as is depicted in the article and described in Artikel 22 Grundgesetz. This part part of the constitution has not been changed recently as you say. Tomeasy (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Rather than the national flag, you might have seen the German state flag , which can be used legally only by federal authorities etc. There is also a similar flag with a slightly different eagle emblem, the use of which is probably illegal.--Boson (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All true. Just to show what we have been talking about. The left flag is the correct national flag and, most important to satisfy Gturkey's concerns, there is no motion whatsoever to change the national flag away from this simple form. The second flag is the Bundesdienstflagge, the German state flag that Boson has mentioned. It is official, but legally only used by governmental institutions. Being from Germany, I have to say that it is quite unlikely Gturkey has seen this flag. At last the flag on the right, which Boson probably refered to at last, and which I guess Gturkey thought of, has absolutely no official purpose but is very widely used (sport events etc.). Tomeasy (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I bought a copy of the flag on the right in Germany recently, and (incorrectly) assumed it was the official one. Seems a bit odd, though, to have three variations of one flag. Gturkey (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A little hint: The flag in the middle is the official state flag. It is forbidden to use it in public for normal people. So the right flag is used by people and waited by the officals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.189.221 (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

tfd

There is an additional issue concerning flaggs. The flaggs above use the colors of the democratic movement related to the 1848 revolution. These colors should not be used in connection with fascism, because these colors were in opposition to the Nazi Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.91.129 (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe

Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Janneman (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Picture of Bundeskanzler(in)

I'm from Germany, and here the Cancelor (Angela Merkel) for us holds an important representative value, more Germans nows her and not Horst Köhler (President). So I miss a Picture of Angela Merkel, because for us (German People) the Cancellor seems to be more important than the President. --89.51.18.230 (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you speak for the German people? Is it you, Angie? Joachim Weckermann (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about, the president is nothing in Germany, its just a represantive of Germany. Not like in the USA, so you might change that!!!! And yes, he is speaking for all germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.123.211 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't miss her at all...Soilentgreen (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

and sometimes, our dear President just refuses to sign a bill... Anyway, Mr. Köhler is very popular and our head of state. 85 per cent of Germans are content with him according to this survey http://www.welt.de/politik/article2038489/Koehler_beliebt_wie_nie_zuvor_Beck_im_Sturzflug.html "Only" 69 per cent are content with the Federal Chancellor. 91.57.72.64 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Claudia Schiffer

I would say that Heidi Klum is as an example for German society more up to date. --89.51.18.230 (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither one is representative. I suggest removing the image. I'm sure some pie chart or other graph can be found that illustrates something more interesting. And we don't need an image per paragraph anyway. 87.165.203.240 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Germany Info

hello I need info on germany's cutlure please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.178.36.41 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Please give your opinion about Proposal II which will define Central Europe

Give your support or opposition at the Central Europe talk page, since we are looking for a single definition for it. It's very important. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

muy malos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.96.101 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all that participated and gave their opinion on Proposal II.

Proposal II was approved, 13 editors supported it and 5 editors opposed it. Proposal II is now in effect and it redefined Central Europe. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why

why doesn't this site have geographical features of germany??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.226.146 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

German Speakers?

Hi, I'm trying to compile a list of notable references to support a Wikipedia article concerning a video editor. One I have is in German - if there are any German speakers that could help by reading the articles this would be appreciated. The articles are here: Clesh#References If you believe from the article the video editor is notable please leave some form of comment here: AfD Many thanks, mk (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW if you wish - please make comment directly on the Clesh references page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Kilby (talkcontribs) 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Science

I don't understand why it says Germany was the home of numerous important mathematicians and scientists. I would say Germany was AND still is home to numerous important mathematicians (Fields medalist Gerd Faltings, MPI Mathematics Bonn) and scientists (2008 Physics Nobel Laureate Peter Grünberg, FZ Jülich and 2008 Chemistry Nobel Laureate Gerhard Ertl, FHI MPG Berlin). So I think we should really rewrite this part. Or someone should explain to me why this article gives the impression that German achievements in science belong to the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werni2 (talkcontribs) 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

State law vs. federal law

In reply to the revert [[2]. Although this is luckily (!) a very theoretical debate on death penalty provisions in German state constitutions it is simply not right that Bavaria abolished death penalty. First they just removed one of two provision on death penalty but they didn't abolish it (abolishing is stating that capital punishment is prohobited, though it would be redundant as it is exclusively ruled by the Grundgesetz). Second there still is a provision that explicitely rules death penalty: "Der Vollzug der Todesstrafe bedarf der Bestätigung der Staatsregierung." - "The excecution of death penalty requires confirmation of the state government" (Art. 47 §4 Bayerische Verfassung). This sentence could have been removed as well (alongside some other very silly provisions obsoleted by the Grundgesetz). But up to now it is corect to say: "A famous example are articles on enforcement of the death penalty in some federal laws (Art. 21 § 1 Hesse constitution, Art. 43 §4 Bavarian Constitution) that go against the ban of capital punishment by the Basic Law, rendering these provisions invalid." This doesn't mean that death penalty isn't abolished there it just means that some illegal provisions exist in some state constitutions. Arnomane (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a basic difference between both statements in the constitutions:
The Bavarian regulation does not declare, in which case death penalty has to be imposed as the Hessian did (which says: Bei besonders schweren Verbrechen kann er [ein für schuldig Befundener] zum Tode verurteilt werden - He [someone judged guilty] can be sentenced to death for very serious crimes)! There is not a clause that allows death penalty for any crime in the bavarian constitution. The Bavarian constitution never allowed death penalty by itself however it regulated the confirmation in case of death penalties for example according to federal law (hypotheticaly).
By the way: Most of the constitutions of the german states (except Hesse) do not abolish the death penalty by themself trusting in federal law. Geo-Loge (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Well basically this is all due to the fact that some state constitutions existed shortly previous to the Grundgesetz and out of some narrow-minded local patriotism weren't changed accordingly in every state (some states did and removed all the redundant sections entirely or gave themselves a new constitution). If the current Bavarian or Hesse constitution would have been created today they wouldn't be just considered outdated but even as illegal (there are more irrelevant provision such as poorly written human rights provisions and provisions on bigoted moral values and against true social equality, not to mention the funny state citizenship) and thus everyone could sue Bavaria and Hesse state legally and would win without any doubt and I suppose you could even argue that these constitutions are so strongly opposed to the Grundgesetz that people supporting them could be sued for felony in Germany. Sure there is no need to declare in state constitutions that death penalty is abolished, but neither should be there any provisisons about application of death penalty in them... Anyways I just wanted to highlight that Hesse isn't the only state that has outdated provisions on death penalty. Arnomane (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
But finally you must agree that the Bavarian constitution does not allow death penalty in any clause. The provision Article 47, §4, Clause 2 was a passiv regulation that had no function until either Bavaria itself or the Bundesrepublik had allowed death penalty. Article 47, §4 was not in contradiction to the Grundgesetz (ex falso sequitur quodlibet). The clause was just useless not illegal. Geo-Loge (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The Bavarian constitution now is death-penalty-free. In article 43 and article 47 the parts with death penalty were shortened. http://www.bayern.landtag.de/bayer_verfassung_erster_hauptteil.html#4

In Hesse the problem is that always the parliament is splintered in so many parties so since 1948 only a few changes could be done. Often they try to do too much changes so one of the parties, needed for the necessary majority, does not agree with one change and so the complete revision failed. So it happened last in 2004. This time it failed, because the social democratic party did not agree with changes in social matters. http://starweb.hessen.de/cache/hessen/landtag/enquetekommissionverfassung/EKV-Bericht.pdf The death penalty can never be used even if Hesse would leave the federel republic, the constitutional court of Hesse would have to weigh the right to live against the death penalty. The right to live would win, maybe the constitutional court would decide, that the article of the constitution is in contradiction to the constitution of Hesse cancle the article. But the constitutional court only can act, if ones human rights are impaired and would go with this "problem" to the constitutional court. So without death penalty, no correction by the constitutional court. In Germany the constitutional courts can correct changes of the constitution if the change is in contradiction to the constitution. This is called "Verfassungswidriges Verfassungsrecht" constitutional law in contradiction to the constitution. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungswidriges_Verfassungsrecht and this: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20040303_1bvr237898.html is a case where the german constitutional court weigh constitutional law against constitutional law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.194.76 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire

There is something wrong there. "Nationis Germanicae" does not mean "of the german Nation", but "of German Nationality". Thx. --89.13.166.193 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Try this "Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germaniæ" in Google and you'll see all translations (also one from Britannica) have it about "German Nation" not "German Nationality". So, I think we should stick to what is currently posted. Tomeasytalk 09:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In medieval context of emperor barbarossa´s contemporary comprehension "Nationis Germaniae" does not ment the latter (early modern) "nation", since there was a different meaning in that idea of "natio", which dirived from academic distinction. "natio" could be whether the clerical province of "germania" (including Scottland, Poland, Bohemia a.s.o.) or a pure sign of birthplace and language. The emerging of this title in the late 12th century is a cornerstone of the imperial decline. Struggling with the papal and the eastern church, but also with the danish and english kings, this new self-definition had been a division of self-esteem and feudal heritage. A german nation is perhaps first to be seen in 1871, when prussia led their weaker neighbours out of the "holy empire". (excuse my worse english)--139.30.24.101 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Holy Empire ceased to exist in 1806, long before the German Empire was founded in 1871. 91.57.72.64 (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Precedence

The second highest offical in Germany is the Bundesratspräsident. If the Bundespräsident dies or is absent, the Bundesratspräsident is head of state. The Bundestagspräsident ist just third and the chancelor forth highest official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.136.7.191 (talkcontribs) 2008-05-19

