Talk:Germany/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 24

Grammatical correction in the 'German Confederation and Empire' section

"the German Empire was proclaimed 1871 in Versailles" should be "the German Empire was proclaimed in 1871 in Versailles" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jknight6 (talkcontribs) 12:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Grammar mistake

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

I'm not sure about the grammar, because English isn't my first language. But even if the new version is grammatically correct, it is still quite unclear and probably even wrong. I think that your version says, "Pan-Germanism" was "occupied during the Napoleonic Wars" which apparently doesn't make any sense. But the Deutscher Bund wasn't "occupied during the Napoleonic Wars" either, because it was created after Bonaparte's defeat. And Pan-Germanism is not the main reason for "the unification of most of the German states". I'm fully aware of the fact that the introduction tries to give a condensed version of the more detailled information provided later in the article. But this sentence is at least misleading to the reader. (talk) 10:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


On Germany's page it says it's the second largest exporter and the third largest importer of goods but when one follows the link to the exports page, it lists Germany as third. Perhaps this needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks. Peacock28 15:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


The opening paragraph states that the latter portion of the 3rd Reich was dominated by WW2 - correct, and fascism, which is not, as the Nazi Party, whilst existing on the far right, were not fascist. source - current politics student at Manchester UK (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Historians classify the Mussolini's Facists, Hitler's National Socialists and the military regime of 1930-1945 Imperial Japan as fascist states. They all have in common certain points that group them together in this way - extreme nationalism, expansionist propaganda, the belief in "a supreme leader" etc. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


There is a Request for comment about the need/redundancy of Largest cities/city population templates. This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no upper and lower house in Germany

There is this strange obsession with wanting to identify an upper and lower house in every bicameral legislature, even though no one really knows what these terms mean. There is no upper and lower house in Germany. The Bundestag is the parliament and the Bundesrat is the states' representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousOliver (talkcontribs) 11:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Renewable energies in Germany

The chapter in energy should be updated, due to latest official publications on renewable energies. In First half of 2012, 25.1% of the German electricity demand was generated by renewable energy sources. [1] More accurately: 9.2% wind power, 5.7% biomass, 5.3% solar power, 4% hydro power and 0.9% biowaste. Thus, Germany produced more renewable power than nuclear power im first half of 2012. This is an very unique and important issue to be updated, since this very special for an industrialisied country. Of course, there are other countries that reach higher shares of renewables, but they have mostly the geographical conditions, like Norway or Austria for hydro power, but Germany has not and however reaches such unique high shares. --> German so called "Energiewende" Futher ist might also be noted, that Germany is by far the worlds largest producer of solar power, with up to 22 GW fed into the electricity grid at 25/26 May 2012. Futher Germany has 28 GW solar power installed, although having not highest irradiatons - thats special am notable! ( (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC))

information for elementary students

Hello, Our school is having a multicultural event soon. We are wanting to showcase Germany as one of our countries. We are looking for posters and informational booklets that we may show the children. Thank you for any help with our special day.

Sincerely, Donna Woehler St. Benedict School 530 S. Harlan Avenue Evansville, IN 47714, USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. German Missions in the United States [1] → → German Information Center [2] → → Outreach Activities & Campaigns [3] →→Print Publications←← [4] → → Contact Information [5]
  2. German Consulate General Chicago → Indiana [6]
  3. Goethe Institut [7]
  4. German Historical Institute [8]
  5. German American Chamber of Commerce of the Midwest, Inc. [9]
  6. Germanic-American Institute [10]
  7. Germany in NYC [11]

--IIIraute (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WW2: Number of ethnic Polish casualties of Nazi-German occupation.

As I am not a registered Wiki user and this article is protected, I would ask any helpful users to modify the following part in this article's section on WW2 history:

"Millions of people were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, including approximately six million Jews, and a sizeable number of Romani people, Jehovah's Witnesses, Poles and other Slavs, Soviet POWs, people with mental and/or physical disabilities, homosexuals, and members of the political and religious opposition."

As per available sources (,,, the estimated number of ethnic Polish civilians, who were victims of the Nazi-German occupation, stands at 1.8 - 2.0 million.

That fact should be duly highlighted in this article and not hidden by way of an outrageous phrase 'sizeable number' of other victims.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This article only includes a brief summary of WWII. As already shown by you - the "Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles" are dealt with in the appropriate articles. →→ (,, The "Poles and other Slavs" part also includes a link towards the article "Generalplan Ost". Otherwise we would also have to list all the other casualties figures (by country). This is not what this article is there for. Please also see → Nazi Germany. --IIIraute (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the content, however now we have a situation whereby the number of Nazi-German victims is put down generally as 'several million', however the number of the killed/fallen German soldiers is stated as 5.3m. I understand that this article shall provide a summary of German history i.a. during WW2, however in view of showing respect to the millions of innocent Nazi-German victims, I think that the nations & ethnic groups, which suffered the most (i.e. Jews, Poles and other Slavic peoples), should be duly highlighted by clearly stating the number of casualties in this article. I'm therefore leaving it up to your consideration... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Deep ancestry of the Germans

This genetic map, can be useful to look into the deep ancestry of the Germans. Maybe it could be of use:

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

ETHNIC MAKE UP In the "Ethnic makeup as of 2010", it separates "Russian Germans" from "Ethnic Germans" when both are ethnic germans. Russian Germans are ethnic Germans who have immigrated from Russia or Kazakhstan. So, they should be included in the first group of "Ethnic Germans" obviously.-- (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 November 2012

In the Sports section it says - "ranking third in an all-time Olympic Games medal count"

It seems they rank fifth from this source:

Simon2611188 (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This article is combining the medals won by East and West Germany. The other table has them seperate, so that's why one says 3rd overall and the other 5th. RudolfRed (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Not only does the other article split the medals between East and West Germany, but into four entities (by country-codes): GER, FRG, EUA, GDR - although FRG, GER and EUA have always had the same German National Olympic Committee (NOC) recognized in 1895, located in Frankfurt, and the same NOC President (Willi Daume, 1960–1993). The current Federal Republic of "Germany" entity (GER) Simon2611188 is referring to, does not include the medals won by the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) from 1945-1990, although according to international law, we are talking about the very same country - just now with the country-code (GER).
Please note: The original code designations were GER for the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) and GDR for the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). In 1980 the West German code was changed to FRG (which is currently also applied by the IOC in retrospect to all medals won by the Federal Republic of Germany, 1945-1990), thus they are not combined - strange, but true - honi soit qui mal y pense.--IIIraute (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Factually incorrect statements

> By 1932, the German Communist Party and the Nazi Party controlled the majority of Parliament, fuelled by discontent with the Weimar government.

This is not factually correct. The GCP never had more seats than the SPD, which by itself never controlled more than 20% of the Parliament. This sentence also makes the subtle assertion that by the end of the WR only Communists and Nazis, shorthand radicals, where left courting the peoples favour. This is obviously also untrue, as it implies that the radicalisation of society during the dawn of the WR went both ways: left and right, when in fact society only radicalised towards the right, leaving left powers stagnating at best.

I propose the sentence to be corrected to

> By 1932, the Nazi Party controlled the majority of Parliament, fuelled by discontent with the Weimar government. which would be the factual accurate statement.

