Jump to content

Talk:Germany/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Will Germany lift it's incest ban?

This recent case of brother a sister having sex with two children born with disabilities and died and having the other two children taken away. This has caused some upset but some lawyers are looking to lift the ban, saying that it is not harmful to society and that the children that died have not been proven to have been caused by incest sex.

-G —The preceding comment was added by anonymous user (talk • contribs) 2007-03-04.

No they won't. Incest is only popular in Italy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.61.61 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-16

Query from copyeditor

The article uses the word "government" in two different senses: one, the general apparatus of the state; and the other, the executive branch. (The former is typically American usage while the latter is typically British or Commonwealth usage.) While either is formally correct, mixing the two can lead to confusion. Thus I plan to replace the second usage with "executive" or the like. Are there any objections?

In copyediting the article I've tried to avoid changes that could alter the meaning of the text, but if I inadvertently change the meaning please let me know. Thanks! Raymond Arritt 00:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that consistency is the most important factor, so I agree with you. TSO1D 00:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My latest round of copyedits may affect meaning in some places. Please take a glance at the article history and look for edits that ask "OK?". Also you might want to double-check some of my translations. Finally, I changed the description of the Dolchstosslegende so that it refers more generally to "domestic treachery" rather than strictly the 1918 revolution -- let me know if you disagree with what I've done there. A plea: change what you consider appropriate, but please edit specific items instead of doing a simple revert. If you do a revert, you'll cancel out any other copyedits made after the item in question. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 05:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Revolution and Second German Empire

The part of the article talking about German colonies established after the crowning of Wilhelm II is in so far wrong, as Wilhelm II’s crowning took place in 1888 - after the death of emperor Friedrich III (who - I think - is worth to be mentioned). Most of the German colonies were established before 1888, during Bismarck was in charge. (Bismarck himself was not interested in colonies, he only saw the economical reasons.)

It is also not completely correct to say, that Wilhelm I was forging the foreign policy of the empire. Indeed Bismarck did. In Germany we talk about the "Bismarcksches Bündnissystem" referring to that policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.158.246 (talk • contribs)

Ok, I removed the reference to William II in reference to the beginning of imperialism, and just left the dates in. Also, I said that it was Bismarck's policy. Although it was William that had ultimate authority, I agree that the policy was shaped by the Bismarck. TSO1D 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This already is an improvement!

But it i think it is also necessary to mention Wilhelm II in this context. Of course the major part of the colonies was established before his time, but he made a significantly more imperialistic policy than Bismarck did.

Also his actions were rather unpredictable (for example during the second morocco-crisis (“Panthersprung nach Agadir”) or as he wrote the “Krüger Depesche” to congratulate Paul Kruger for fighting down a riot of British settlers, which was forced by the British government). Such actions of course brought trouble to German foreign policy. Another problem with Wilhelm II was, that there was disagreement between him and Bismarck, what led Bismarck to resign in 1890.

On the other hand it is not clear whether Bismarck himself would have been able to keep up his system of treaties for a longer period of time, because of it’s complexity. Some historians believe, that this system had to lead to a new European war, it only was the question, when.

I agree with your assessment, however I don't really want to expand the history section any further. It might be better to add this information to a subarticle, such as German Empire. TSO1D 15:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with that.

But I also think it would be a good idea to put in the box “History of Germany”. It seems not to take too much space and represents an easier link to further information. The box occurs in many articles referring to the German history, why not here? Of course you also could leave it as it is, but in that case I think it would be better to place a link to the Rhine Confederation on top of this Paragraph.(17:10, 2. Januar 2007 (MEZ))

nazi flag and coat of arms

there's a nazi germani flag and coat of arms at the beginning of the article.Eist345 07:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This post and the one below it seems to be a reaction to some vandalism, in the future, change it yourself, instead of spamming the discussion. 68.21.244.153 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the page was semi-protected and Eist345 was a new user.--Boson 07:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi flag and bogus motto!

Says Germany's motto is "Heil Hitler" Bawad1 08:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)bawad1

A class article? Not in History!