See #Order of Precedence.
According to Article 57 of the Grundgesetz, if the Federal President is unable to perform his duties they are performed by the President of the Bundesrat, but "rank" according to protocol when both are alive and well is a separate issue.--Boson (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture of Munich stadium

suggested picture, Commons:featured_pictures

Lear21 and me had a little discussion about the picture of the Allianz Arena here. I couldn´t get satisfying answers there and suggest that either the picture on the right stays in the article or the caption is changed to The Allianz Arena is host to the football clubs Bayern Munich, 1860 Munich and was a venue for the 2006 FIFA World Cup, because the blue illumination stands for a home play for 1860 Munich. Any opinions? Thanks, --Joachim Weckermann (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the Arena was chosen? There are five, six comparable stadiums in Germany. Why not take an image of the Olympic Stadium (Berlin) which is venue of the national cup finals and would be the venue of prospective UEFA/FIFA finals? Hiding club success it is the most important stadium in Germany. It is furthermore a multi-use stadium and would fit the chapter sport better. Geo-Loge (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the Berlin stadium is the most representative sports arena for the Germany article. I do not now if a good photograph of it is available. I also like the current choice, especially I appreciate the solution of showing the non-illuminated state avoiding the confusion in the caption. So, I think it is fine like it is, but if we had a nice picture of the Berlin stadium, I would support its incorporation.Tomeasytalk 15:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Image:Olympicstadium2.jpg is not that bad although it is not a featured picture. One must say in addition, that the Allianzarena is even not a five-star stadium of the UEFA (yet). HSH Nordbank Arena, Signal Iduna Park, Olympiastadium Berlin and Veltins-Arena are more important venues by UEFA ranking. Geo-Loge (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The two most internationally known sport arenas in Germany are the Olympiastadion and the Allianz Arena. Both were either opening or final venue for the World Cup 2006. There are several good reasons for both of them getting installed in this article. The main arguments to have the Allianz Arena in the sports section and in the Germany article in general are: 1. Within a very short time the AA has become an iconic modern! building of Germany 2. It is home to the by far most successful and globally known German football club. 3. because of (2.) it has the highest permanent presence in national and international media 4. The AA broadens the range of regions and cities represented in the article.(Berlin is already represented several times in the article). Note that the iconic appearance of the AA is only related to its unique transluscent/ illuminated facade. It would be not wise having a daylight image therefore. Introducing the daylight image would mean introducing a "Gummiboat" which nobody in the world is able to recognize. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Many good arguments, especially number 4 convinces me. Any chance you can provide the AA in red illumination? BTW, it is a good custom to discuss things first before reverting. Especially, when a discussion has already started with opposing opinions. Your revert, that personally I do not oppose, was not grounded on consensus in this thread. At least Geo-Loge has not yet stated that he agrees on it. And my consent was also not know to you before I posted this comment. Tomeasytalk 13:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
So we have the image of the Allianz Arena instead of Germanys most important stadium for more sport than just football due to it is the home of Germany's most successfull and globaly best-known football club (we just believe that at this point) but however in the colour of TSV 1860 München.. We have the image of the Allianz Arena in function as the home of 2nd Bundesliga club 1860 München and we huckster that stadium as the home of Germany's most successfull football club. We present nescience especially with the underline.
Berlin is still the capital of Germany if I am informed right and this is why it is some times more illustrated in an article about Germany. Why not bring Hofbräuhaus instead in the chapter cuisine; it is more significant for perception of the germans than a stadium in the open countryside. It might be important in "modern" architecture, it is not a landmark yet. (The Olympic stadium representing contemporary architecture in combination with historic structures is not less artistically important. But this is very marginal in the chapter sport!)
Sport is more than football and this is the reason why the stadium of most importance in football as well as in athletics should be chosen. Geo-Loge (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I support the image of the AA, mostly for the fact that Germany unlike France is not centralistic country and Berlin is allready presented in this article twice. By the way I live much closer to Berlin and like the city more than Munich, but Berlin is not THE center of all kinds in Germany, even if many Berliners seem to believe this. The AA represents football much more than the Olympic stadium -it is true that it is not about other sports, but football is by far the most important sport in everyday live in Germany and far more important than for example athletics (I am not a football fan, but I recongnize it) - and Michael Schumacher also only stands for F1 and not for many sports. But I would not add two stadiums in the article.195.243.51.34 (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There are at least two stadiums that are going to represent Germany (not a city!) in football: The HSH Nordbank Arena hosting the 2010 UEFA Cup Final and the Olympic stadium hosting the final match of the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup. The Allianz Arena is not even allowed to host a UEFA Cup/Champions League final due to it is not ranked good enough (yet) and might never be allowed to represent Germany with a Champions League final. So we have scheduled matches and UEFA stadium rankings on the one hand and opinions and privat valuation on the other. If there is still doubt about the question where (federative but statewide) Germany is represented then article 22, Grundgesetz might help. Geo-Loge (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The core question for this section is, how to represent "Football", the most important and most popular national sport of Germany. Arena images are one possibility. Again, nobody makes the case against the Olympiastadion but instead for the AA because of 1.-4. I am a Berliner myself and could easily argue for the OS. On the other hand, the article as an entity should represent Germany. Munich is one of the important centers of the country and should be somehow included. One last thing, the AA image has been added to the article long before my first edit more than 2 years ago. It is by no means a mistake to keep it. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would neither be a mistake to keep the AA, nor would it be to pick one out of Geo-Loge´s list above. If we agree on keeping the AA, it should be displayed in the correct way. Image:Allianzarenacombo.jpg could be a way, paying tribute to the fact that the AA is the only German football stadium hosting two pro teams. Even though it is very clear that Bayern is more important than 1860, this special fact makes it worthwhile to also mention the smaller club and we´d get rid of this tiny incorrectness combining the blue AA with Bayern. Best wishes and many thanks, --Joachim Weckermann (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Kretschmann

I would not consider Thomas Kretschmann as a famous german actor, I had to look him up to remember the face. Maybe he was just included because he is playing in Hollywood. I would rather suggest one of the following: Ulrich Mühe, Alexandra Maria Lara, Moritz Bleibtreu, Til Schweiger, Martina Gedeck.

Or Klaus Kinski's daughter Nastassja Kinski, Udo Kier - both famous in Hollywood. 84.60.164.147 (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued attempts to "sneak" in picture of Mussolini

Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany and face of Nazism, Hitler was the "Fuhrer". Mussolini had zero control of Nazi Germany at all, he was the leader of Italy. I know this is an attempt to say "hey look! there were other bad ones too", but no. An image of Adolf Hitler alone is available, and that is what belongs in the section on German history. Hitler alone, the man who ruled Nazi Germany. Its good enough to be the main pic on his article, its certainly good enough for here. - Gennarous (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Derblaueengel.jpg

The image Image:Derblaueengel.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Generalizations/Non Sequitur

From the text: "After World War II, Germany was divided into two separate states along the lines of allied occupation in 1949.[4] The two states became reunified again in 1990. . . ."

Comments: (1) After WW2 [Insert: "RUMP Germany"] eventually emerged as "two separate states [plus the Saarland, plus the Berlin enclave] along the lines of allied occupation . . . "; (2) By "Rump Germany" is meant all German land west of the Oder-Western Neisse line. (3) Prior to 1945, the country known as Germany never had a history of existing separately from the Eastern Provinces (i.e., Silesia, and others, east of the Oder-Neisse line (See: Oder-Neisse line)), so "reunified" or "reunified again" is a non sequitur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.18.161 (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Footnote #[4] in the text, Rump Germany [less the Saarland; & less the Berlin enclave] only came into existence in 1949: "In 1949, at East – West Germany division . . . " Use of such a text reference to the DDR/GDR as "East Germany" is misleading, since in 1949 the "Polish Administered Territories" (Silesia, Main Pommerania, Southern East Prussia) were in abeyance . . . and those territories could, at that time, also have been called part of "Eastern Germany" pending the World War Two Peace Treaty.

3 October 1990: the land areas of the nations of the then current "Federal Republic of Germany" ("FRG") and the German Democratic Republic (GDR/DDR), namely (1) the former occupation zones of the U.S., France [to include the Saar Protectorate], & Britain (the sum total of which eventually became "West Germany"/BRD/FRG) and, (2) the former occupation zone of the Soviet Union (and which became the DDR/GDR), were, along with the Soviet, British, U.S., & French Occupation Zones of the Berlin enclave, reunited as the new Federal Republic of Germany. The land area of this Federal Republic of Germany, when combined with the land area of the 1945 ordained Polish Administered Eastern German Territories, plus the 1945 created Russian Province of Kaliningrad (which is the northern part of the former German Province of East Prussia), form the land area of the 1937 pre-WW2 Germany. Note: The determination of the land area of Germany between 1919 and, for example, 1937, was a result of the 1919 Versailles Treaty, following the 11 November 1918 World War 1 armistice. In 1935 the Saar was restored to Germany after being provisionally detached by the 1919 Versailles Treaty; in the early 1920s Versailles Treaty mandated plebliscites were held in East Prussia and southern Silesia, the results of which determined Germany’s borders in those areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.18.161 (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tysk?

This may not be the best place to ask this, but I am curious as to the meaning/origin/etymology of the Scandinavian terms Tysk and Tyskland. Is this simply the result of a linguistic drift from Deutchsland, or is it a distinctly separate word, like the various Alemagne/Alemannia/Alemán variants of the Romance languages? LordAmeth (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Deutschland (German), Duitsland (Dutch): from the Old High German word "diutisc", meaning 'of the people' (itself from ancient Germanic "thiuda" or "theoda" 'people') and "land" 'land': "land of the people". Of the same root are Tyskland (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish), Þýskaland (Icelandic) and tedesco (Italian adjective form) [3] all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition, those Romance language terms are derived from the name "Alemanni" - a group of German tribes that inhabited an area roughly corresponding to German Switzerland, and the southern German states of Bavaria and Baden-Würtenberg (among other places). Many of the dialects spoken in these areas are referred to as "Alemannic German". I wasn't sure if you were aware of that, even though you made it clear you were aware the terms had a different etymology. Now if someone could explain why the British referred to the Germans as "huns" in WW1... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warsteiner14 (talkcontribs) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For your last question, see Huns#Historiography. Lars T. (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Svenska är lagtysk i tolv dialekter! (swedish is low-german in twelve dialects) So you have to go to northgerman tongues, where you will find "tütsch". "sch" is the diminutivum which stands for the scandinavian "sk", and so - as far as i know (I am a "lowgerman"!): "tütsch" means "teutsch" (which is newgerman "Deutsch"). That diphtong "ü"(ue) was written in medieval scandinavia like "y" - besides there was no right way to write, you did that after bare hearing. Facit "tysk" ment "deutsch/teutsch" or - if you like - "Dutch", its funny, but true!--139.30.24.101 (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It can be generally said, it depends which german tribe lived next door when this terms were coined. For instance, in finnish they call germany "saksa" - probably since the saxons were living closer to them than any other german tribe when the name was coined. Swedish call it "tyskland", the root of that term is disputed. Some assume it could trace back to the "teutons" - which was a danish and north german tribe (according to today's territories) same goes with french "alemannia" (alemanni lived in southwest germany and switzerland, according to today's territories) or italian "germania" (they just keep the old latin term). In england they called the germans once "dutch", during the medieval the netherlands gained independence and since the netherlands are that close to britain they kept calling the people there "dutch" while the other germans got the latin term (->germania) and were from that date on called "germans". Thats also the reason why the country isn't called something like "dutchland" but netherlands in english, the english had difficulties with that chaotic terms due to chaotic and always changing borders due to the german sectionalism. That's why "pennsylvania german" is by mistake called "pennsylvania dutch". Now it's getting difficult, actually bavaria was never ever part of "germania" but part of the roman empire (the "real" one). The territory of the germanic tribes bordered to the roman empire (and bavaria) at the danube river. But since prussia gained dominance during the centuries and prussians are in fact "germanics" the term for them took place for the country as a whole in most languages. germany is not homogenic - it's as diverse as spain (catalonia, galicia,..) or the united kingdom (england, wales, scotland, northern ireland). So, depending on the person you'll ask you might get different explanations, it's just too lang ago to evaluate it impartial. I'm bavarian and that's my point of view ;-) 84.155.84.3 (talk) 06:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

1806-1814??