I think it is neccessary to point out that I am not a communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

SDP is the Social Democratic Party of Germany. You mean the NSDAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of the term "Nazi Germany" (in the lead)

"Nazi Germany" is the most commonly used name used in the English language to refer to that era of Germany's history, yet it is not present anywhere within this article. If we are to make it efficient for readers to find information on Wikipedia then it is necessary that we conform with their expectations.

I ask that people please stop editing this name out of the article, or rephrasing sentences in an attempt to make the name seem out of place within it. Kupraios (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There already is an article about Nazi Germany - in this historical context the term "Third Reich" is the appropriate one. For the case someone doesn't know what the Third Reich was, a link to "Nazi Germany" has been provided.--IIIraute (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps then the sentence should be rephrased so that the term "Nazi Germany" is mentioned since it is the most recognisable reference. I propose that the sentence read as follows: "Despite its lead in many scientific and artistic fields at this time, amidst the Great Depression, in 1933 Nazi Germany was established".
To further support my point even the Nazi Germany article (also the Third Reich article) states at the beginning, "Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich...", thus indicating that the common reference is indeed "Nazi Germany" and not the "Third Reich". Furthermore, it is also titled "Nazi Germany" instead of "Third Reich". Kupraios (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
...but "Nazi-Germany" wasn't established; that's colloquialism. The reason to use the term "Nazi Germany" was decided on the basis of WP:COMMONNAME for article names, and has nothing to do with this historical text. Btw, there has been (and still is) severe discussion about using this name, exactly because of its colloquial and non-academic style. We also don't use the term "Commie-Germany" when referring to the GDR.--IIIraute (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, but we must establish a middle ground between academic style and ease of finding information. This is Wikipedia, and anyone in academia knows that Wikipedia is not referenceable, hence should at least serve as a means of easily finding information. Since "Nazi Germany" is far more commonly used it should be mentioned, at least alongside the "Third Reich". Perhaps, "Despite its lead in many scientific and artistic fields at this time, amidst the Great Depression, the Third Reich (colloquially referred to as Nazi Germany) was proclaimed." Perhaps you may offer a better solution than incorporates the use of this term. Kupraios (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No, the lead is fine as it is. Also your claim of the term "Nazi" not being present anywhere within this article is not correct: 2.4 Weimar Republic and Nazi Regime, Nazi Party, etc. → [12] ← --IIIraute (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't claim that the term "Nazi" isn't used within the article, I'm claiming that the term "Nazi Germany" isn't used within the entire article, regardless that this is its most commonly referenced name for that era. Kupraios (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I do understand your point, but let us get this sorted now:
"Nazi Germany" means → Germany, in the time it was led by the "Nazi Regime" → this "Nazi Regime" proclaimed the "Third Reich" and not "Nazi Germany" (The Holy Roman Empire, and the German Empire being the first and second Reich). I hope that makes it more clear why it doesn't make any sense that "Nazi Germany" was proclaimed.--IIIraute (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "Nazi Germany" was not proclaimed. I'm suggesting that we rephrase the sentence or provide an addition to the sentence to identify that the Third Reich was indeed Nazi Germany. Wikipedia is an information source, so we should make it easy to find information. Since "Nazi Germany" is more recognisable than "Third Reich" it should be mentioned, if not replacing "Third Reich", then in addition to. Kupraios (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: "Nazi Germany" means → Germany, in the time it was led by the "Nazi Regime" → this "Nazi Regime" proclaimed the "Third Reich" and not "Nazi Germany" (The Holy Roman Empire, and the German Empire being the first and second Reich). We are not going to change the content and stable lead of a featured article that has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community, only so you can insert some non-academic style colloquialism for your personal satisfaction. Sub-section 2.4 of this article is called "Weimar Republic and Nazi Regime" → [13] ← and a link from "Third Reich" to "Nazi Germany" has been provided - and that's enough.--IIIraute (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but the term "Third Reich" is not the appropriate term. First, there was NO proclamation of a so called "Third Reich". In fact it was just a term from a lot of others used by the nazis, such as "Großdeutsches Reich", "Germanisches Reich deutscher Nation" and others. Actually Hitler himself was prohibiting the use of the term from 1939 onwards. Second, the term "Third Reich" is a very complex one, if used it needs to be handeld much more sophisticated. Your description of the first and second "Reich" is not totally wrong but missleading. There are much more versions of that. Hitler himself saw the first "Reich" as a very old germanic "Reich", way before the Holy Roman Empire. Third, if you want to be historical correct the Weimarer Republick is the appropriate term according to international law. The Nazis actually never officially suspended the Weimarer Republick. Fourth, i never understood why the term "Third Reich" is so often used in the anglo american world. Especially because it is a ridiculous mixture of languages. Reich means Empire. So you either call it Drittes Reich or Third Empire. In Germany in fact it is very rarely used. Therefore "Third Reich" is the most non-academic term you can actually use to discribe this period of german history. I dont know why you defend it so much (personal satisfaction?!) but "Nazi Germany" is much more acadamic because it describes the period without any ideological background. Everything i was writing is very well explained in german wiki articels.–– (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
why don't you read this, for example → [14] ←.
It doesn't matter how the Germans did refer to it, they certainly also did not call it "Nazi Germany" - within the English language, the commonly used term for the "Großdeutsche Reich" in this context is "Third Reich".
Please note: this is not a general dicussion about the use of the term "Nazi Germany", but of the use of it in the following sentence: "Despite its lead in many scientific and artistic fields at this time, amidst the Great Depression, the Third Reich was proclaimed in 1933." - it was not "Nazi Germany" that was proclaimed, but the "Großdeutsche Reich", i.e. the "Third Reich". Please show me a source stating that in 1933 "Nazi Germany was proclaimed".--IIIraute (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
i guess you did not understand my intention. I can not show you a source stating that in 1933 "Nazi Germany was proclaimed". Simply because Nazi Germany was not proclaimed. But please show me source where the "Third Reich" is proclaimed (in 1933 !!!) and not just used as a description for the period by english authors. Proclaiming means an offical announcement by the government that from now on Germany shell be called "Thrid Reich". That did not happen, certainly not in 1933, and as i said it was even forbidden in 1939. My suggestions for this sentence would be: " [...] amidst the Great Depression, the Nazi party took power in 1933." You cant argue that but you can argue the proclamation of a "Thrid Reich", that is a fact.−− (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter how the Germans did refer to themselves - certainly not Nazi Regime, Nazi Germany, etc.. The generally accepted academic term for "Großdeutsches Reich" is "Third Reich" - for example: "Hitler proclaimed that his Third Reich would last a thousand years" → [15]. --IIIraute (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I quite like the sentence used here. Perhaps the following could also be considered: "Despite its lead in many scientific and artistic fields at this time, amidst the Great Depression, the Nazi Party attained parliamentary control in 1933." IIIraute, as mentioned by the user above, the Third Reich was not declared, it just became. Kupraios (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, I am not stating that the Nazi party proclaimed "Nazi Germany", I'm suggesting that the sentence be restructured so that this era (the Third Reich) is referred to as "Nazi Germany" because this is the most common reference to it. You keep stating that the Nazi party did not proclaim "Nazi Germany", but this is not what I am arguing. Remove "proclaimed" from the sentence and restructure it - that is my suggestion. I'm glad you're proud of this article which I'm sure you've had a lot of involvement in writing, but your complete denial of the term "Nazi Germany" is unjustified. Kupraios (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Please note that we are talking about the lead, that contains very concentrated information (the whole WWII does not even get one full sentence: "...the Third Reich was proclaimed in 1933. The latter period was marked by fascism and World War II. After 1945...") - more deatailed information is given in section 2.4 "Weimar Republic and Nazi Regime" of the article.--IIIraute (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm very aware we are talking about the lead, and the sentence I provided is very concise. The above user has a valid point however, the Nazi Party did not proclaim the Third Reich. The Third Reich is a result of the Nazi expansion through Europe. It was the Weimar Republic, note republic, before it became an empire (reich) after control of the Nazi Party. Again, the Nazi Party did not proclaim the Third Reich, it was a result of the Nazi Party's leadership. Kupraios (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC) you are suggesting to replace the word "proclaim" for another word? - because "Third Reich" is the official Nazi designation for the regime in Germany from January 1933 to May 1945, as the presumed successor of the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (the First Reich) and the German Empire from 1871 to 1918 (the Second Reich) →[16],[17],[18]← - and that's what this lead is about (and not to write about a political party - or do you see the SPD mentioned for the Weimar Republic?).--IIIraute (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
From the Nazi Germany article itself, which has its own references:
"The most popular English terms are 'Nazi Germany' and 'Third Reich.' The latter was adopted by the Nazis and first used in a 1923 novel by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck..." The use of the term "Third Reich" has as much credibility as the term "Nazi Germany", but as implied by the article's lead, "Nazi Germany" is better recognised. I don't just propose that the word "proclaim" be replaced, I propose that that part of the sentence be re-written. The term "Nazi Party" bothers you but the entire sentence is in reference to the Nazi party gaining power, so how can you possibly complain about the use of the term "Nazi Party"? In my opinion, the sentence could be better written as: ""Despite its lead in many scientific and artistic fields at this time, amidst the Great Depression, the Nazi Party attained state control in 1933." I've replaced the word "parliamentary" with "state" since state control implies parliamentary control. Kupraios (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No, there is no mention of Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Emperors, Bismarck, Wilhelm I & II or any Chancellor of Germany, the East German Regime or any government, leadership, or political party - so the Nazi Party does certainly not belong in the lead. The lead refers to the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, and the Weimar Republic - so what follows is the Third Reich →[19],[20],[21]←. --IIIraute (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