Aside from gaps in history that deserve at least cursory treatment (as noted by some readers above), the history section omits any mention of The Confederation of the Rhine, which was a forerunner of the German Confederation and the beginning of the modern consolidation of German States. The article doesn't even give a sentence about Napoleon's rule of the German states which lasted about as long as the Third Reich. I suppose the 10 years from 1805-1815 never happened in Germany? 10:36, 2 January 2007 (CET)Sean

That's what History of Germany is for, few if any other country article bothers with such a detailed history section. Lars T. 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree in part with what you're saying, but again - shouldn't that (Confederation of the Rhine) at least be given cursory treatment? and if your logic is that it should be listed in the History of Germany section, then why is the Third Reich given the detail it is here and not the Napoleonic years, which were just as, if not more, formative to Germany's history? 09:36, 4 January 2007 (CET)Sean

Vandalism

Someone vandalised the beginning of the article by posting the Nazi flag and a false motto

No worries. Such things are gone about as fast as the server can refresh (i.e. plenty fast). MadMaxDog 13:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

See also

Any specific reason why the See Also is empty?

Suggestions:

And that's just history. I know that the See also should not get too long, and most of the See also would already be linked to within the article. On the other hand, the see also IS supposed to be a shortcut - even to terms linked within the article... Cheers, MadMaxDog 13:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's all there, it's just hidden. You see in the see also section there is a topics in Germany line, if you have to click show on the left. I wish I knew how to be open automatically, but I see that all other countries have it hidden on default anyway. TSO1D 14:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also — 'The "See also" section ... should ideally not repeat links already present in the article.' Lars T. 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I know, but the new topics in template has been used in many FA country articles (ex. Canada, and it looks better than just having a list of links. And there seem to be no complaints about this matter anywhere else. TSO1D 15:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


There is no mention of the well known German trait of reserving a space on the sun lounger by putting a towel out very early. Is their a reason this has not been included? --I love football 1982 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not familiar with this element of German culture. Could you please elaborate. TSO1D 01:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Actually this is a more or less common (imho humoristic) cliche, passionately often referred to by the britsh.

According to the cliche germans on vacation tend to get up very early to reserve the top places around the pool by putting a towel on the deckchair. If you happen to be on vacation at e.g. Spain, you will certainly observe some guy trying it early in the morning.

From my point of view this is neither an element of german culture, nor relevant for wikipedia and at last nothing more than a amusing cliche. ~

Well thats your point of view. Here is the BBCs view [1] and here is the British Newspaper The Gaurdians view [2]. Amuzing cliche or not you cannot deney that it is a reference to Germany in popular culture. Also I am sure we can allpoint to far looser references to articles in popular culture than this referenced by the BBC and The Gaurdian--I don't like football 16:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately the article Germany does not have an "In popular culture" section. Kusma (討論) 16:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Having reviewed it I think this is a topic that should be discussed on the German People wiki not the main German one here.--I don't like football 16:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

please update music.

I see kraftwerk is listed, and as of right now, the band rammstein are the biggest german rock music export. so if you could add that to the section, it would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.165.163 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Rammstein may be selling well, but Kraftwerk had a pretty substantial influence on modern pop-music. Lars T. 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What about their love of David Hasslehoff?--I don't like football 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

David Hasselhoff is not German. Lars T. 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I always wonder who got the idea of Germans loving David Hasselhoff. That's a really strange cliché He might have been in Germany once, but that was about 20 years ago. And I bet he then also had fans anywhere else. And now he is almost forgotten. So it would be the same when someone says that Americans fancy Wolfgang Petry ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.70.237 (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
As a German, I first came across the cliché of Germans liking Hasselhoff when I was to Australia. I told them there was no connection whatsoever between Germany and Hasselhoff - and was proven wrong because one of his albums _has_ been Top 1 of our album charts for some time. However: No German remembers because it had little or no real public impact - and most Germans actually never liked the actor too much ;) Still: I do not see any necessity to mention Hasselhoff in the Germany article as long as my firefox states that the word 'beer' is not even used once - there're far more relevant topics being omitted --80.137.220.199 09:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Factual error in "Education" section:

  "school attendance is compulsory for twelve years"

You can quit school with a "Hauptschulabschluss" after 9 years. (But I am not too sure wether this applies to all German states. However all states have some kind of degree before the 12th year of school).