There is a continuous history of dates covered in the History of Germany section, yet very strangely there is no talk of what took place in Germany (or former Holy Roman Empire) between the years of 1806-1814; thus this is a curiously incomplete account. Granted this article is not the proper History of Germany article, just Germany in general, but how can you account in a broad sense for ALL of the years except for 1806-1814? When I did a little research I found that these 8 years spanned most of the Napoleonic era and the formation of the Confederation of the Rhine, which was very formative to the later development of the German Empire. So why no accounting for these years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.182.200.229 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in Germany

I undid a revert about poverty being not existing in Germany. According to Unicef poverty is existent in Germany: Child Poverty in Rich Countries. German social scientists also hold the opinion that poverty is existent in their country: Armut und Zukunftschancen bei Kindern und Jugendlichen[http://www.dkhw.de/download/14_DKHW_Forderungskatalog.pdf Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk: Forderungskatalog zur Bekämpfung der Kinderarmut in Deutschland]. Of course we are talking about relative poverty not about absolute poverty here. Studies about Poverty and the "new underclass" haven gotten a lot of media coverage in Germany lately.--Resilienzi (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The newly introduced sentence does not present comparable data and is not put in perspective on a global level. It is misleading by several means. In Germany "poor" still means having high standards of paid health insurance, enough money for a year round warm accommodation, food, public transport, TV and internet. Germany is one of very few countries in the world having it´s wealth most equally spread among it´s citizens. See also Gini coefficient. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You are right. Being poor in Germany does not mean the same as being poor in Bangladesh or Ghana. But still there is poverty in Germany according to Unicef standards for poverty in rich countries In Deutschland verdoppelt sich die Kinderarmut alle zehn Jahre In Deutschland verdoppelt sich die Kinderarmut alle zehn Jahre Child Poverty in Rich Countries. A huge majority of German scientist holds the opinion that poverty is existant in Germany and it is growing. Studies about Poverty and the "new underclass" haven gotten a lot of media coverage in Germany lately. [4] [5] and a lot of books have been written about this topic by famous German scientists like Butterwege or Palentin.
You are right about poor people having a TV in Germany, but that is not what poverty in rich countries is about and the scientist who talk about poverty in Germany do not complain about lack of TVs. They talk about dim educational perspectives (a growing number of school-dropouts and a growing number of kids graduating from schools without having acquired basic skills), a growing number of violent youths, a steep increase in the teenage-pregenancy rate, a steep increase in the number of youth who are emotionally or mentally challenged and so on. There has been much talk about the fact that the number of kids on welfare has been going up for years (in 1975 one in 75 children lived in welfare, now on in 6 does, in some big cities such as Berlin or Hamburg one in 3 children has to rely on welfare). That's bad no matter how much welfare is and no matter if it does buy you a TV or not. If you do speak German please do a google search for "neue Unterschicht" or "Armut in Deutschland". Sorry if my english is not perfect, i am not a native speaker.--Resilienzi (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Your ideas come very well across, Resilienzi :-) I think it is clear and problematic at the same time that poverty underlies different definitions in different societies. Scientifically, there is enough reliable evidence for all that is mentioned (rich-country-poverty grows in Germany) and there is no objective reason not to include this on wikipedia. IMHO, what Resilienzi proposes complies well with WP policy.
We should, however, very sensitively put it into a reasonable perspective, basically because everything that Lear has said is correct. I would like to add another–temporal–aspect to it. In 1960, the poverty rate in Germany might have been quite low. Measured by today's concepts it would have been incredibly high. Almost nobody enjoyed higher education by then. One more point, this issue has become kind of a buzz discussion (a hype) during the past months and therefore we have to be very careful that our prose remains encyclopedic and does not read like another political pamphlet. Tomeasytalk 12:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I can not disagree with all that. On the one side poverty in Germany is relative poverty and it is hard to live in a society of growing wealthy and not having enough resources to join cultural life, education and lates knowledge and so on. But what we are talking about is social inequity. Of course only a few people had a academic education in the 1960s but academic education became more and more the only reliable basement of wealthy since then.
I think is more practicable to exclude the term poverty (there is for example a source telling that about 0% of Germans are undernourished permanently). With the given sources and furthermore sources a chapter about social inequity would be a good completion.
The term poverty is a modern Angst and Zeitgeist in Germany and in some aspect part of the problem and not its result. Geo-Loge (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
To my mind things were very different back in the 1960s. Back then people graduated from Hauptschule and went to work in middle-class jobs. Nowadays in Germany college-education has become nearly a requirement for membership in the middleclass. I have to agree with Geologe on that... and while it is true that more and more people are getting college degrees it is also true that more and more people are dropping out of school without even getting the Hautpschuldiploma and that more and more people do not have the basic reading-skills and mathematical skills needed to work in an industrialized society. Still you may say that Germans are very well-educated compared to people from other countries and of course that is true. However it still is a problem.
Some people have been making claims that Hunger is existent in Germany:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Es gibt auch Hunger in Deutschland. Wieviele Kinder bekommen nicht genug zu essen?
Siggelkow: Viel zu viele werden fehl- oder mangelernährt. Oft reicht das Geld nur bis zum 20. des Monats und dann gibt es eben zehn Tage nur noch nackte Nudeln. Es existieren aber keine Zahlen darüber, wieviele Kinder von Hunger betroffen sind. Denn kaum eine Mutter wird sagen: Meine Kinder kriegen vom 20. bis zum Monatsende zu wenig zu essen.[6]
I am not sure if that claims are valid. I highly doubt it, but i am not an expert on that.
However to my mind to growing number of people (especially children) who have to depend on welfare should be mentioned in this article. There are some, who need to depend on welfare for a short time and are fine after that but many people have to rely ón welfare for years. some for their whole lives. While this people may enjoy more luxuries than middleclass people in the 1950s did many still have no chance to join the real middle-classes. They may have TVs, mobile phones and Internet, but scientist have been pointing out that the kids have few educational opportunities and few job opportunities and that they are very likely to live on welfare as grown-ups too. Yes, they are provided for, but they have few opportunities to ever reach their full potential and limited opportunities to contribute to the society. Of course there are children who are overcoming the odds, but most don't. I live in Germany, in the Ruhrgebiet on of the most poverty-stricken areas. Some neighbourhoods of the town i live in remind me of giant indian reservations. They are provided for and kept peaceful and out of sight, but this government takes away their dignity by giving them handouts instead of providing opportunities to work and to get an education.
Now what is very bad about this is the fact that the number of people who have to live like that is growing and growing.−−Resilienzi (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it really growing and growing? Is it really fact? Well one can refer on statistics. But all that statistics contain classified reality, definitions of class limits etc. One must believe that classification was set right to derive such statements as: Upper-Middleclass is shrinking. Another problem is changing context: the basket of commodities changed as like as the offer (and requirement) of completely new commodities. 20,000 Real-Euro per year might be felt sufficient in 2008 but not in 1998 (when every one was forced to buy expensive computers to have access to expensive internet) or in 2018 (when every one will be forced to buy and operate energy devices like heat pumps, photovoltaic modules and so on to optimize energy supply). So what are we comparing by just include incomes in our relation?
I do not have the source at the moment but the number of poor people increased by 2% between 1995 and 2005.. well that is not that growth that is medialized in my eyes. Imminence of poverty is more and more a social phobia but phobia retards. I see 18 years old people that decline starting an university education due to their parents might will have a larger risk of getting unemployed in the next 4 years. The German 2.0 will evaluate all his risks and his life profit with the first contraction to decide whether to go on or not.. ;) a society is very self dependent to grant welfare and to avoid poverty in all its aspects. Geo-Loge (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, to my mind thats really a fact. Many scientist belief that welfare dependency is a good indicator for measuring poverty. This article In Deutschland verdoppelt sich die Kinderarmut alle zehn Jahre states that in Germany the number of children on welfare doubles every ten years and it is still growing while the economy is booming and the number of those without a job is declining. In 1965 on in 75. children lived on welfare now one in six does. There are many cities were 40% of minors live on welfare according to the article. In cities such as Bielefeld 50% of minority youngsters are on welfare. Nationwide 1/3 of minority youngsters drop-out of school without receiving a diploma according to the article. I think that's some facts the German public is very worried about and to my mind they are right to be worried about that. This article points out that children growing up poor are less likely to succeed in school and that their physical and cognitive health is endangered. „Ausgeschlossen“ – Kinderarmut in Deutschland. This article Mehr als 800.000 arme Kinder in NRW speaks about a cyle of disadvantage--Resilienzi (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Please let's find a few sentences we all do agree on and we can include into the article.--Resilienzi (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It is important to state statistical delay, too! Most of the data one can refer to, to include some sentences are just up to 2005. This 3-year-delay brings an unrecognized lack of knowledge to studies whether the result is positiv or negative. Geo-Loge (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That's data from 2006/2006. It's newer than most other sources in the article.—Resilienzi (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I mentionted before, germany isn't uniform but diverse. In bavaria poverty and unemployment exist just like everywhere else on earth, but not in alarming numbers. In the more northern parts of germany (doesn't matter if north-west or north-east) the reverse is true. The former GDR and the struggling ruhrgebiet and old industry in the north (cf. rust belt in the US) provoked a doom loop of job cuts, decreasing spending power, decreasing tax yield, and so on while the southern states of Baden-Wuerttemberg and Bavaria are very prosper. So I think this topic should be handled in that context - generalizations are pointless. Same goes for the education system. Education in germany is the responsibility of the Laender. A German school system is simply non-existent. 84.155.84.3 (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Some plurality agreements for subjects

Under the heading "Economy," it states that "A growing number of Germans is poor. Children are more likely to be poor than adults In 1965 only one in 75 children lived on welfare, now one in 6 does."

In "A growing number of Germans is poor," the correct grammar would be "A growing number of Germans are poor."

Also, there is no period after the sentence "Children are more likely to be poor than adults". This claim is not backed by any sources.

Nichtsoren (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.--Boson (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Immigration-nonsense sentence

Are these nonsense sentences? Read and correct if you understand what they are supposed to mean: 'After the end of the influx of so-called Gastarbeiter (blue-collar guest-workers), refugees were a tolerated exception to this point of view. Today the government and the German society are acknowledging the opinion, that controlled immigration should be allowed based on the qualification of immigrants.' What point of view? And why 'after'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.125.227 (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The "POV" or "the opinion [...] that Germany is not a country of immigration". And "after" because after the influx of Gastarbeiters ended because Germany didn't need any more low-level workers, the only major group of (legal) immigrants were refugees. Lars T. (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture of president is misleading

i suggest to move/remove the picture of president horst köhler in the government-section. the head of state is the chancellor, and her picture

Angela Merkel (2008).jpg

should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.182.46 (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am always surprised when I read extremely clear cut statements—heavily overconfident—and then they are just as wrong as they are simple. Here's another example: "the head of state is the chancellor". Of course, that is not true. The chancellor is the head of government, while the president is the head of state. How can one place such a comment, whilst obviously not even knowing what head of state means. (Sorry for that.)
Which picture should now be put in the government section? That is of course still debatable. However, we have Angela's picture already in the article. After all, I am satisfied with how the current version manages to show both of them.Tomeasytalk 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.148.97 (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a small note, if you dont know it better, dont say something. The Head of Germany is the Chancellor, even if you want it or not. We are not the USA, even if the word president is confusing you. And tell me, were did you get the information that the president is the head of germany?? Tell me, would you! The chancellor is more powerfull, although she is in the third place, but it doesnt matter at all. And if you want to know about the rang of our president, look it up, look up his job and his power, and you will find not so much... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.123.211 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Be careful what you say, for it may be held against you. This is not about the Head of Germany, but about who is the german Head of state. And that is the President, recognizable by the fact that every law that is made must be signed by the president (not the chancellor!) before it can come into effect. This is regardless of the fact that constitution gives the political power effectivly to the chancellor and the parlament has the ability to force the president to sign a law (the president has no veto-power) . Nevfennas (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I completly agree with you, but I find the last part of your response misleading. There are no provisions to force the president to sign a law. The only way for the parliament to achieve that is by suing him in the Bundesverfassungsgericht, something that (I hope I remember correctly) never happened yet. --Wladi001 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, Mr. Köhler is very popular and our head of state. 85 per cent of Germans are content with him according to this survey http://www.welt.de/politik/article2038489/Koehler_beliebt_wie_nie_zuvor_Beck_im_Sturzflug.html "Only" 69 per cent are content with the Federal Chancellor. 91.57.72.250 (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