And who exactly decided that political parties should not be mentioned in the lead? In this case, this particular party is very well known and has had a huge impact - it is significant enough to feature in the lead. Exceptions can be made. As for the term "Third Reich", this is not academic, it is called "Großdeutsches Reich" and thus should be written as "Greater German Reich", otherwise "Nazi Germany" is just as fitting. Kupraios (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In regard to the sentence:

"Despite its lead in many scientific and artistic fields at this time, amidst the Great Depression, the Third Reich was established in 1933."

Although "Nazi Germany" fits poorly here, "The Third Reich" doesn't work well either. Hitler did not proclaim it, as the book linked to ("Europe 101: History and Art for the Traveler" by Rick Steves) states.

The SNDAP began using the term Großdeutsches Reich unofficially in 1938 and it became official in 1943. The term Drittes Reich originates from christian apocalypticism of the middle ages. Before 1933, Nazi propaganda had been using it to refer to their intended authoritative Führer state, but after the takeover, its use quickly diminished. The term Tausendjähriges Reich has similar idiological roots and was used in Nazi propaganda to express their claim of an unending permanent system of rule - the final state of German history. Today, the terms NS-Staat, Führerstaat and Drittes Reich can be used in reference to "Nazi Germany". The best translations are: Großdeutsches Reich - Greater German Reich, Drittes Reich - Third Reich, and Tausendjähriges Reich - Thousand Year Reich.

The English terms German Empire and Holy Roman Empire refer to Deutsches Kaiserreich and Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation resp. Although these are the most common translations, the literal translations would be German Emperor Reich and Holy Roman Reich of the German Nation resp. The word Reich doesn't translate to Empire or anything else in English, so when used alone, Reich is used as a loan word.

The Weimar Republic existed as a parliamentary democracy from 1919 until the Enabling Act on March 23, 1933. It was replaced with a National Socialist Führer state after the President of Germany, Paul von Hindenburg, appointed Adolf Hitler as Reich Chancellor on January 30, 1933 Hindenburg remained the chief of state until his death on August 2, 1934. The Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich was passed on August 1, 1934, and took effect the next day when Hindenburg died. This merged the presidency with the office of Chancellor under the title of Leader and Chancellor (Führer und Reichskanzler).

So, in my opionion, "the Third Reich was established in 1933.", should be replaced with "Adolf Hitler, leader of the NSDAP, seized power in 1933." "Nazi Party" is a colloquialism. "NSDAP" or "National Socialist Party" are more appropriate terms for a Wikipedia article. The fact that the earlier history includes the state names isn't relevant. The idea is to simply give a short description of history. The German Wikipedia article for "Nazi Germany" is called Deutsches Reich 1933 bis 1945. By the way, German sources about German history are a lot more accurate than English sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Third Reich", official Nazi designation for the regime in Germany from January 1933 to May 1945, as the presumed successor of the medieval and early modern Holy Roman Empire of 800 to 1806 (the First Reich) and the German Empire from 1871 to 1918 (the Second Reich).[22]. --IIIraute (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It's wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


Can somebody tell me WHY ethnic Germans from abroad are described as non-German (for example as Polish) in the charts in the Demographics section? The sources say clearly that there are 80,7 % Germans without a migration background, while the chart say that they are only 80,7 % ethnic Germans. These data don't include the 10,5% Germans with a migration background (like Aussiedler)! --Jonny84 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

RUSSIAN GERMANS ARE ETHNIC GERMANS TOORussian Germans are ethnic Germans too so could be included in the first group.-- (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@Jonny84: I don't see anything indicating that the Polish group consists of ethnic Germans who were from Poland. Germans with a migration background isn't an ethnic group, so that shouldn't be listed as a category. (Russian Germans have a migration background but are still ethnic German. The other groups make up more than 10.5%, indicating that those with a migration background actually make up more than 10% of the population.) I do agree that that Russian Germans (ethnic Germans who were living in Russia) should be included with the main ethnic Germans group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid, the article's statistic convolutes migration background and ethnicity. The second source (#147) has 5 million immigrants listed as "Germans" outside of the main group of 80.7 percent. I suspect, not only Russian Germans, but other groups are mixed up aswell, but this is difficult to verify. Suggestion: either create a "migration background" statistic or an "ethnicity" statistic. The terms are not synonymous, the numbers can not be easily combined. A detailed analysis of the relation between migration and ethnicity is outside the scope of this article and should be kept to the "Demographics in Germany" sub-article.GermanJoe (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
You're right. I looked at the source and found many tables which summarize statistics about those with a migration background. It doesn't state anything about the number of ethnic Germans. It also doesn't talk about different ethnic groups from the former Soviet Union, as is show in the Wikipedia table. It just says Russian Federation. Those categories are just used to denote where the people with a migration background are from, not their ethnicity. If we want to use the table, we should call it a Migration Background table, change "Ethnic Germans" to "no migration background", and remove the other information about ethnic groups that is not in the sources. If there is information about ethnic groups, we could have a second table for that, but I didn't see any. And I agree, combining the tables into one wouldn't work, so we should have a demographics sub-article that lists the actual tables from censuses separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The sources' text below the tables give some additional info about the countries of origin. Those can be used aswell, just shouldn't be used as "ethnic" information without further checking. Agree with your suggested first cleanups. The different groups' names should match the sources as much as possible. GermanJoe (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Factually incorrect statements part II