Addition: You don't even have to do that: You only have to attend school for nine years. Then you can quit even without any degree (at least in some states).

You're right, in most states 9 or 10 years in a Gymnasium/Realschule/Hauptschule are compulsory. However, if a pupil leaves one of these schools before he's 18, he has to attend a Berufsschule. So actually all underages have to go to some sort of school, at least until he or she has got "Berufsausbildung" (training qualification).

I have another remark to make. The text says: In contrast, secondary education includes four types of schools based on a pupil's ability as determined by teacher recommendations: the Gymnasium [...]; the Realschule[...] the Hauptschule [...], and the Gesamtschule [...].

In fact, the important types are Gymnasium, Realschule and Hauptschule. Gesamtschule is a type of school where those three types are combined - in most cases that means that those three schools share one building or campus. The Gesamtschule is an exception, as at most places there is only Gymnasium/Realschule/Hauptschule The teacher doesn't give a recommendation for Gesamtschule, he gives only recommendation to Gymnasium, Realschule or Hauptschule according to the student's performances. In addition, this recommendation is not obligatory. The parents can decide which school their kid shall visit.--84.56.237.68 14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Guys and Girls ;-)

I'm pretty sure that the actual 'compulsory' ,in a legal sense, years you have to do in Germany are just 10 years or untill your 16. But I could be wrong here. ---> Christian K.

You are wrong indeed. It is compulsory to do twelve 12 years of school in Germany. This is the same for all German Bundesländer (Read more: School Laws of Lower Saxony, http://www.schure.de/nschg/nschg/nschg43.htm (in German)). Any pupil has to do nine (9) years in general education (primary and first part of secondary education) and three more years (second part of secondary education) either in vocational training (Berufsschule) or in general education (Gymnasium, aiming for the Abitur, German equivalent of A-Levels). Ulsterman 13:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The confusion may come about because school attendance may be only one day a week. For instance an apprentice hairdresser or car mechanic may spend one day a week in formal education, and the rest of the week doing "vocational training" at a place of work. Or there will be a block of several weeks at the Berufsschule and a much larger block at the normal place of work. --Boson 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Military Service

The article says, that men are forced into military service, but I think it's also important to state there, that anyone can effectivly chose to do military or a civil serivce. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.122.11 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Effectively, yes, officially, no ;) --80.137.220.199 09:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

officially, yes

EU map

The EU map showing, on this page, Germany highlighted, is now in use on every single EU page apart from, you've guessed it - the United Kingdom! It was there, but User:TharkunColl persists in removing it, even breaking 3RR. I would be grateful if editors interested in the EU pages could go along and fix it as I will myself be in breach if I do again. Thanks for any help! MarkThomas 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures (Only South)

What the hell is it? You guys just published pics of the south. Where are pics of the north and central Germany? I hope you people change it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.42.218.3 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Animation

What is the purpose of the animation highlighting the states. The static map provides the same information and is rather less annoying.


foreign relation or relation with the us??

this section focus (in a non that neutral way) on the US-German relation, forgot the world did not actually resolved around the US? Cliché Online 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not if the U.S. and this U.S. website have anything to say about it.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Morgenthau plan

I have removed the Morgenthau sentence again, as I feel it is a bit out of place here. For one, it is only about the US policy with respect to Germany in the years 1945-47 (a too small topic for us to talk about in this broad overview article). Also, the Morgenthau plan is almost forgotten in present-day Germany, as it had no real lasting influence. Perhaps it is possible to partially rewrite the occupation section to mention the policy shift away also from denazification, but really all detail should be in History of Germany since 1945 or its subarticles.