This sentence should be rendered into the past tense: Renewable energy is generating 14% of the country's total electricity consumption in 2007.. --76.113.200.215 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you are more than welcome to make these kind of edits yourself. Kman543210 (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Well done. Please notice that the article is under protection and IPs cannot edit it. Tomeasytalk 08:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning that. To be honest, I never pay attention to the protection status of an article, so I didn't even notice that and thought the IP user was asking permission. Kman543210 (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I know. I made the same kind of comment somewhere up on this talk page. Well, you won't think of it until someone mentions. I am actually wondering why this articles is constantly under protection. Not that I am opposing this protection. In deed, I would like all articles to be protected this way. But I am wondering why it is so for Germany all the time, while elsewhere we have to revert disruptive comments all the time. Tomeasytalk 08:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New Constitutional Court in Schleswig-Holstein

Schleswig-Holstein recently formed a Verfassungsgericht [7], please remove the outdated info from the section "State level". --Wladi001 (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

locator map; orange or green

It appears to me that there is a need for discussion on what map -- orange or green -- to use in the info box. I have just reverted a change on this, and I am afraid that the editor will object this revert. So, perhaps it is a good idea to have an open discussion on the issue.
Changing from orange to green, the edit summary stated that it is due to harmonizing the EU locator maps. This is far from being realistic! There is currently a quite even split among EU countries using an orange or green map. The number of orange maps, however, is rather increasing than declining. So, while the standardized version is far from being installed (if ever), it would rather be the orange one, I think. That's why I reverted. However, I can imagine that there are more arguments that motivated the change and I am open to listen to them -- as I have of course arguments for the orange map. Tomeasytalk 10:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to correct one of my statements above. The current split is not even, but 2:1 for green. However, it does not change the argument that there is no standard. Tomeasytalk 10:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
imho the orange map is nicer, but the fact that this 'standardisation' had made Germany to Slovenia is a bit ... disturbing ;-) Sebastian scha. (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
the orange map is easier to read and has more details--Zarbi1 (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Tomeasy, I will not die for this change, however I have seen a recent move from orange to green; the fact that some countries are still orange is because there is no green map for it (obviously this is not the case for Germany). I thought it was some sort of standard to move towards the green maps, as I have been seeing it recently. But, if a set of editors that cover this article (and protect it against vandals and incorrect updates) think that orange is better, then fine with me. Danke! Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
My apologies if the lengthly introduction to this talk section seemed to insinuate that you might be desperate in this question. I really did not want to make it appear so. I was probably overreacting due to the fact that I have read through pages of discussion that were written when the orange maps came up one or two years ago and I was afraid this discussion might be repeated now. Sorry again.Tomeasytalk 13:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
No problems, I still think the green map is better ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the green map, but only because I have a pet peeve against the Mercator projection, making Scandinavia bigger than it should be. Otherwise I'd prefer the orange map. The ideal IMO would perhaps be the orange maps redone in the green maps' projection... BGManofID (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

spelling mistake in chapter Economy

Could somebody please correct it?

It says "Hanover" with an "n" missing.

(If this is a reference to a popular German comedy show in the 90s... forget it: The joke is lost around here!!!)

Come again...Tomeasytalk 00:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
That is the English spelling. see Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Conventions#Contemporary placenames. --Boson (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Moldavian-German relations

Hello! I just started the article Moldavian-German relations. It would be nice to have an input from German editors who care. The article as it stands today, needs major expansion on history, economy, diplomatical relationsn, etc. Thanks to all interested in advance...

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article in two parts. The link above only points to the first part, but both sections can be accessed from the link under "External Links" in the article itself. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp attack?

Please check out the Germany article right now. It looks like it's been hacked by a user named Grawp, but I don't really know what to do to get it back to its normal state. Just a heads up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvmorris (talkcontribs) 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Size in World" Error

I would just like to point out that in the "area" section of the sidebar at the top of the page, it says Germany has an area of "357 021 km sq.", and being the 63rd largest country, while the article it hyperlinks to ("List of countries and outlying territories by total area") claims Germany to be the 62nd largest country, with an area of "357,022 km sq.". I am not sure which of these is right, but the data is inconsistant, and needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.235.0 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The discrepancy comes from this change: [8] — Norway was moved from rank 61 to 67 (some overseas areas were removed), but the articles for the countries that moved one up were not updated. Lars T. (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Germany and it's peoples. I have been their for seven days in Furankfurt city. The city is very beautyfull, and the people are very cooprative to help others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.74.4 (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

History map reverts

I would like to open this discussion, because I observe an ongoing revert war related to two these two map. User: Lear21 advocates the long-standing left map, while User: Stor stark7 would like to substitute it by the right version. As you all know, communication merely via edit results is not counter-productive, e.g., it does not allow other users to later see on basis of what one version prevailed. Other limitations of edit wars are well-known.

My proposition is to accept the long-standing version as long as this discussion is ongoing.

Personally, I prefer the right version, since it simply adds information: Germany is shown in its context (other countries borders), the territorial losses of Germany to Poland and the USSR are indicated, and the Saar region is treated more appropriately. Tomeasytalk 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


I agree with the remarks of Tomeasy above, the map above to the right, showing the situation in 1947, is more informative. It shows the division of Germany much more clearly, including the status of the independent Saar (protectorate) which existed 1947 to 1957.
Also, another reason for using the wider map that shows more context is that the provinces east of the Oder-Neisse line were of consequence for a long time. They has a large population, maybe 10 million (see map below), of which the survivors of the expulsion had to be absorbed by the new truncated Germany over a period of several years, and they created a major refugee problem for many years. In the politics of west Germany that issue was apparently kept alive for years by the mainstream parties, judging by these German election posters 1945 - 1969. West Germany did not accept the border between Poland and the DDR until the 1970's if I'm not mistaken. Also, even the Allies used a map with more context when describing the new situation for the Germans in 1945, see the map to the left.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The main reasons for the reverts have been: 1. The new map and its caption have been far too big. Emphasizing the situation of Allied forces in Germany through a large image is not justified. Neither is an overlengthy caption. 2. The size does not fit in the layout concept of the article. 3. The section describes the situation IN Germany with its borders we know today. The situation in Poland is a different story and has therefore no place in the historic narrative of the Federal Republic of Germany. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the caption was way to long and that the thumb should not show up much larger than the alternative image.
Moreover, I think the territorial losses are part of the story we have to tell in this article—I assume everyone agrees on that. There are three practical options: (i) Do not put a visual evidence of the losses at all, which is currently the case. I do not see any argument to act like this, while there is otherwise agreement to mention the losses in the text. (ii) We can do this visualization here or (iii) in the previous section.
I want to give two arguments to put a visualization (if agreed that we want to show one) in the section Division and reunification (1945–1990). First, this section opens with The war resulted in the death of nearly ten million German soldiers and civilians; large territorial losses [...], so I find this is the perfect place to put this map. Granted, this sentence might have not been there. Therefore another argument that the previous section Third Reich (1933–1945) is less appropriate for hosting this map. It was after the existence of the third reich when these changes came into effect. It was arguably caused by it, but not implemented during its rule. The territorial losses and partition is the starting point of the post-war era. And that we deal with in the section for 1945-1990. Tomeasy T C 15:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Something to think about: In the USA there have been numerous instances of books and TV programs showing "Nazi Germany" having the precise borders of the post October 1990 Germany. Who knows how many people assume that the borders of, say, 1937 Germany were precisely the same as the borders of post Oct 1990 Germany?! Lots of sloppy assumptions going on. Even Ken Burns's recent TV documentary "The War" had the 1937 boundaries of Germany incorrect, although not quite as misrepresented as other sources have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talkcontribs) 07:27, 22 July 2008