There is rather substantial evidence that democracy in Germany is not functional when it comes to crucial fields of politics like war and peace or economy and this evidence should be mentioned in the article. The lack of democratic functionality of the German political system is best illustrated by the case of the war in Afghanistan. About 70 % of the Germans opposed the idea of German troops being in Afghanistan from the very beginning, but the parliament prolongs the mandate for the forces on a yearly basis since 11 years, overruling the will of the vast majority on a routine basis. Parties who opposed war before elections and were elected for this reason, turn around once they are in the parliament. For references see for instance: Another example is the establishment of the so called European Stability Mechanism. In fact, the German parliament agreed to pay any sum of money reqested by an institution protected from any legislation within one week. For the most disturbing points, see This is definetly beyond the rights of the parliament and must rank among the biggest thefts in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on your personal opinions (nor even mine), but on reliable sources. If you find such sources (e.g. an article in a peer-reviewed journal, or in a major newspaper, like The New York Times, Le Monde, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, or The Guardian), feel free to make a concrete suggestion. YouTube is, except in rare circumstances, not a reliable source. And of course, in any representative democracy it can happen that a certain political position is implemented against the wish of the majority, as long as voters give higher priority to other topics. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree concerning the references. Peer- reviewed scientifc articles should be preferred. Given the fact that the ESM was established rather recently, it is hardly realistic to expect a substantial number of peer-reviewed publications on it, yet, because thorough review takes time and less meaningful articles will be published before just because they were submitted to the journals earlier. No debate of immediate present interest can be based on scientifc literature due to the time lag caused by the rewiew process. Anyway, the youtube clip was supposed to replace an abstract for a broad public, but the original document can also be found easily: This text speaks for itself. Concerning personal opinion: I fail to see the point. I just provided some verifiable evidence for democratic deficits in modern Germany that helps to improve the overall picture of the country painted here. Everyone is free to do with it what he/she likes. My concrete suggestion is to present the evidence for the democratic control of German adminstrations being too weak to prevent them from conducting war in the article. This also applies to the evidence for the democratic control of German administrations being too weak to prevent them from comitting large scale theft. I mean people should know the risks for their life and their property of today, right? Pascal L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"There is rather substantial evidence that democracy in Germany is not functional when it comes to crucial fields of politics like war and peace or economy and this evidence should be mentioned in the article." The statement you make is just not true. The German constitution (Grundgesetz) clearly states in Article 20, Paragraph II, sentence 2, that the power comes from the people and is executed by the three powers in the state. This means the German people vote for their representatives, which then do the political work. The voting people have no direct say in the political process. They must go via their representatives. That's why the German democracy is a representative or parliamentary democracy, not a direct one like the Swiss. This is the same reason why there are no plebiscites on the Bundesebene. The constitution forbids that. All this (and other things, like the 5% clause) is a direct consequence of Nazi Germans, the fathers of the constitution did not want a demagogue to rally the people behind himself and then take over the state. They simply did not trust the ordinary people (which is not surprising, given the time after '33) --Ruhrpottpatriot (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Euro sign

In the section about universities, there is written that a semester can cost "€50-500". But the Euro sign is not on the right side, is has to be "50-500 €". AFAIK, only the GBP sign is on the left side, without whitespace to the following number. The Euro sign is always on the right sight, separated by a whitespace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are mistaken. The Euro sign "€" has to come before the actual number, like -any- other currency symbol in the English language (in other languages the symbol might be placed behind) e.g. £500; $500; ¥500 etc. So it is correct to write "500 euro", but like with "€" symbol, we write "EUR 500". The currency "euro" does not officially have a plural form, so it always remains "euro"; the plural "-s" ending is incorrectly added by some people. Here is the official source for the use of "€" symbol: Rules for expressing monetary units. This is the official spelling source: Spelling of the words "euro" and "cent" in official community languages as used in community legislative acts.Flamdring (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2013

Please remove the wrong flag!

Best regards,

Benjamin. 24benjamin (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. It's not clear what you're asking to be done. Rivertorch (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Done I guess that's → [23] ← what he was talking about. IIIraute (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't check the history. Mystery solved! Rivertorch (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2013

please change the second link in the category "External links" from " – Official Germany portal (non-profit)" to " – Topical multilingual website about Germany". Reason: the current link is not valid (page not found) and the related description of the link is also updated. Inm4dportal (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done (partly) changed the link, thank you. I am not sure, changing the description is necessary, the site still claims to cooperate with the German Federal Foreign Office, "Official" would still be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To GermanJoe Dear GermanJoe, thanks for changing the link, it works!. Please also change the link description from " – Official Germany portal (non-profit)" to " – Topical multilingual website about Germany". Reason: the request was made by, it is the official subtitle since 2013.

 Done title too. GermanJoe (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To GermanJoe Perfect! Thank you very much! This request is now fully answered! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inm4dportal (talkcontribs) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC) - German Saxony -Around AD 600 The area is populated by the Slavic Sorbs from today's Poland and Czech Republic. - German Saxony -Around AD 600 The area is populated by the Slavic Sorbs from today's Poland and Czech Republic. - French did honour there treaty to come to the aid of Czechoslovkia if Germany declared War but England refused. -The First Czechoslovak Population Census – 1921 Czechoslovak Census shows race according to mother tongue.

Please research "list of medieval Slavic tribes" and you will see many German Slavic tribe's. So can someone please put a link up showing me the German Dna Project!. The british Isles' have a Dna project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2013

Please either remove the hyperlink to Protestant in "Catholic-Protestant divide that has characterized Germany ever since"; or, link to a page that articlates the "Catholic-Protestant divide"; or, add a hyperlink to the wikipedia article on Catholicism. I believe this page is in violation of either Wikipedia's neutrality standard or maintains a low-degree of specificity. Thank you for your time.. (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. "Roman Catholic", which is linked above in the text, redirects to "Catholic Church", but that is a different article than Catholicism; Protestantism isn't mentioned at all previously. HueSatLum 02:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Not done Roman Catholic is already linked in the same sentence.. -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 02:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Germany rose to 5th place on the UN's Human Development Index in the report released today - this might be good featured in the country's introduction?

the page is semi protected so i don't know how to change it, otherwise i'd do it myslef — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limamomoet (talkcontribs) 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is also interesting for the ecomony part of the article: According to a recent study by the Federal German Bank, German family net worth is more than three times smaller than the one is Spain and Italy:

I found the article weird, so I checked articles in English and found this:

The data changes quite a lot for Spain, the richest country in Europe according to the article in family net worth, but Germany continues to come up very poor:

So, it seems that things can be very different according to what figures one takes to make a statistics. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hitler or Scheidemann image

Scheidemann was an important figure, but nowhere near the importance of Hitler's destructive influence on this era. The usage of that image was already discussed - unless there is a really convincing reason, we should keep the historically far more important portrait. It's more relevant in an encyclopedic context as part of German history. GermanJoe (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

While it's obvious Mr. H. played a "vital" part, everyone is well aware of his portrait and is flooded by links and redirects to Hitler and Nazi Germany. A more consistent image would be favourable. Since both eras are essential for Germany's 20th century history, both could also co-exist. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

better media image?