I find it amazing that editors will routinely write edit summaries like "revert vandalism" when clearly the issue is a content dispute. There is a question of due weight here: Stor stark7 (talk · contribs) wants to present the Morgenthau plan as the central inspiration of Allied policy in post-war Germany when clearly that is disputable at best. In fact, this user is involved in content disputes in multiple articles surrounding purpoted crimes of war against German civilians. Pascal.Tesson 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just felt so tired and disgusted reading the above sentences that I just left, but now I’ve reconsidered, I just can’t let the statements above go unchallenged. First, for claritys sake, the disputed paragraph:

Allied economic policy was de-industrialisation (see JCS 1067) , until the policy-change that took place from the end of 1946 to mid 1947. (see Restatement of Policy on Germany).

references,

  • Second, a reply to Kusma (talk · contribs)
  • The importance of US policy. The U.S. and British occupation zones together contained 70% of German heavy industry (mainly in the Ruhr area, since Upper Silesia, Germanys second largest industrial and mining centre, had been given to Poland and the German population was being expelled). Britain was the junior party in the relationship and usually went along with U.S. policy. Besides, the Potsdam conference set a policy which was less harsh than the U.S. policy but which was common for the U.K, the Soviet and the U.S. zones. German standards of living were not to be allowed to exceed the European average. The German economy was also to be reorganized with primary emphasis on agriculture and peaceful domestic industries. In early 1946 agreement was reached on the details of the latter, Germany was to be converted into an agricultural and light industry economy. German exports were to be coal, beer, toys, textiles, etc — to take the place of the heavy industrial products which formed most of Germany's pre-war exports. U.S. influence was felt in policy all over Germany.
  • Also, the Morgenthau plan is almost forgotten in present-day Germany. Quite frankly, my only response to that is that the inferiority and inadequacies of the German educational system should have no bearing on the content of an encyclopaedia article. It is what scholars have written that is relevant, not what the average low-brow on a German down-town street believes. As an example of my point, from Marshall Plan 1947-1997 A German View by Susan Stern:

Surely you would not expect us to rewrite the Germany article as regards the Marshal plan to reflect what the average German thinks he knows about it?

  • Third, a reply to Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs) , who reverted the paragraph while providing the following rationale: . remove point of view bit: this is not the mainstream analysis.

I pointed out to him that he had deleted a sourced paragraph, without providing any sources showing that it was POV. When challenged to provide sources for what the alleged “mainstream analysis” was he responded with silence, and a second revert “delete again extraneous sentence inserted by POV pushing editor.” I naturally consider such activity as vandalism. The inspiration the Morgenthau Plan provided Allied occupation policy should be straightforward for anyone who does not use his ignorance as evidence but instead has actually bothered reading literature that focuses on the occupation. For example:

  • Vladimir Petrov, Money and conquest; allied occupation currencies in World War II. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press (1967)
  • Nicholas Balabkins, Germany under direct controls : economic aspects of industrial disarmament 1945 - 1948. Rutgers University Press (1964)
  • John Dietrich, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (2002) ISBN 1-892941-90-2
  • Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe ) ISBN 0-88033-995-0
    • Section: by Richard Dominic Wiggers, The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II
    • Section by Charles M. Barber The Isolationist as Interventionist: Senator William Langer on the Subject of Ethnic Cleansing

A snippet from the writing of Richard Dominic Wiggers.

Then there’s this statement by you Pascal.Tesson (talk · contribs): In fact, this user is involved in content disputes in multiple articles surrounding purpoted crimes of war against German civilians. What exactly is the purpose of that statement? Is it perhaps an attempt to avoid discussing the facts by using Smear tactic instead? As far as I’m aware I’m involved in discussions in only one other articles talk page at the moment, and I happen to believe that the use of talk pages improves the resulting article content, but I guess you feel otherwise about Talk-pages.