Sounds interesting. Any chance you can refer to some of these claims? Sign you comments with 4 tildes, please. Tomeasy T C 07:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Answer: The History Channel's production, "Rolling Thunder - The True Story of the 3rd Armored Division" shows a map of Nazi Germany's "Eastern Border" as being at the Oder-Neisse Line (it's shown as a Border line, not the Red Army's Front Line - besides the time of the map in the context of the 3rd Armored Div's history is before the Red Army was that far west). The Ken Burns production "The War" shows a Central Europe map associated with the words beginning, "By the first week of September 1944 . . . " The western part of East Prussia on the map is grossly stretched to the west, far into the 1937 Polish Corridor area. 76.14.217.231 (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess inaccurate maps are results of sloppy, quick, cheap "research", as many productions can not affort to pay attention to details. Recently, the German flag (and later the US flag) was shown in wrong order in the Tagesschau, Germany's main TV news. Very embarrasing. CNN has shown Switzerland instead of Czech Republic, some company had presented a pre-1989 map on their website etc. Such things just happen, and have happened many times before, also with national anthemns. Hopefully, the free availability of Wikipedia prevents such errors in the future - if we can provide proper infos, that is. -- Matthead  Discuß   10:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some publishers of children's books in the USA also use sloppy research. I recall one recently published children's book (in a US public library) showing a map of 1937 Nazi Germany as being eactly the same size as the actual post October 1990 map and borders of Germany. So, children use these things to write reports in lower grades (4th, 5th, 6th grades, etc.). To them, "reunited" Germany is the same size as 1937 Nazi Germany !!!!!76.14.217.231 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Matthead. As you take part in this thread you must have seen that we are currently discussing with Lear21 the question which map to put. Why do you have to revert him during this discussion? It's a good habit to wait for the ultimate change until consensus is reached. I think, we were anyway not far from this aim. Tomeasy T C 11:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I rather was bold and laid the egg, rather than do more gaggling about it. Lear21 above expressed concerns about layout, which I tried to adress by a smaller width and shorter caption, and about content, showing the German areas under Polish administration, or not. There, I have to disagree, as he speaks of them having "no place in the historic narrative of the Federal Republic of Germany". That is typical of some fellow Germans who are desperately trying to be politically ultracorrect (one might say "ultraleft", but it was the leftish SPD of the 1950s which demanded that they return to Germany). Since Potsdam, the Eastern areas were put under Polish administration, and only in/after 1990 they officially became part of Poland. They is no serious doubt that they need(!) to be shown in a map that shows the 1947 situation of Germany. And they need to be shown in a map of the 1989 to 1991 situation, during the process leading to reunification and to the German-Polish Border Treaty (1990), as they were subject to discussion. Only since these treaties came in effect these areas are unrelated to Germany (of course, they remain related in regard to history). -- Matthead  Discuß   14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your argumentation, despite when you try to make it a political issue. Just wanted to comment on the egg you have laid. It did not even lay there for one hour. No need mentioning that I find Lear's revert also senseless. Tomeasy T C 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the section deals with the history of Germany from 1945 until now. The clear focus is the partition and the reunifcation of Germany. There is no place for an extended visualisation of surrounding territories. This does not mean territorial losses are not mentioned. In fact, it is mentioned in first sentence, but it is only one sentences among many within the section. The Polish parts have no influence in the history of Germany after 1945, therfore it remains unjustified to present them. Furthermore, two sections above is a map of the former German Reich which is clearly different from the one in the last history section. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lear21, your claims do not become better by repetition. The status of the Ostgebiete was always discussed, in Germany and elsewhere, from 1945 to 1990. Only since the German-Polish treaty is in effect, they became surrounding territories with some German history, just like Switzerland, Alsace, Austria. In fact, I dare to say that in a 1947 map, Austria and the Sudetenland should be highlighted, too, as the 1938 events were accepted by the international community then (something many try to make forget since). And Danzig as well, as it was a Free City in 1937, and not Polish. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Lear 21 wrote "Again, the section deals with the history of Germany from 1945 until now". Yes, that means Allied Occupation of Germany 1944/45 - 1955/1990. It means division of Germany 1945/1947/1949/1970 - 1957/1990, it means unification of Germany 1957/1990.
I do not wish me to insult you by assuming that you know little about German history, nor that you respond without bothering to read what others have said in the thread, however let me reiterate in response to your statement: "The clear focus is the partition and the reunifcation of Germany. There is no place for an extended visualisation of surrounding territories." How is it not relevant to show the territories that were placed under temporary Polish administration, as the West Germans themselves called it until at least 1970? How is it not relevant to clearly show the independent Saar protectorate?
As to "Polish parts have no influence in the history of Germany after 1945", is that your reply to the 1945 - 1965 election posters? Essentially saying - "it is so because I say so, lalalalalala cant hear you"! Again, West Germany did not accept the border until 1970, and it was still in question until the treaty 1990. In September 1946 the U.S. stated in Restatement of Policy on Germany: "The United States will support revision of these frontiers in Poland's favor. However, the extent of the area to be ceded to Poland must be determined when the final settlement is agreed upon". And note, that there were still Germans living there being expelled as late as 1951. And it must be a very cruel country you live in if the German people still living in annexed territories have no effect on it, such as Poland’s region of Opole Silesia, where ethnic Germans constitute one-third of the populace.[9] Let me quote from the same source about the legal situation (the 1937 bit referring to the Allied detachment of Austria and the Sudetenland, which had been internationally accepted as parts of Germany):
"In accordance with the Allies' decision, German territory was construed as that of Germany on December 31, 1937. Thus, from 1949 to 1990 it coincided with the two postwar German states and the deutsche Ostgebiete under the temporary Polish and Soviet administration (Blumenwitz, 1989). and there were still quite a lot of people living there "Even more surprisingly, in the period 1950-1989 Warsaw allowed for the emigration of 1,238,000 persons to West Germany (Dallinger, 1997: 23) including 558,000 from Upper Silesia alone (Bahlcke, 1996: 183).
Let me also quote another source: "The Silesian homeland organizations had approximately 418,000 members in the years 1955 - 1958 and became bigger than the homeland organizations of the Sudeten Germans. Understandably, the Silesians became one of the most important political forces in the FRG especially after 1960...[10]
The same source also states: "In 1975, after the signature of the Helsinki Accord at the conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, chancellor Helmut Schmidt and the Polish leader Edward Gierek agreed that 125 000 persons more would be allowed to leave Poland through 1979 on the conditions agreed in 1970. At the same time Schmidt secured DM 1.3 billion to cover pensions of the former German citizens living in Poland and the loan to the tune of DM 1 billion needed for bolstering the inneficient Polish socialist economy. ...West German media to accuse the federal government of trafficking in people."
And let me again quote you User:Lear 21: "the Polish parts have no influence in the history of Germany after 1945".
Give it a break, you just repeating your unsupported claims will not resolve this issue.. --Stor stark7 Speak 15:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The above map is only useful for presentation of Nazi propaganda as it uses Nazi census which made no mention of Jewish or Polish minorities in territories of Nazi Germany. For instance despite the fact that Wrocław contained Jewish minority(later exterminated by German state due to fact of them being declared subhumans) and Polish one the Lower Silesia region is marked as 100 % German.
How is it not relevant to show the territories that were placed under temporary Polish administration, as the West Germans themselves called it until at least 1970? That is a POV of West German government which was not accepted by majority of world states and East German government.As to emigration, many people migrated away from Poland due to economic hardship(in part due to countries almost complete desruction by Nazi Germany in WW2 and never paid war reperations (circa 650 billion dollars worth)

--Molobo (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"That is a POV of West German government which was not accepted by majority of world states and East German government." Response: 3 of the Big 4 Allied victors of WW2 accepted the temporary Polish administration status, and the Big 4 were the ones upon which the final Peace Treaty ending World War 2 depended. Where did you get your history instruction?


Please people, do not make a big political discussion out of this. Ultra-leftist versus Nazi accusations are simply destructive and are going to loose focus on the real and not so complicated issue itself. To Molobo, you have expressed your criticism with respect to this map already elsewhere, where it is also discussed. Here it is just misplaced, as it was IMHO already when it was put here.

Let's focus on the history we are trying to narrate. There was Nazi Germany until 1945, whose accepted borders are usually depicted as those from 1937. Matthead might have a point of proposing otherwise, but this is uncommon and would certainly be interpreted as POV or original research.

Lear said that the borders of the former German Reich are shown earlier. Well, this is again a different thing as it refers to the state until 1918, which is distinct from 1937. Since we do not have any map showing the German territory from 1918-37, I find it actually a great compromise to mend this by showing the 1945 partition/truncation in a way that also shows this.

Our task is to be as precise as possible without using too much space. That's why I favor the map with territorial losses. Not because I want to show how great Germany was or what others have taken away from us or whatever other stupid reason. It is simply what has happened at that time and it needs to be shown. If this can done without loss of information by simply replacing one map - great, let's do it. Tomeasy T C 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as a map is made that is clearly labeled as Nazi Germany territory after WW2 this is ok. No ethnic data based on Nazi Germany's census should be presented as it is unreliable. Also no political statements. There was no Polish occupational zone for example, but territory assigned to Poland.--Molobo (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody wants to put any of the two black and white maps shown in this thread on the article. This discussion is only about the colored maps on top. I agree with you, the territory ceeded to Poland was not a Polish occupation zone as was the case for zones of the US, UK, France, and Russia. Again, I have not seen anyone trying to say this, i.e. mix up the difference between those entities. As far as I can see, everything in your above post is agreed on by everybody and not contentious. So, you can be reassured. Tomeasy T C 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the second map, it just shows more information. --Unify (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The second map shows Nazi statemants regarding German territories(that is the Nazi census of 1939). It is not a real map, most of Germany is shown as 100% German, for example hiding Jewish minority in Lower Silesia. Thus is it is not reliable enough to show as portayal of real situation.--Molobo (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Again Molobo: We other users are not discussing the map that you are objecting. We have it about the colored maps. From my side, you may delete it if you want. Tomeasy T C 19:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The second (colored) map has nothing to do with the Third Reich, but with Imperial Germany. It explains the reader how germany changed from 1918 to 1945. Besides: Godwin's law --Unify (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Also wrong. It somehow shows the change from 1937 to 1945. Imperial Germany is once again a different story. That contained even parts like the Alsace etc. which weren't German anymore in 1937 and therefore do not occur on any of the above maps. Tomeasy T C 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree: it shows what happened in 1945 to the 1937 borders of Germany (Note: the borders of a referenced 1937 Germany were determined by the outcomes of the 1919 Versailles Treaty). Furthermore and as appropriate, nothing is addressed on the Nazi land expansion episodes which occurred starting in 1938 and were doomed on 8 May 1945. (I contributed the above section "Generalizations/Non Sequitur" from a different IP address.)

76.14.217.231 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The current history section of the country article Germany is one, if not THE longest of all country articles. The now discussed period is in itself the longest of all sections within the article. The first para deals with the development of the partition of Germany within the NOW existing borders. That´s why we have the 4-Allied-Image. I see absolutely no room for extending content. I see also no room for extending visual content. The current evolving conflict about the accuracy of new-extended-map indicates a highly instable version and a source for future debates. I´m highly opposed to see this one introduced in the main article because it appears to be of marginal relevance. It should be mentioned in the main article "History of Germany". all the best Lear 21 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point to mention that this part is already long enough. But that's what I like with the new map. It offers in the full picture without increasing the space used. I do not see why it threatens stability. Is anything in the map contentious? Where do you see the potential for future debates? I see only widely accepted facts being presented. Tomeasy T C 12:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I see my arguments are not contested anymore. So we change the map... Tomeasy T C 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Please acknowledge that an extended map, would also shift the focus of the entire section. The 4-Allied-Image presents a situation which influenced the history of Germany for almost 4 decades. This is also true for the written content in the section itself. The new extended map shifts the focus to an exclusively brief moment after the war. In the following decades the new Polish/Russian territories did not had a significant relevance on the German history narrative. This is also true for the written content within the section. I see no reason to shift this focus. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Following this argumentation we would better exchange the current map by one that shows the FRG and the GDR, why to bother about different zones in the FRG. No, I think we can tell the story of two German states well with a map that shows 4 occupation zones and we can tell the transition to this state even better with a map that shows how all the former Nazi German territory was reassigned. Tomeasy T C 15:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Please Lear 21, Please acknowledge that you have read our arguments. The new map adds valuable context and information relevant to the section for the benefit of the reader. I does not "shift focus" for anyone except possibly yourself so there is no need for any acknowledging to you. I do not understand your attempts at argument.
  • As far as I can tell we have provided plenty of cited evidence for the continued effect of the former eastern territories in German history, you have only provided your personal opinion with nothing to back it up with. Please provide cides, or try to argue away our argument. To just ignore them as if you have not read them is simply rude.
  • How on earth does the map according to you "shift focus". Please be more specific?
  • And as for your "4 decades claim" you are wrong there to, Germany was mainly partitioned in 2 big chunks over the 1949 - 1990 period (if we exclude the eastern territories), not the four occupation zones.
  • Please note that the 4 occupation zones are very visible in the new map too, and that the new map more closely resembles the official occupation map. The new map best presents the situation in a seminal period in German history (1945 - 1955), to try to bias that picture by selective removing bits of it is plain wrong. All the best and cherrioo to you too. Toodles--Stor stark7 Speak 15:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote Stor stark7 : "The new map best presents the situation in a seminal period in German history (1945 - 1955)". That is one of the major reasons why the map won´t be installed. The section tells the story of DIVISION!, REUNIFICATION! & some of the RECENT HISTORY!. There is no reason for expanding or shifting the focus of these 3 major issues. There is no room for a map which does not even show the new/contemporary borders of Poland and could possibly confuse new readers. Lear 21 (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My my my, what an arrogant statement: "..the map won't be installed". I guess you are not susceptible to reason and arguments then, but let me at least continue to try. Let me first look at your play with words, using the title (in shouting letters I might add) to suddenly claim that the occupation is not part of the narrative of that section. If not there, then where is it told? Let me add that you made a similar claim earlier, and when to accommodate you by correcting the title that was not good enough for you either. Me thinks you are grasping at straws sir.... --Stor stark7 Speak 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Btw, the Potsdam agreement is related to Germany's 1937 borders, so Map B shows the situation of Germany after WWII. The German constitutionial court Bundesverfassungsgericht decided several times in the 1970's that 1937 Germany still exists as an legal subject even though without an existing Government. The 1937 borders were an important object of discussion concerning Brandt's Ostpolitik in the 1970's. The 2+4 treaty was necessary in 1990 because the reunited Germany had to accept the Eastern border, the Warsaw treaties were not binding (in a legal way) for an united Germany. Up to now we don't have any map showing these borders even though they were very important for the political discussion up to 1989. Just because a single user doesn't like it, we shouldn't abandon such a map.HerkusMonte (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
As the amount of arguments processed by the proponents of map B is much larger and convinces many more of the editors, I have changed the map. I assume Lear does not want to impose his single objection against all of us. Once fresh arguments surface or other editors appear with more objections to map B, we might want to reanimate this thread, but I think for the time being everything has been said, heard, and discussed. Tomeasy T C 11:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I was waiting to see if I was right with this one STRONG SUPPORT on the decision made. Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This may be redundant, BUT: For the sake of those viewers/users who may not actually know what precisely constitutes the post 1990 land area of Germany, shouldn't the description associated with the agreed upon posted map indicate what might be obvious to some, but not all, namely that post October 1990 Germany land area is comprised of the 4 old occupation zones, plus the Saarland plus the land area known as Berlin from 1945 to 1990 (all of which are shown on the subject map)? I say this also because the year 1990 is part of the subject heading, "Occupation, division and reunification (1945–1990)"ANRC (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are 4 maps showing Germany with todays borders in the article. Lars T. (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
My problem with not having sufficient clarity is the fact that producers of children's books in the USA include some who, for whatever reasons, have shown "maps" of 1937 Nazi Germany as being confined to the precise land area of the current Federal Republic of Germany. So, some publishers are taking the current FRG map and coloring it red, and sticking a black swastika in a white circle in the middle of it, and then publishing it in children's books with a 1937 Nazi Germany label. I thought the spirit of Wikipedia was to provide a sufficiency of facts/data/graphics to balance such sloppyness and misperception(s). PS: I assume that when and if such publishers [would] use Wikipedia they would simply punch in the word "Germany" for their "research" (& not "Nazi Germany" as might be expected of more thorough researchers). As you say, there are 4 maps showing Germany with today's borders (to which I would add my personal opinion based upon seeing some of their "products": "for them to use as templates for Nazi Germany".). Update: It never ends. I was watching History International Channel tonight of a program named "Secret Passages". The referenced display of so-called World War 2 Europe had the present boundaries of the Federal Republic of Germany with a Nazi Swastika as reflecting Nazi Germany.