Currently we have 2 soccer-related images in the article, one in media, one in sports. OK, most Germans are soccer-enthusiasts, but two images is over-doing it. Does anyone have a good idea for a relevant media-related image? Most of the media section is not even about sports events, so the image is not fitting well here. GermanJoe (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Joe ;) Great idea. I was considering a poster of Metropolis. The movie is UNESCO world heritage and the mother of SciFi and modern cinema, if you dare. Early German cinematic history is unparalled in the world and used to be in place and thriving well before Hollywood came into existence. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Good idea about Metropolis (but i really like that old film, limited objectivity on my side). As a side comment, some of the new images look really good - just make sure to not overcrowd the sections. English Wiki usually uses a bit less images compared to the German for example. GermanJoe (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure. But compared to previous editions of the Germany wiki article, it still looks like a pal with only his left ball. ;) Some people virtually ruined this article to damage the image of Germany, it's quite obvious. I'll watch out for a nice Metropolis poster. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Führer vs president

Regarding the revert of this edit - I want the revert undone. It re-introduced a longstanding error, saying the Anstreicher was president, combined with a clumsy note where the reference correctly states that he had in fact abolished that office after Hindenburg's death. I had also added another reference that makes it more clear (in length discussion that the office of the president was abolished and its powers absorbed into the new Führer position). Just because the error got un-noticed for some time, it does not mean that it is backed by a consensus?

On a related issue, my subsequent edits were also reverted. We now have again a very odd sentence in there, reading The war casualties for Germany are estimated at 5.3 million German soldiers[ref] millions of German civilians;[ref clutter] and losing the war resulted in ... - is that the grammar we want for a FA? Also, the Nuremberg trials should imho go behind that sentence for chronology reasons. Please discuss. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus" on image layout and blandness in information

Someone please show me why additional information gets reverted at any occasion and on what "great basis" images and facts are removed. Where is that "consensus" to be found? Thanks. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussions and relevant guidelines were already pointed out to you repeatedly, especially the latest FA-review - but you choose to ignore that advice (see your talkpage for example). I suggest, you read the FA-review and basic Wikipedia editing guidelines like WP:SUMMARY, WP:RS, WP:PEACOCK, MOS:IMAGES and others. GermanJoe (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Just give a link.
If anyone wants a derailed, minimalistic and bland Germany article, he can always choose to go there: Outline of Germany or simple:Germany. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I gave you 4 links, more archives and the FA review are on top of this page. Additions against current guidelines will be deleted sooner or later. Your last addition on architecture is a good example. While it contains 1-2 noteworthy, important details (f.e. Gründerzeit), most of the section is unsourced, overly detailed and contains multiple peacock and vague terms. And two images are not needed here. "Germany" is a summary article, you really need to read up on that concept and stop pushing a minority view. GermanJoe (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at other country articles, it's obvious that actually YOU are representing a minority view here. ;) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Try again and look at other featured articles of the last 3-4 years (as FA-criteria have changed over time). An encyclopedic article cannot contain every single trivial detail about a given topic, it has to be a brief summary of the most notable, relevant facts. GermanJoe (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. But so far, it didn't include any relevant facts regarding architecture or Germany's law system and biodiversity. The forwarding links to detailed articles are way to detailed to grasp what's the essence for Germany there. That's not how a country's article should work. That's how most country's articles actually don't work at Wiki either. While there's a rather detailed section on literature, there's a one-liner for arts and a two-liner for architecture? Sorry, but I don't agree you can compress the essential facts in these. Have a nice Sunday, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Polish casualties

IIIraute, you're only partly right on that.[24] Slavic peoples are very diverse. Although the Nazi Germany's occupation of western Europe was brutal and horrifying, the Poles (West Slavs) and Belarussians, Ukrainians, Russians (East Slavic peoples) experienced the harshest Nazi terror. Poland was the first victim of Hitler's aggression and was left longest under the brutal Nazi regime. Hitler considered the Poles and East Slavs to be Untermenschen, less than human. For example, Polish slave-worker men in Germany (see łapanka) were publicly executed for having sex with German women while the French, Italian or Czech workers received a less severe punishment. The majority of Soviet POWs were shot or starved to death. The Nazi plan involved not only the occupation and ethnic cleansing of Polish territory (Lebensraum), but also the total extermination of Polish nation (Generalplan Ost).

This is an ideological battle and a struggle of races. Here in this struggle stands National Socialism: an ideology based on the value of our Germanic, Nordic blood. ... On the other side stands a population of 180 million, a mixture of races, whose very names are unpronounceable, and whose physique is such that one can shoot them down without pity and compassion. — Heinrich Himmler, July 13, 1941

Nazi ideology defined the Slavic peoples as an inferior race, the nameless "masses from the East," but the Slavs of Croatia and Slovakia were allies of Nazi Germany and therefore were exempt from persecution. Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and Moldovans live near the Slavic nations, but are not Slavs themselves. As a result of Stalin's reign of terror most of them welcomed the Germans as liberators. Anyway three additional words[25] don't take up much space, but I will respect the consensus. Btw I'm not a Pole.[26] Please be careful of WP:CIVIL.--Tobby72 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are writing about! YOU, (Tobby72) wanted to single out one country, i.e. Poland/Poles, while on the other hand you intended to summerize the civilian casualties of Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, etc. as "East Slavic peoples"? [27] The current version does not single out any nationality, but rather gives a short summary of the different categories of (non-combat) casualties: ethnic/ethno-religious groups, POWs, people with mental and/or physical disabilities, homosexuals, and members of the political and religious opposition. The groups mentioned consist of civilian casualties from all European countries, not making a difference between a Jew, Roma, Slav, homosexual, or member of the political and religious opposition from Germany, Poland, France, the Ukraine, or any other European country. And there is a good reason for it, as otherwise the section of this article would have to contain far too much detailed information. The Germany article only includes a short summary of more than a 2000 year history. This is not the right article to deal with such details - other articles do, and the appropriate links, i.e. Slavic People → (Generalplan Ost, which was NOT restricted on Poland), are provided. Also: Please be careful of WP:CANVASS[28]. Thanks.--IIIraute (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
German warning in occupied Poland 1939 - "No entrance for Poles!"
To put it simply, next to Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and Soviet POWs, Poles were the most intensely targeted victims. Not all Slavs were targeted by the Nazis.--Tobby72 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and of course several million Ukrainians, Belarusians, Czechs and Slovaks, Serbs, Bosniaks, Croats, Slovenes and Russians - and so forth. This is not a competition. What they share is that they were Slavic people. Just like we do not make a difference between Jews, Roma, homosexuals, or members of the political and religious opposition - whatever country they originally came from.--IIIraute (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