Fourth: Being a believer in sledge hammer tactics and unnecessary quoting, I’ve enlisted the views of some more or less famous people:

Herbert Hoover, the 31st President of the United States (1929-1933), Report on the situation in Germany, 1947 [5]



What they said in those quotes and much more is mirrored again and again in the literature I listed and other besides. Mainstream opinion, minor consequences, sure… --Stor stark7 Talk 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In contrast to the Marshall plan, the Morgenthau plan is deservedly forgotten in present-day Germany, as it had no lasting effect whatsoever. If anything, it should be mentioned in the History of Germany article. Therefore, removing the link to the Marshall plan subarticle makes no sense, particularly since it doesn't shorten the section as a whole either. I have therefore reverted the change. Nellov5 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever weird logic you are using to motivate the re-inclusion of the Marshall plan by referring to the Morgenthau plan escapes me completely. But that should come as no surprise since you provide no sources to back up your re-inclusion of the Marshall plan.
As to the Morgenthau plan, I fully realise that some individuals prefer to cling to comfortable myths rather than facing the inconvenient truth. And yes, dismantled and demolished factories can be rebuilt. Famished children can be restored to health later. But dead children stay dead. Their effect on the future is indirect by not belonging there. I repeat the quote of Wiggers:

--Stor stark7 Talk 13:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Bundesrat

The Bundesrat is not a parliamentary organ, thus Germany does not have a bicameral parliamentary system. Many written overviews and even a few lexical works get this wrong, but the German Federal Constitutional Court stated explicitly, that the Bundesrat is an organ sui generis that can't be compared to any other in the world. The article Bundesrat of Germany is pretty good and describes the unique character. --h-stt !? 15:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the old text wanted changing, but the present version might be misleading to someone not familiar with the German constitution. IMO the Bundesrat is comparable to (though different from) the upper houses of other countries. Stating that it is unique is doubtless true but, to the layman, might give the impression that it is more different than it actually is. What I didn't like about the old version was the impression it might have given that the "government" was an independent legislative body, alongside the "Bundestag". The actual situation may be rather difficult to express succinctly for an international readership including people from both presidential and parliamentary democracies. (e.g. the US and the UK, repectively), for whom even the word "government" may have different meanings.
I would perhaps add a footnote similar to the one I added to the Bundesrat article:
The Bundesrat is referred to as the second chamber of the German parliament, but this designation is disputed by some. Reuter, Konrad (2003). "Zweite Kammer?". Bundesrat und Bundesstaat: Der Bundesrat der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pdf) (in German) (12th ed. ed.). Berlin: Direktor des Bundesrates. pp. p. 50. ISBN 3-923706-22-7. Retrieved 2007-01-04. In other countries, this type of parliamentary system is referred to as a "bicameral" system. However, it is not customary to talk of a single institution comprising the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, and it is even disputed whether the Bundesrat is a "second chamber" (approximate translation) . {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help)
On the other hand, the Bundesrat itself seems to accept the legitimacy of calling it a second chamber and is careful to use the subjunctive when referring to claims that it is not, and it points out that the Verfassungsgericht only stated that the Bundesrat was not "the second chamber of a single legislative body with participation in the legislative process equal to that of the first chamber" (rough translation).
Here is a longer (fair use) quote from the Bundesrat publication I referenced. It appears to be saying "You pays yer money and you takes yer choice." or "Six of one and half a dozen of the other." But it does raise NPOV issues.