I am also in favor of Map B, since it illustrates what is written in the text. Otherwise, it would not be clear which territorial losses (the Saar? GDR as territorial loss?) the text refers to. Any person with more than a superficial knowledge should moreover be aware of the fact that the Eastern territories were of great importance for German post-war history, at least up to 1991 and probably even up to now. I just want to mention politicians like Kurt Schumacher, Willy Brandt etc and the influence of the electorate originating from the Eastern territories. Even Helmut Kohl had a hard time when he finally decided to acknowledge the border with Poland in 1990/91. The reader not acquainted with German history should get non-biased and thorough information. I think most of the participants in this discussion are in favor of Map B and gave good reasons for their point of view. However, Map B was again reverted to Map A and I am not the person to start an edit war. So how should we proceed? Ulmensis (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's only a single user promoting Map A, unwilling to acknowlegde any kind of arguments and pushing "his" map, he should stop that.Pommerland (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Today is the day, were we lost 2 Mio people

...for statistical reasons, read this:

http://www.ftd.de/politik/deutschland/:Weniger_Einwohner_Statistiker_lassen_Deutschland_schrumpfen/388881.html http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,567289,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.28.43 (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ghosts?

German news agency Deutsche Welle broke a story about how Germany's population statistics are off by 1.3 million people, due to 1.3 million not deregistering themselves from the census when they moved. I dunno if this should be noted in the Demographics section or not.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3506210,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canationalist (talkcontribs) 07:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong GDP figures

The standard figures used in Wikipedia country articles derive from the IMF not the World Bank. Please change as soon as possible. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Section Division and Reunification

There has been repeatingly attempts to shift the focus of the section. A. Through imposing a new title. B.Through installing a map which captures additional territorial losses of the German Reich after WW2.

Some general facts first:

  • The amount of written content within the history section is the longest of all country articles.
  • The discussed section itself is the longest section within the country article Germany.

Conclusion: Both facts indicate a very, I repeat: very, very extended content of history which is unprecedented in Wikipedia country articles. It can be assumed therefore, that the written and visualized content sufficiently represents the historic events.

A. A classic occupation would involve an imposed administrative structure from outside lead by foreign stuff. This has not been the case in former West Germany. Therefore a renaming of the section is not justified (reason 1).

B. The Section "Division and Reunification" covers the historic events within the borders of the internationally recognised Federal Republic of Germany. The written content/ historic events are encompassing the time of 1945-1990 and of the newly reunified FRG. The major developments are accurately emphisized. The territorial losses take only half a sentence of the written content and are not further elaborated. The discussed new map would therefore cover a precedent of German history of marginal relevance (reason 1). Emphazising the territorial losses has almost no relevance of the German history narrative and can be regarded as misleading (reason 2). Because the new map not even presents the complete Polish territory, the map is a source of misinterpretation for new readers and is to elaborated for the purpose of the section (see general facts) (reason 3). The new map would change the focus of the historic narrative of the section and would therefore create an importance of less relevant events (reason 4). The focus now aims at the events within the Russian zone and the 3-Western Zone plus the events before and after the reunification. Not even one single sentence mentions the situation of newly created Poland in the years 1950-2008. Why? Because Poland does not belong to Germany (reason 5) or to say it the other way around, the history of Germany is told not the one of Poland. The Spanish, French and most notably the German (whose history section is significantly longer) Germany-Articles include such a map.(reason 6). To compare the different territories of the German Reich and the new FRG, somebody can easily see the changes by scrolling to the German Reich section.(reason 7) It seems to be redundant to present an almost identical map. The new map includes redundant and misleading information like the inclusion of the Saar protectorate (reason 8). This is highly specific historic narrative and is not mentioned within the text, neither it can be considered of relevance in a broader context. The flag of the protecorate is of highly specific degree. It is hardly known by German experts.

Because of A and B (reason 1-8), it appears not justified to rename the section or extend the visual content through the proposed map. Lear 21 (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If we called the argument "The territorial losses of Germany due to WWII are not important enough to be mentioned in this article" reason 1, how many more reasons (arguments) will remain?
I have told you before that the map of the German Reich some sections up cannot be used to show the territorial losses due to WWII as it does not represent the German Reich 1937, but 1914. Did you not read this, or not understand this, or not agree with this?
The territorial losses due to WWII were significant, significant enough to be visualized in the Germany article. I tell you that's what some readers are interested when they read about history "How did the war change the borders". Germany lost a lot and we should not try to neglect this.
I agree with you that the article is long enough. I can see the size warning every time I edit, but we are not making it longer by changing the image. I know, I said this before.
I understand you Lear that you want to talk about something new in this section: The 2 German states, how they developed and finally reunited. You have a point there. Your opponents are right that the lost territories played a mayor role in the internal and external policies of the FRG. Brandt was almost toppled for signing the Ostvertraege. I think it would go to far to talk about these things here. So that is not my reason of showing map B. For me it is important to be shown as it was the status quo imposed on Germany by the victorious nations of WWII. So here an attempt for a compromise: Move the image to the end of the previous sections, where it will show the result of WWII. Tomeasy T C 15:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Correction: I have to correct myself with respect to one thing. In the discussed section we read "However, tensions between East and West Germany were somewhat reduced in the early 1970s by Chancellor Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik, which included the de facto acceptance of Germany's territorial losses in World War II." Another great example why map B makes great sense. If we use map A that user is lost wonder what those losses were. So, there are at least 2 passages that specifically address the subject. Tomeasy T C 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My dear Lear 21, it is a bit difficult trying to follow your English, which is odd since you claim near native status, but I will try to respond to your arguments nevertheless.

  • There is no attempt "shift focus". The occupation of Germany 1945 to 1955 is an integral part of history, and might even merit its own separate section just as the "Third Reich" has its own section. Mentioning the occupation is simply adding a very relevant fact.
  • "installing a map which captures additional territorial losses" What "additional" losses, it portrays the losses, period. *"The discussed section itself is the longest section within the country article Germany." And if you'd bother counting you'd noticed that it covers the period from 1945 - 1990, with an additional paragraph on later events, i,e, it covers 45 or 63 years. comparing it with the length on sections Third Reich (covers only 12 years) or the Weimar republic (lasted only 14 years) is a bit disingenuous of you, don't you think?
  • Since you complain about the length of the section, you should be thrilled that by replacing a picture we suddenly provide much more relevant information without loosing any space....
  • "A classic occupation would involve an imposed administrative structure from outside lead by foreign stuff. This has not been the case in former West Germany. Therefore a renaming of the section is not justified (reason 1)." Wow, this was quite a mouthful. Which country are you from if I may ask? I'm from Sweden, and I happen to know that there is an article on the Allied Control Council which ruled supreme over the parts of Germany where the German population were allowed to stay. Quite frankly I don't understand your English, are you trying to say that Germany was not properly occupied?
The Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority. The assumption, for the purposes stated above, of the said authority and powers does not effect the annexation of Germany."
  • "The discussed new map would therefore cover a precedent of German history of marginal relevance" And you argue this on basis of what text there currently is in the section??? I mean, get real, that is not an argument at all. We have provided citations on the relevance of the section, your argument is based on alleged absence of text in a Wikipedia page section?????
  • your "arguments 1 - 4 can pretty much be covered by the above. Also, regarding the current borders of Poland and Germany, I expect the readers to be already familiar with the current borders, for example by looking at the top of the article, and at least I assume some degree of intelligence on the part of the readers.
  • Your "reasons" 5 to 6 are unintelligible to me.
  • Your "reason" 7 is plain scary to me, is it "redundant" to present an accurate map with additional very relevant information?? and you want to replace it with a map (map A) with 1990 borders? Sorry, but in my eyes that map A is seriously misleading the reader. The reader who sees Map B can understand that there are things that are perhaps not directly told in the text, and can if he/she is curious dig deeper.
  • Your reason 8, regarding the Saar (protectorate)... So we are writing a Wikipedia for dummies here, we should only write stuff that is commonly known. Gee, I wonder who would need to use Wikipedia then... As to German experts, I guess you count yourself amongst them to be able to make that qualification?
  • Your "arguments" should convince no-one, they certainly did nothing for me other than make waste more time!--Stor stark7 Speak 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


@Tomeasy@Stor stark7 What comes next? Replacing Beethoven with Tokyo Hotel? Presenting Goebbels instead of Hitler. Mentioning all World Cup Final defeats of the German national football team? Visualizing a VW Beetle from the 70´s instead of the current Daimler S-class? I could go on for hours with these questions. At the center of it is one question: What is relevant and what is not. Both of you gave no evidence of aiming at the center of things. Let me try to ask another rethoric question. Are you both willing to install a map on the Russia article showing the loss of the Soviet Union territories after 1990? Are you both, Tomeasy and Stor stark7, are willing to install a map of territorial losses of the British Empire at the article United Kingdom and it´s history section? Are you both personally ready to install a map of territorial losses of the French colonial Empire in the history section of "France". Would you both argue with the same intensity and logic? I only can imagine what the answer would be like.