The introduction's population statistics refers to an estimate of 2010. Today it is 2013. I think it's outdated. Although there are currently only minor changes in the size of Germany's population I think it is always best to refer to the latest sources, like here: (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The population of Germany at October 31 2012 is 82,029,000 -- (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the 2011 Census the population of Germany is 2 million less than expected, so that means its GDP per capita is 2.5% higher than expected...about 1,000 euros more.-- (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Also, according to teh 2011 German Census, 92% of Germans (74 million out of 80 million) are German citizens, and not 81%.-- (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

To your second point, the statistical table and graph describe ethnicity (migration background to be more exact), not citizenship. The 90+ percent number of citizens is mentioned in the text. GermanJoe (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

But "migration background" doesn´t mean "ethnicity" because half of immigrants to Germany are ethnic Germans from countries like Russia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Poland etc...-- (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Foundation of Germany

Hello! I'm from Germany, therefore I can't speak and write English well.
I would may, that Germany willed built 1871 in terms of the German Reich, not 962! It isn't identically equal to the federal republic of Germany. Thanks for all kind answers! --Bergisch Neukirchen (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

→→ Geschichte Deutschlands. --IIIraute (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Image stacking problems

The article seems to be getting rather cluttered with images again.The surfeit of images is causing massive stacking problems, so I am queing some images to the talk page per image use policy.

Queued images
The Imperial Crown, main part of the Imperial Regalia and crown of the kings of the Holy Roman Empire 
The Golden Eagle is a protected bird of prey and the national heraldic animal 
Inside Wendelstein 7-X, a research facility at Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics close to the University of Greifswald. In contrast to many other countries, a great portion of German research is exhibited in independent institutes, while universities rather focus on educating their students. 

I have tried to retain those images that seem most important to the understanding of the text, rather than the most visually appealing, and to queue only a small number of images.--Boson (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No need to do that. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps people with different screen sizes can report but, since your reverts, I now again have images relating to the Holy Roman Empire adjacent to the German Confederation and imaged related to the foundation of Imperial Germany next to the Weimar Republic. --Boson (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Crest Animal

There is no official species named as crest animal for Germany other than "a black eagle on a golden shield". However, the crest animal of Germany is actually the white tailed eagle not the golden eagle. The eagle is derived from the prussian crest with the double headed eagle and in the white tailed eagle is the most widely spread species of eagle in the former prussian territory. This article names the white tailed eagle (Seeadler) as crest animal: There are also various sources for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's nonsense, even if ir's written in the German wikipedia. The heraldic eagle doesn't have a species, it's a generic eagle. And the German coat of arms is not derived from the Prussian one, but from the medieval crest of the Holy Roman Empire, which in turn goes back to the Roman legion's eagle. --Caballito (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
So then the article should not refer to the golden eagle either. Fact is that this article is the only source referring to the golden eagle. There are various other sources for instance this: Also the coat is derived from older versions in which the eagle has yellow fangs and a yellow beak, which clearly identifies it as white tailed eagle. Golden eagle is definately wrong.
Oh yeah, it can be read in, together with a remark that it lacks reference. Most probably all this goes bach to the (mistaken) original research of one single wikipedia user who cannot understand that the color of fangs and beaks does mean absolutely nothing but a coloring. It is not meant to depict an anatomic detail of a specific species, it is just a color. Neither is the white tailed eagle a "national bird". That claim probably goes back to the exact same original researcher and is derived from his eroneous identifiction of the species in the coat, and maybe the fact the white tailed eagle might have been named "bird of the year" some year. I think it was some years ago, but that doesn't make it a national bird. If such a thing as a national bird of Germany exists, it's the golden eagle, which happns to also be what a german thinks of as a "plain" eagle - he definiely doesn't imagine a white tailed eagle. ---Caballito (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Still the Golden Eagle is named as nationalcrest animal. It is not the crest animal, as you said the crest has no official species. So the remarks should be changed to "the eagle is the national credt animal" or something equally neutral. Also the Germans refer to Steinadler and Seeadler or just Adler, which then can be either. I am certain that most Germans will refer to the much larger white tailed eagle as "their" credt animal. But when there is no source for that, I concede. At least the incorrectness could be removed.
I have boldly removed the unsourced statement. Since the heraldic eagle is already depicted in two other images on the page, and the golden eagle is not of special significance as a protected bird, I would suggest removing the image completely, which would also reduce the clutter on the page. --Boson (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense as national symbols

The article claims that the White Stork is the national bird of Germany and the corn flower is the national flower. Both of these claims are unsourced and false. Germany has no national flower, the "national bird" would be the Golden Eagle as per the descrition under the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