Zweite Kammer? In vielen Staaten der Welt – Einheitsstaaten wie Bundesstaaten – gibt es für die Legislative zwei Häuser. Im Ausland wird ein solches parlamentarisches System im Allgemeinen als „Zweikammer- System“ bezeichnet. Für Bundestag und Bundesrat ist dagegen eine gemeinsame Bezeichnung nicht allgemein üblich und es ist sogar umstritten, ob der Bundesrat eine „Zweite Kammer“ ist. Diejenigen, die dem Bundesrat diese „Kammer-Eigenschaft“ streitig machen, verweisen darauf, dass die Mitglieder nicht in den Bundesrat „gewählt“ werden und für die Abstimmungen an „Weisungen“ gebunden sein können. Diese Besonderheiten ließen es nicht zu, von einer parlamentarischen „Kammer“ zu sprechen. Wer so argumentiert, lässt aber außer Acht, dass der Bundesrat als ein Repräsentativorgan der Gliedstaaten anderen Prinzipien zu genügen hat als ein Repräsentativorgan des Volkes. Manchmal wird auch das Bundesverfassungsgericht für die Versagung der „Kammer-Eigenschaft“ in Anspruch genommen. In Karlsruhe sei ausdrücklich entschieden worden, so wird behauptet, der Bundesrat sei keine Zweite Kammer. Tatsächlich hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht 1974 in einer Entscheidung ausgeführt: „Nach der Regelung des Grundgesetzes ist der Bundesrat nicht eine Zweite Kammer eines einheitlichen Gesetzgebungsorgans, die gleichwertig mit der „ersten Kammer“ entscheidend am Gesetzgebungsverfahren beteiligt wäre.“ Das Bundesverfassungsgericht schränkt seine Verneinung also ein und verweist dabei außerdem auf eine wissenschaftliche Abhandlung, in der auf die „Beliebigkeit“ der Wortwahl hingewiesen wird. Es ist in der Tat ein Streit um Worte, der hier manchmal mit großer Leidenschaft ausgefochten wird. Für die verfassungsmäßige Stellung des Bundesrates ist er ohne Bedeutung, denn die Aufgaben und Befugnisse des Bundesrates ergeben sich nicht aus dieser Bezeichnung, sondern aus den Einzelbestimmungen des Grundgesetzes. Wenn man mit einem Großteil der Staatsrechtler und Politikwissenschaftler die mitentscheidende (also nicht nur beratende) Beteiligung am Gesetzgebungsverfahren als das entscheidende Kriterium für den Begriff „Kammer“ ansieht, dann wird man den Bundesrat als eine „echte Zweite Kammer“ bezeichnen; wenn man andere Umstände für ausschlaggebend hält, also von der „Beliebigkeit“ der Wortwahl einen anderen Gebrauch macht, kann man ihn aber auch für „keine Zweite Kammer“ halten. Seine Stellung bleibt trotzdem die gleiche. Wegen seiner vielen Besonderheiten ist der Bundesrat ohnehin ein „einzigartiges Organ in der Welt“.

--Boson 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranking of officials

If I understood it correctly, in the article the Federal Chancellor has been ranked at Position no. 3, after the Federal president - the "Bundespräsident" - and the President of the Parliament - the "Bundestagspräsident". In fact the chancellor is no. 4, because the President of the chamber of the states - the "Bundesratspräsident", is no. 3.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.176.52.116 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Federal Minister of the Interior disagrees with you. Kusma (討論) 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The statement posted by Kusma is correct. In fact, there is no official ranking list, but the following practise has established itself over time:
1 Federal President / Bundespräsident
2 President of the Parliament / Bundestagspräsident
3 Federal Chancellor / Bundeskanzler
4 President of the Chamber of the States / Bundesratspräsident
5 President of the Federal Constitutional Court / Präsident des Bundesverfassungsgerichts
What might lead to the assumption that the Bundesratspräsident could be on a higher rank is the fact that he or she would substitute the Federal President as official Head of State in case of severe illness etc. HubT 12:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, link Sarland under post-WW2 map to Saar (protectorate). --83.131.195.107 06:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

American/British English

This article currently mixes American and British English.

Examples of American English:

  • World Trade Organization
  • athletics (meaning all sports)

Examples of British English:

  • colour
  • centre

--Carabinieri 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the article once more I've noticed it mostly uses BE and that those two are just exceptions/errors, though I'm not so sure about the second one: is World Trade Organisation an acceptable spelling? I've changed "athletic organisation" to "sports organisation", because I believe that would be correct British English, though I speak AE so fell free to revert that change if that's wrong.--Carabinieri 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Even the BBC uses World Trade Organization [6], so I guess I can answer my own question...--Carabinieri 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I suppose, it is the spelling used by the WTO that is important. Personally, I prefer the "-ize/ization" spelling as this is not only US spelling but is also acceptable British English spelling; though it may be the minority spelling in Britain (according to the Wikipedia article, usage is 3:2 in favour of "ise"), it is used, for instance by the Oxford University Press (who additionally use the serial comma, also known as the "Oxford comma"). There are also etymological reasons for preferring the "-ize" spelling where it is permissible, as explained in the Oxford English Dictionary.
But "sports organisation" is preferable to "athletic organisation" in BE, right?--Carabinieri 20:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds OK to me, though I didn't know there was a BE/AE difference in usage. I can confirm that when I hear "athletic" I think of running, pole-vaulting etc., not sports in general. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boson (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