The new map would shift the focus of the section to an exclusive act right after the war. The well established old map does represent a whole period, the new map represents a blink in time. The new map does not even show a "real, newly established territory of Poland". @ Tomeasy: The German Reich territory and the last borders of Nazi Germany (1937) are almost the same. The difference of the map two sections above is clearly visible. Lear 21 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Lear 21, several editors have given very well reasoned and cited arguments for why Map B is better. I do not understand your refusal to acknowledge this, nor do I understand what you want to say by the text above. Please have a peek at an important Wikipedia policy, perhaps you simply have a blind spot when it comes to this issue.--Stor stark7 Speak 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
No "the German Reich territory and the last borders of Nazi Germany (1937)" were most certainly not "almost the same". Or do you actually believe that most territorial losses of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles had been done away with until 1937? Lars T. (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's sad to see you are loosing your temper on this issue, Lear21. Understand that I will not answer your questions, because they are simply impertinent. I am also surprised to see your lack of historical knowledge. That the German Reich suffered significant territorial losses after WWI is IMHO very basic stuff. How can it be that you not know this and still think you have the expertise to discuss here with us? Tomeasy T C 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote Tomeasy: "How can it be that you not know this and still think you have the expertise" This question proofs exactly the attitude of unfocused debates. I´m not interested in discussions wether German Reich or Nazi Germany territory is SLIGHTLY or MASSIVELY different.

What interests me is "How to visually present the history of Germany from 1945 - 2008 in 2 images". The already written text gives a stark and useful hint: 1. Para = Allied forces in Germany 2. Para = Development in 2 German states 3. Para = Reunification 4. Para = Recent history

The developments in Poland/former German territories cover only half a sentence in the whole section. This is not without reason (BTW none of the first 3 paras have been written by myself). The relevant WW2 activities are covered in the Third Reich section. The last history section has a different focus aiming at the events in Germany within the new territory of 1990. And not Poland. You will hear this Hundred times if you want. The new map would shift the focus of the entire section to a brief WW2 aftermath act. This is not wise nor suits it the other major events from 1945-2008. Please, with sugar on the top, realize that the old map represents more of the history of Germany in this period than the new (even incomplete) map. Sometimes less is more, in this case certainly. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The year 1945 begins in January 1945, unless of course you are making the assumption that all share some unconscious consensus that "1945" really means some day/month specific time frame within the 1945 year. For example, where does it show that the original Soviet Occupation Zone included all the territories eventually placed under "Temporary Polish Adimistration" (Note: that is in addition to that which ultimately became the actual Soviet Occupation Zone). Said "original" Soviet Occupation Zone is shown on US Government maps dated 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANRC (talkcontribs) 04:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Note: Maybe this map was made before the July 1945 Potsdam Conference: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/medicalsupply/chapter11.HTM (See Map 27 on Page 384) See also, [11], subj: "Notes from Potsdam".
BTW I think your sub-headings would be most helpful, namely, as you state, "1. Para = Allied forces in Germany 2. Para = Development in 2 German states 3. Para = Reunification 4. Para = Recent history." The real or imputed size/space constraints to an article seem to have an influence far beyond a well reasoned presentational objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANRC (talkcontribs) 06:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Here shows the combined British & Soviet proposals for occupation zones in Germany (i.e. Map1): http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/occ-gy/ch09.htm#m2 Note: The British wanted Frankfurt since the US announced it wasn't interested in staying in Germany very long and thus assumed a Walt Disney Fairytale Happy Ending to the Occupation between the British and the Soviets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANRC (talkcontribs) 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Neither words "Poland" nor "Polish" is to be found in the non-map text in Ziemke's CHAPTER IX. Much is found of the word "Zone(s)". The source document is: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/occ-gy/index.htm

I already expressed my opinion at "History map reverts" because I at first didn't notice the discussion was being continued here. The section "Division and Reunification (1945-)" also covers the years 1945-49, therefore what happened in the Eastern territories is of relevance here. This should be illustrated by Map B, because otherwise the reader unacquainted with German history will be misguided and not know which territories were lost. If the section just covered the year starting from 1949, a map showing the FRG and the GDR only could also be used. However, a map showing the allied occupations zones witout the Eastern territories does not make any sense to me. Either you write about what happened in Germany from 1945-49 - then the former Eastern territories and the expulsion of Germans from there is of great relevance - or you write about later years, when the two German states were established. Ulmensis (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Two German states and a divided city of Berlin evolved alongside the allied occupation zones. West-Germany was formed by the American, British and French Zones while East Germany was formed by the Soviet Zone.
The central question for this section is not "what happened during 1945-49?" but rather and more importantly "Which two images represent the time from 1945-2008" ! Neither the Saar protectorate nor the new Polish/Soviet territories are of relevance in this respect. This does not mean the new map is wrong, but it fails to represent a whole period. BTW, the whole process of European integration is not even mentioned in this section and would be of far more significance for Germany´s historic narrative.
Imagine the following analogy: "You have found a new girlfriend, she is 20 years old. After several dates you ask her for a picture. Next time you meet her, she brings a photo when she was 12 with all her parents and her brothers. Is that a representative photo you like to carry in your pocket? Well think about, most of the pro-map-B-image-advocates are not aware of significance and representational value. Map B is the 12 year old girl with parents and brothers. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Analogies can be dangerous. Suppose the 20 year old girfriend was in a car wreck when she was 19 & now has an artificial arm and an artificial leg. Suppose her boyfriend wanted a full length picture of her (at age 20), but insisted she take off her artificial arm & leg for the picture. (it is of course a heuristically reverse analogy)
Come on guys, it's getting absurd.
Agree with Lear. I also think that one sentence on the EU (here EEC) is not enough. How can we go about this, while the section is already agreed as being too long? Tomeasy T C 08:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this one...Blue/Red-Map.... This map seems to cover most of the section´s written content, a significant part of the article´s introduction text (2. para), and the sections topic line. It also seems to be most representative for the period of a divided country. Lear 21 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see the improvement this map has for the EU story. Tomeasy T C 12:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The Saarland was officially part of the French Occupation Zone between the July 1945 Potsdam decisions and 30 AUG 1945 when the The Saar Protectorate was "protected" by a French military governor. Then in 1948 the position was replaced by a High Commissioner; in 1952 the position became the French Ambassador. The Saar Protectorate continued its separate existence (with its own National Flag, etc.) past the May 1955 establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany. It joined the FRG in October 1956, ca 17 months later.

@Tomeasy: The missing EU involvement was rather an example of other important developments in German history. It was not a direct proposal to extend content, this should be discussed in another talk topic. BTW, the EU involvement is, even if not in History, covered in the article´s Introduction, in Economy and in Foreign Relations. In fact, it has its representation in the article as a whole. Lear 21 (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lear, please, where are your manners? Is this a playing field for you, where you just revert endlessly what you do not like, forcing others to re-revert you in order to install the commonly agreed on information. I do not find this funny! You really make it difficult to keep up the good faith interpretation.
Haven't you seen in the last 2 weeks that you are the only one here objecting map B? It might be difficult for you to accept that this might go a way that was not yours initially, but it would make great sense if you integrated and made it your way, too.
Who has agreed on the new map you proposed? Why are you just installing it, while several authors tried to explain you that they prefer a different one? Do you enjoy edit wars? You are provoking reverts for no reason. Is it necessary to remind you that Wikipedia urges us to avoid revert wars? I will leave your map, because I am annoyed of this behavior and I do not want to join a competition in who behaves the worst. After all, we should ask ourselves, is the decision on the map as crucial as our continued dispute is silly. Tomeasy T C 12:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, my only interest is the article itself and the content of it. I´m not here at Wikipedia to avoid anything uncomfortable nor seeing a so called majority having their way. The Germany article receives 500.000 clicks per month and is one of most read articles in Wikipedia Germany ranks #65 among 2.5 million. It is for many people around the globe the first contact with Germany and all its releated issues. The article has already received the highest merits (FA-class/article of the day) within Wikipedia, that´s why every step of change should be carefully analyzed on its implications.

The new map is a step forward in this stuck discussion and focuses even more the major state of being from 1949-1990. Hope you can support this view while still maintaining an eye on the articles developments. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that explains why you feel responsible to improve the presented content. I appreciate this, as we all have the intention to increase quality. But it does not mean that this is your article and you cannot be mistaken. This is a project based on cooperation. Constantly removing the edits of your collaborators is clearly not helpful. It diminishes the good stand of an article to change one image on a daily basis. Imagine readers who want to show this map to someone else and when they attempt to do so it is gone. Therefore, I urge you to continue the discussion here (if you will), but not on the article itself. As you have probably noticed your map survived only 2.5 hours, which was to be expected. Please, acknowledge that this ongoing war disrupts our article. So reconsider you attitude towards it. Tomeasy T C 16:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this map dissatisfying, well, irritating: How are all those people around the globe for who this is the first contact with Germany are supposed to know what the blue and red areas mean ? - there is no explination. Why do the outlines of the Länder only exist in the Western (blue) part? And what on earth is the green thing? A lake? The divided City of Berlin (as mentioned in text)? Or (obviously, but just for me) only West-Berlin?--Zarbi1 (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The "new" map is simply map A, showing the Länder instead of the Occupation Zones.
  • Almost the same map is already included just a little below the "new" one.
  • Map B would explain perfectly the first sentences of this chapter and gives much more information than the "new" one.
  • Last not Least: the absolute majority supports map B, in fact only a single user seems to be unwilling to accept any other solution but his own.
  • Is there anybody supporting the "new" map? HerkusMonte (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, is Lear 21's map B description implying that Saarland was part of French Occupation Zone at all times between 1949 and October 1956? Maybe he's implying that Saarland continued after May 1955 to be an Occupation Zone. If so, it joined the Berlin Occupation area and the "Polish Temporarily Administered Territories"ANNRC (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

@User:HerkusMonte At the center of German history from 1945-2008 stands the period of a divided country. Two German states existed for almost 40 years. The new map illustrates that, the others fail in this respect. Lear 21 (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't you realise, You're the only one supporting this map? Why do you have such a significant problem with map B? It seems to be "I don't like it". Is this how WP works, the one with the better nerves wins? It's childish, sorry HerkusMonte (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Its pleasant seeing Map B back on the Article page. The following pertains to the description below the posted map B. I believe it is a mistake to lump both the Soviet and Polish administered Eastern Germany areas in the same statement. I say this because it appears the Soviet takeover of northern East Prussia was granted by Potsdam, etc., and therefore not contingent upon a final WW2 Peace Treaty, whereas the Polish "Temporary Administered Areas" were to be ultimately resolved (in terms of actual size & ethnic composition) at the presumed WW2 Final Peace Treaty.ANNRC (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Section V of the Potsdam Agreement states [12]:
The Conference examined a proposal by the Soviet Government to the effect that pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement, the section of the western frontier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which is adjacent to the Baltic Sea should ...
so it's just the same as the Polish Areas. HerkusMonte (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the section is deigned to be already "too long" (& apparently there is no yielding on making it any longer), the battle of the maps may be endless. In other words, a year from now, for example, the battle of the maps may be ongoing.ANNRC (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Solution of Maps issue from a fairly new "contributer": Can the system be tweaked to "stack" 2 maps (i.e., the above one & Map B) in the space currently occupied by the above one on the Article page? In other words, if the descriptive text can be dropped & then can the space be used for effecting a stacked map display. Maybe the software doesn't allow such things, and the map wars will continue.ANNRC (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your creative idea. I am sure it is possible. And if not, one could still upload a third file that is a merger of the two images at question. I am only pessimistic that Lear would accept your solution. What do you say Lear? Tomeasy T C 17:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

REUNIFICATION WITH AUSTRIA?