→→ "The blue cornflower is one of the national flowers of Germany. This is partly due to the story that when Queen Louise of Prussia was fleeing Berlin and pursued by Napoleon's forces, she hid her children in a field of cornflowers and kept them quiet by weaving wreaths for them from the flowers. The flower thus became identified with Prussia, not least because it was the same color as the Prussian military uniform. After the unification of Germany in 1871, it went on to became a symbol of the country as a whole. For this reason, in Austria the blue cornflower is a political symbol for pan-German and rightist ideas. Members of the Freedom Party wore it at the opening of the Austrian parliament in 2005. It was also the favourite flower of Louise's son Kaiser Wilhelm I. Because of its ties to royalty, authors such as Theodor Fontane have used it symbolically, often sarcastically, to comment on the social and political climate of the time. Due to its traditional association with Germany, the cornflower has been made the official symbol of the annual German-American Steuben Parade."--IIIraute (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • We should have a source for both very, very dubious claims. Note, that none of those examples names an official actual usage. As a German i never heard such claims, except maybe the cornflower, but only in a historical context - not for present-day Germany. The stork is a symbol for German nature reservation efforts and in a broader, historical sense a symbol for fertility and well-being. GermanJoe (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The more reliable (on such aspects) German Wikipedia has "Als politisches Symbol fand die Kornblume in Deutschland (im Gegensatz zu Österreich) nur geringe Verwendung." => The cornflower was only rarely used as political symbol in Germany (contrary to Austria). German Wiki then lists a number of usages, but mostly folk or other traditional groups, far from a "national" usage. GermanJoe (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not trying to be difficult, but you can't source the statement "Germany's unofficial national flower IS the blue cornflower." with a book stating "The Cornflower WAS once the floral emblem of Germany" (emphasis mine). The cornflower is no notable national flower (unofficial or not) in present-day Germany, this information is simply erronous. GermanJoe (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I just added a better ref. That should do.--IIIraute (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to include a national symbolic plant, it rather is the oak (leafs), you'd find it on cent coins as well. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It's the oak tree [29]. I'll try to find a better source.--IIIraute (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid, Illraute, finding more books that copy the same outlandish claim can't be the aim. If you re-read your own (correct) description of the symbolism connected with the flower you will learn that the cornflower is/was
  • the symbol of 19th century romanticism,
  • the symbol of Prussia (bear in mind the identification of Prussia with Germany as a whole is seen as an insult by a sizable part of the German population) in the 19th century and
  • became the symbol of right wing militarist and of right wing, racist pan-Germanist ideologies in the first half of the 20th century.
All three point and Particularly the third one make the cornflower unfit as a national symbol of Germany as a country. It is true that the blue cornflower had symbolic value in Germany and Austria and with ethnic Germans in other countries but this past symbolism is largely unknown by modern Germans and that, given the ideological connotations, calling it the "national flower" is highly misleading to say the least. If you want to describe the symbolism of the flower in Germany history you have to describe it in a bit more in detail. Calling it simply the "national flower" is worse than saying nothing.Berndf (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Five contemporary WP:RS do not agree with you → [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. Please do not remove well sourced content, unless you can provide at least as many reliable secondary sources that support your argument. Thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Berndf is of course correct and this claim is wrong, but it's incredibly hard to proof a negative. He (just like me a few months ago) tried to explain, why this claim is overly simplifiying and ignoring the broader historical and cultural context. Most of the listed sources do not even try to provide any reason for their claim - the one that does, lists Napoleon's era as the possible origin (a cute story, but totally irrelevant today). The linked article floral emblem describes such flowers as "chosen as symbols to represent specific geographic areas". Please name me only one official modern German document or a German politician of the last 10-20 years making this claim. This "national symbol" is out of use for atleast 50 or more years (and even then it had only very limited usages, see above), describing it as actual modern national symbol is misguided folklore, not encyclopedic fact. GermanJoe (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Reader's digest type publications all copy thoughtlessly from one another and giving many such sources doesn't make such claim any more trustworthy. The symbolism associated with the cornflower has been discussed in detail here and I would really appreciate, if you would cooperate in finding a formulation that takes these things into account rather than stubbornly insisting on an obviously untenable claim. I agree with GermanJoe that given the state of the discussion, it would be reasonable to demand that you provide recent and respectable sources from Germany itself. Citing only American sources is not sufficient as they obviously reproduce the same myth, probably caused by the use the cornflower as symbol of the Steuben parade. Berndf (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Instead of patronizing WP:RS such as the UK (not American) Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust or Encyclopaedia Britannica, which is Latin for "British Encyclopedia", (Greek 'enkyklios paideia', meaning "general education"), please provide some reliable secondary sources that support your argument. After all, this is the English WP. English sources are sufficient, and plentiful. The Verein für Deutsche Kulturbeziehungen im Ausland (VDA; "Association for German cultural relations abroad") is a German cultural organisation that promotes German culture and German language worldwide. Somehow they think it is adequate to have a Cornflower as their logo → [35]. Chairman of the organisation is Hartmut Koschyk[36] & [37], CSU Member of Parliament, and Minister of State in the German Federal Ministry of Finance. He is a representative of the German government, as well as of the Bundestag, the constitutional and legislative body in Germany. Why don't you complain to him. Thanks. --IIIraute (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The VDA is just one association among many. That type of associations is not part of any official political function and has no say, what is or is not a national flower for Germany. Also Koschyk has 3 different roles here, it is important to distinguish, what he says as head of an association or as member of a state or federal government. In Germany the majority of the parliament or the heads of the government itself make the decisions, not single voices from single politicians (sorry for being unclear in my initial request, i was asking for politicians in official statements). None of your links shows the connection between cornflower and "national flower of Germany", they just show, that 1 association (out of literally 10,000s in Germany) decided to use that symbol. GermanJoe (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Editing and publication of the EB has long moved to the US. The 1933 edition was the last with a British co-editor. You quoted the 1973 edition. Subsequent editions didn't repeat the claim. The cornflower was a symbol used by the German speaking population in Hungary and Romania and that is the reason why the VDA's predecessor organization adopted the symbol in the 1930s. That doesn't make it the "national flower of Germany". I don't mind including some references to the symbolism of the cornflower but that would need to be more explicit, especially since the only significant symbolic use of the symbol today exists in Austria where it stands for far-right pan-Germanic ideology. Berndf (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Here is a list of all official national symbols [[38]], from the website of the German parliament: the national anthem, the "Bundesadler" and the German flag. Can we cut the tourist folklore now please? GermanJoe (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Some more info: the flag is described in the German Grundgesetz, Bundesadler and anthem were suggested by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and agreed by President Theodor Heuss. No other symbols have this level of recognition, both legally and in popular German opinion. GermanJoe (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course, a national flower does not have to be an official, government approved national symbol, but may as well be based on tradition, regular custom, and/or folklore. However that may be, the current solution is fine by me. --IIIraute (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


can somebody please add a list of all german chancellors. That would be great, or at least one very importan chancellor Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor after the second worldwar. (I'm sorry for my english..) --Wichtighuber (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)wichtighuber

This list was already compiled, see List of German chancellors. GermanJoe (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

But it would be fine, if you or somebody else mention Adenauer as first chancellor and how he handeled the german seperation between east and west. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wichtighuber (talkcontribs) 21:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

pls sign your edits in future Oliveru1980 (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Stadium of Borussia Dortmund

The name of the statium changed to "Signal Iduna Park". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There is too much history information in the lead

It currently consists of three paragraphs (out of six total which is already too long for a lead) which gives undue weight and too many details according to WP:LEAD to be relevant in the general article for a country. I am going to be bold and start cutting some info down to be as brief and concise of an historical overview as possible (particularly removing some info on early germanic tribes which is not immediately relevant to the modern Federal Republic), occupying two paragraphs at most. If anyone objects to specific changes I make, we are free to discuss it here. Cadiomals (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

More lead trimming

Some more suggestions to bring the lead to a more concise state - the last 2 paragraphs could be trimmed and probably even merged. Expendable phrases include:

  • "The country ranks highly in many international metrics of performance" - redundant, several of those metrics are already listed or paraphrased in the same paragraph (Healthcare, economy, import, export, science, ...). The metrics list article could be linked somewhere else in the article or in the "See also" section.
  • "and is a member of several international institutions" - redundant and obvious, the most notable institutions are listed in detail anyway.
  • "It took a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for the 2011–2012 term." - past event and frankly not that important in the great scheme of things (a lot of countries get non-permanent seats eventually).

Comments welcome. GermanJoe (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with all your points, I went ahead and did that for you. Once again, if anyone objects to specific changes we can discuss it here. Cadiomals (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

FDP no longer in Bundestag

In this section

Since 1949, the party system has been dominated by the Christian Democratic Union and the Social Democratic Party of Germany. So far every chancellor has been a member of one of these parties. However, the smaller liberal Free Democratic Party (which has had members in the Bundestag since 1949) and the Alliance '90/The Greens (which has had seats in parliament since 1983) have also played important roles.

change, within the parentheses, from "which has had members in the Bundestag since 1949" to "which has had members in the Bundestag from 1949 to 2013" , see for confirmation.