While the Reunification with the DDR has been more difficult than expected as the DDR had a different currency, a different political system and a relatively huge population of over 16 million people, Reunification with Austria would be much easier with a common currency and a population of just 8 million people driving Germany´s population to 91 million people.

After all France is talking right now about integrating Wallonia (Belgium), a move that would take its population over 65 million people.

Ein Volk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.49.59 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

From "Austria" in Wikipedia: "Austria is a parliamentary representative democracy comprising nine federal states[3] and is one of six European countries that have declared permanent neutrality[4] and one of the few countries that includes the concept of everlasting neutrality in its constitution." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANRC (talkcontribs) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Bavaria, Prussia, Saxony, Wurtemberg, DDR...all of them were independent countries before the Unification of Germany in 1871 or the Reunification of 1989. In fact liberals traditionally supported the Unification with Austria, something logical and evident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.26.56.80 (talkcontribs) 17:27, 31 July 2008
At nominal prices Germany´s PIB will be surpassed this year by China...but if Austria was a German lander Germany´s PIB would be still larger than China´s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.183.44 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 31 July 2008

What is the point? --217.83.38.30 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What does this discussion have to do with the article? Tomeasy T C 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Not much. I've deleted my talk, and I'm going to "unwatch" this article. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Constitional Court in Schleswig-Holstein

Since May 1. 2008 the State of Schleswig-Holstein das its own Constitional Court in Schleswig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.25.136.186 (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Two map solution

I endorse the compromise implemented by user: HerkusMonte, i.e., to show two maps.

Of course, it is not our aim to increase the size of the article by another image, but even more it is not my aim to pertain the instability this article had over the past three weeks. Unfortunately, we are not able to discuss this issue without reverting each other on the article itself.

We are facing the problem that Lear insists on showing a map that reflects the two-state history in a very obvious way. This is certainly an argument, even though not the paramount one for the rest of us. In view that many other editors have tried to explain in various ways why a more precise map is better, and seeing that Lear will maintain imposing his wish by reverts on the article, which is the worst for the article, I advocate to urge a stable solution now. That is one that Lear can also support.

Apart from the size problem of the article, I think that the two map compromise is anyway the best approach. Tomeasy T C 10:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A two map compromise - so far, so good: but regarding the second (two-state history) map there is still a divergence between the map and the caption:
  • the map doesn't show the situation after 1949 - instead it shows the situation of the year 1957 (-1988)
  • the map doesn't show the divided city of Berlin - it shows West-Berlin (green)--Zarbi1 (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course, correct. I see no problem to attend these points appropriately. Just for example:
  • Formulate using Until 1990 instead of after 1949.
  • West Berlin (green) was affiliated to West Germany, both formed by the American, ...
Tomeasy T C 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The two map proposal indicates only one thing. That the responsible editor or the supporting editors have no experience of creating or maintaining a high quality FA-article. Instead, this proposal clearly lowers the quality and questions the ability of the article to focus on important content in general. You won´t find this over extensive mapping of historic incidents within a period of 10 years in not one, I repeat, not one! comparable country article.

There is a reason why the section is called DIVISION and REUNIFICATION. I seriously wonder if any of the map-B supporters ever lived in Germany or Europe or attended history classes or watches TV (at least). There is only room for one map. This map has to show 2 German states. Everything else is of minor relevance and can be mentioned in the main History article. Lear 21 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, back then to the original dispute: one map which one? Or better, propose a process how to resolve this issue among the two "groups" of editors. We should really bring this to a satisfactory end, with a stable solution. Since you will seemingly not respect a standalone map B solution, how could we proceed to reach this goal? Tomeasy T C 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Lear 21 is well aware that this is a discussion between German users. So most probably we all lived in Germany.
  • I wonder if Lear 21 ever attended history classes at a German school. My school atlas ( Diercke i think) in use at a West German school in the 1980's showed such maps like map B to explain the contemporary political situation of Germany (up to 1990).
  • As already mentioned above the Bundesverfassungsgericht decided in 1973 that the 1937 borders still (theoretically) existed until Germany would be reunified ( and that's why Germany accepted the Oder-Neisse line explicitly in 1990). So map B shows not a "minor relevant" period.
  • All this has been said again and again, but it seems a single user sets the standards of relevance and quality
  • In fact the "new" map lowers the quality of the article, as it gives less information about the Occupation Zones and the situation of Germany after 1945, while an almost identical map (showing Bundesländer) is already included
  • Maybe we should start a voting, I SUPPORT the usage of Map B. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been more than obvious in the past weeks where the majority stands. Thus, I am pessimistic that this poll is going to help. However, I do not want to obstruct any attempt that leads to a stable version. Therefore, I SUPPORT the usage of Map B. Tomeasy T C 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

One question for Lear 21 regarding his following words: "There is a reason why the section is called DIVISION and REUNIFICATION. . . . There is only room for one map. This map has to show 2 German states.": Are you saying that TWO German states existed in 1945? (I will answer for you: of course not). In 1949 Germany existed in 4 (FOUR) (or 6 if Saarland & Berlin are considered) areas. The 4 areas would be FRG, DDR, Polish Temporarily Administered Areas, & Soviet Temporarily Administered Area. The only thing "reunified" in 1990 was the 1945 agreed-upon occupation zones, to include Berlin. BTW I am USA born, with 2 German grandparents. JJCANNRC (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I also SUPPORT the usage of Map B. for reasons we've meticulously tried to explain in the sections above.--Stor stark7 Speak 21:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I SUPPORT Map B. As mentioned above, the map used at West German schools to describe the political situation in Germany up to 1990 was something like Map B. It was only after 1990 that the Eastern territories were usually excluded. The Eastern territories played a significant role in German post-war history, as did the millions of refugees from these areas. Ulmensis (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

featured article?

but yet it mentions nothing about the fact that much of modern day germany was conquered and occupied by the hunnish hordes--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

that's what genetically unites the Germans and the Poles, namely the degree of interbreeding by the Huns in both areas (it was a fertile ground) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talkcontribs) 11:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Th Huns came and went without leaving "significant" trace. No importances for the Germany article. The obscure "facts"/assertions above are semi-fictional. --217.83.6.222 (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

--Boson (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

semi protection

Why is this article under indefinite semi protection? Tomeasy T C 13:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that every time it gets unprotected it has to be protected again within weeks because of vandalism by schoolkids. --Boson (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
"every time it gets unprotected" — please consider that the last IP edit was made on 9 May 2007! Tomeasy T C 20:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
And before that, almost every anonymous edit was vandalism. Lars T. (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
But that's not a problem specific to the Germany article, is it? Tomeasy T C 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
George W. Bush, United States etc. are other examples of articles that are unmanageable unless permanently semiprotected. And they tend to get reprotected within hours, not weeks, every time somebody tries unprotection. Kusma (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from my user page, I am generally for registration being a requirement to edit articles. However, this is not about my personal preference. We all take part in this Wikipedia project and not our own wannabe project. Therefore, I felt obliged, from time to time, to balance my own convenience with the general message this Wikipedia wants to convey. I can see that my concern is not shared among editors here. So, I will drop the ball now. Tomeasy T C 08:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am having Italy on watch and therefore very well understand what you mean. This article is unprotected and about 90% of its edits are reverts or reverted. It's really annoying! What would be the regular procedure to apply for semi-protection? Tomeasy T C 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to submit your request at WP:RFPP. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Tomeasy T C 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Law

The correct german term for preventive detention is Sicherungsverwahrung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.130.136 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! --Boson (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


Bullshit =

Thanks for protecting this page wikipedia, the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit".

What is this baloney?

"Only the Social Democratic Party of Germany voted against it; the Communists were not able to present opposition, as their deputies had already been murdered or imprisoned.[16][17] A centralised totalitarian state was established by a series of moves and decrees making Germany a single-party state. Industry was closely regulated with quotas and requirements, to shift the economy towards a war production base."

Both facts are most certainly not true. With the first, the links cited mention nothing regarding murders of communist officials prior to 1933. With the former, it is absolute nonsense to say that Germany was moving towards a war production base as early as 1933 and even as late as 1936. Where is the source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.218.74 (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not defending what was quoted above. However, there is a source for a 1936 based 4 Year Plan to War: see, Adam Tooze. The Wages of Destruction: The Making and the Breaking of the Nazi Economy New York: Viking, 2006. ISBN 978-0-670-03826-8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the passage to reflect that the seats of the Communist MPs were "annulled" on the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree and provided a German reference for that. I don't think the text actually stated clearly that preparations for war began in 1933, though it might have implied that that happened by 1936. I have added a German reference that refers to plans in 1936 and a statement by Hitler in 1933. Perhaps the text needs tweaking to make it clearer. Feel free to register and improve the text yourself.--Boson (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a hatlink

Hi there, I've just added a hatlink re. FRG - I hope there are no objections? I saw on the redirect's page, incidentally, that it had been changed from a West Germany to a Germany redirect and thought I'd just offer both links to avoid going back and forth. It Is Me Here (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


France localisation vs Germany

It would be better to say "Belgium an Netherlands at west, and France at south-West of Germany" As a whole France is not west from Germany but also as much south of it. Only about 40% of France is strait west of the southern part of Germany, it is an exception, About 60% of France is situated below Germany's most southern point. all the eastern strip of France is situated strait south from Rheinland; from Lorraine, Alsace to Provence and Corsica passing by Jura and Savoy are directly south from Germany. So... just west ? while Austria, which is far to be a southern than France is south of Germany ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hegel

Shouldn't we take Hegel out of the philosophy section and give him his own section? I recommend placing the Hegel section above Philosophy, Arts, Literature, Music and Culture. Perhaps we can just merge all the subsections under one big section that weaves them all in under one Hegelian masterwork-- The edifice of the German philosopher's conceptual framework encompasses them all, consumes them all, and has outlasted them all. I vote for the immediate merging of all German culture under a heading titled Hegel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.222.59 (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)