LouisRavin (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Done with minor grammatical correction --Boson (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

National Motto

Hello, Germany doesn't have an official national motto. Maybe, also ask the German wikipedia-friends. --Asiaten-Kenner (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

True, it's inofficial but accepted and should remain. Added "inofficial" here. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
It must be removed. Writing that down is giving false impression that there is a motto, which is simply not a fact. Wikipedia shouldn't spread false information. --Asiaten-Kenner (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's on our coins, it's on Bundeswehr uniforms, it's in books and articles throughout the web, it's mentioned on the Bundestag website. What else do you need? A motto is evolving and doesn't have to be in the national constitution. In fact you're trolling. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge and in contrast to most of the american states there is nothing like an official national motto (flower, nickname, etc.) in nowadays Germany - not even an unofficial one (which is irrelevant for Wikipedia anyway).
„Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit“ is just a commonly used quote from germany's national athem and its interpretation as an "unofficial motto" is original research at its best. Infoboxes should contain hard facts not not hearsay! -- (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The infobox correctly states that the motto is unofficial. What we need is a reference. --Boson (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reliable source for this so called "unofficial motto"? The word "unofficial" doesn't overrule WP:SOURCE.
As stated above, interpreting this quote from the athem as an "unofficial motto" is just a private theory, trying to transfer the US-concept of state symbols on to a foreign nation. There is no national (or a state) motto, nickname, animal, fower or what ever in Germany! -- (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
James Minahan, The complete guide to national symbols and emblems, Vol. 1, 2009, page 407
"Motto: Einigkeit und recht und freiheit (German); Unity and justice and freedom (English)"[39]
Juliet Steyn, Other Than Identity, 2009, page 148
"...the Federal Republic's motto, 'unity, law, and freedom'..."[40]
Rede von Bundespräsident Christian Wulff bei der Verleihung des Verdienstordens der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zum Tag der Deutschen Einheit am 4. Oktober 2011 in Berlin:
Datum:04. Oktober 2011Ort:BerlinBulletin103-2
"Gestern haben wir die Deutsche Einheit gefeiert, für mich das Wichtigste, was eine Nation erreichen kann: Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit." [41]
Rede des Präsidenten des Deutschen Bundestages, Dr. Norbert Lammert, beim Festakt zum Tag der Deutschen Einheit am 3. Oktober 2012 in München:
Datum:03. Oktober 2012Bulletin88-2
"„Wir sind das Volk“, dichtete Ferdinand Freiligrath 1848 in den Tagen der deutschen Revolution. Wir sind ein Volk, heißt es seit dem 3. Oktober 1990. Dazwischen liegen anderthalb Jahrhunderte schwieriger deutscher Geschichte im Ringen um Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit." [42]
Rede von Bundeskanzlerin Dr. Angela Merkel beim Besuch von US-Präsident Barack Obama am 19. Juni 2013 am Brandenburger Tor in Berlin:
Datum:19. Juni 2013Bulletin72-2
"Ja, Amerika hat einen überaus großen Anteil daran, dass sich das Brandenburger Tor vom Ort der Teilung zum Symbol von Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit wandeln konnte." [43] --IIIraute (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
There is also no source given to support the classification of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat as the lower house and upper house (of a bicameral legislature), respectively. But not to provide the information here would mislead the reader into thinking that Germany does not have the equivalent of a bicameral legislature. The purpose of country infoboxes is to present salient data in a uniform manner to make it easier to compare different countries, and how the reader interprets the data can be influenced by footnotes etc. These are not matters of checklist policy but rather of editorial judgement. Symbols can be established in a number of ways. The usual way to establish a motto is probably to include it in the motto "field" of an official heraldic achievement (coat of arms). Arguably the edge inscription of coins also establishes a motto. In my judgement, it is sufficiently clear that the phrase Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit is used in a similar way to a motto; so including it in the infobox is justifiable, provided that the reader is not misled, and this can be achieved by appropriate footnotes. Possibly the footnote should state that the phrase is used on coins etc. (like a motto) but does not have the official status of a motto. Another alternative would be to alter the template to allow an expression other than "motto", but that would, perhaps, be overkill.
Having said that, the issue of the motto comes up regularly, editorial judgement requires consensus, and to date there has been no unequivocal consensus to retain the motto. So I think any arguments for inclusion of the motto should attempt to convince those who disagree that the phrase has been established as a national motto - not just as a slogan or motivational phrase. --Boson (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
To my understanding a motto of a state could only be officially declared by this very states legislative or goverment. E.g. there are state (or federal) laws defining the states (or unions) symbols and mottos in the US. But since there is nothing like that in Germany, there could neither be an official motto.
„Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit“ is the first line of germanys national athem – nothing more, nothing less. -- (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:RS, "The complete guide to national symbols and emblems, Vol. 1, 2009" is a valid source:
James Minahan, The complete guide to national symbols and emblems, Vol. 1, 2009, page 407
"Motto: Einigkeit und recht und freiheit (German); Unity and justice and freedom (English)"[44]
However, your definition of what can and cannot be a motto of a sovereign state is original research. It is the removal of long-standing sourced content that needs editor consensus - not the inclusion. --IIIraute (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your (personal and unsupported) understanding that a motto can only be established by the state's legislature or government. That might be a requirement for an official motto, but there is no reason to insist on documenting only official mottos. Positive evidence has been provided that this is the unofficial motto, as stated in the infobox. Unless stronger positive evidence (reliable sources) is provided that this is not the motto, or other convincing arguments for removal of the unofficial motto are presented, I support retention of the motto. The motto should be retained until some form of consensus/dipute resolution decides otherwise. --Boson (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove - a simple look will show there is no motto - not our job here to promote non official versions of anything. All sources provided thus far state clearly its not official. This place for this is not in the info box that clear. -- Moxy (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

„Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit“ „Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit“ Stamps for the first meeting of the Deutscher Bundestag (BRD) in Berlin.

German 5 DM coin German 5 DM coin. German €2 coin edge German €2 coin.

Bundeswehr belt buckle Bundeswehr belt buckle. National anthem of Germany National anthem of Germany. --IIIraute (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Very nice images ..but still no source saying in anyway that this is official. We have to be careful not to mislead our readers in this fashion. We should have an RfC as this will get more experienced editors involved. This is a no brainier in my eyes and I suspect most will agree that non official motto's have no place here. Best people think of our readers of what they would like to see. -- Moxy (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
"Diese Strophe symbolisiert durch das Bekenntnis zu "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" ausgewählte, traditionsbezogene Verfassungsgrundsätze der BRD." → Staatssymbole → Federal Agency for Civic Education [45].
Wolfgang Bock, Gläubigkeit und Recht und Freiheit, 2006, page 50:
"...das deutsche Leitmotiv „Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" laut Regierungshomepage die zentralen Gedanken des Grundgesetzes".[46]--IIIraute (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure what they say ..but from my translation....not sure I am I reading this right... but its seems to be saying it was a East German slogan from the Berlin wall period. We must be able to find some English sources. I cant tell but what are the sources above saying about "Nemo me impune lacessit" was this and old motto? Wish I could read German. -- Moxy (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Tourism (sub of Economy)

A Tourism section should finally be added under "Economy". Germany is the seventh most visited country in the world and there's quite an extensive article on the topic: Tourism in Germany.

The Tourism section of the France article seems like a good role model for me here. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Design and fashion

An upcoming one for the Culture section: Design and fashion. Germany accounts for some of the most important fashion designers (Lagerfeld, Boss, Joop, Escada, Jil Sander, Moshammer, Bogner, Michalsky, Dassler Adidas/Puma etc.), product/interior and industrial designs (think of Mies van der Rohe, Behrens, Rams, Breuhaus, Bruno Paul, Colani, BRAUN designs etc.) schools (Bauhaus, Expressionism aso.), models (Schiffer, Klum, Garrn, Gerkan, Obermaier, Stegner, Padberg, Diane Kruger etc.) and collections. A similar stance is on the Italy article: Italy#Fashion and design.

Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)