There certainly are national differences for both words:

  • Main Entry: ath·let·ics Pronunciation Guide
  • Pronunciation: athled.iks, -etiks, -ks
  • Function: noun plural
  • 1 sometimes singular in construction a : the physical exercises, sports, or games engaged in by athletes <intercollegiate athletics> b Britain : track-and-field sports
  • 2 usually singular in construction a : the practice of athletic activities b : the principles of athletic activities and training


  • Citation format for this entry:
  • Main Entry: 1sport Pronunciation Guide
  • Pronunciation: sp()r]t, -p()r], -], -()], usu ]d.+V
  • Function: verb
  • Inflected Form(s): -ed/-ing/-s
  • Etymology: Middle English sporten, short for disporten to disport
  • transitive verb
  • 1 archaic : to make (as oneself) merry : DIVERT, AMUSE, CHEER
  • 2 a archaic : to expend (money) in gambling : WAGER, BET b : to expend wastefully or carelessly (as in riotous living); also : to spend lavishly and ostentatiously
  • 3 a : to make public and usually ostentatious display or use of : show off <delighted to sport his learning in company> <sporting the new sedan in the park> b : to wear contentedly or with satisfaction <sported a trim little hat at church> c : to keep or use as a possession <every clerk hoping to sport a horse some day>

*4 Britain : to close or keep (a door) closed usually as an indication that one is too occupied for company

  • 5 [2sport] : to put forth as a sport or bud variation <the white rose sported a single red-flowered branch>
  • intransitive verb
  • 1 a : to amuse oneself by light or playful activity (as by participation in a game or outdoor exercise) : FROLIC, ROMP <lambs sporting in the meadow> b : to engage or participate in a sport and especially an active field sport
  • 2 a : to treat sportively or lightly : deal in a sportive or light manner : MOCK b : to speak or act jestingly or slightingly or without due or serious consideration -- used with with <sporting with things he scarcely hoped to understand>
  • 3 archaic : to bet habitually
  • 4 [2sport] : to deviate or vary abruptly from type : give rise to a sport (as by bud variation) : MUTATE
  • synonym see PLAY
  • - sport one's oak Brit : close one's door against interruption


  • Citation format for this entry:

FEDERAL GERMANY

Germany is described as both a unified State, and a Federal State. This is a major contradiction. If Germany indeed is a Federal government with 16 States, then it - like the USA - is a Federal Union where the States have governments of their own, a significant measure of self-government, and an internal identity that is only shaped by Berlin to a limited degree. Yes, they have all given up a measure of their sovereignty, but they are sovereign states none the less. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a federal state, like the US. Signaturebrendel 01:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
"Unified nation state" is used here not in the sense of a unitary state but in the sense of a single sovereign state (in international relations) resulting from a process of unification among states that previously formed only a confederation of states or were completely independent of each other. --Boson 07:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Motto

Germany does not have any national motto. The slogan Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit is only the anthem. Any officials motto does not exist.84.142.84.61 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite know how "national motto" is defined, but the explanation given at List of state mottos fits for "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit", as that is used on coins (previously, on 5 DM, now on 2 € coins). Kusma (討論) 12:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a official national motto. It is just like the national motto of Poland Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna. It is a national motto in Poland and you can see it in official ceremonial occasion on banners (look for example a ceremony 2005), but in the constitution is nothing about a national motto. Equally in Germanys constitution is nothing about a national motto.--84.142.84.61 15:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither does the US constitution mention a motto. Lars T. 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Weimar Republic

The German Workers Party, which later changed its name to National Socialist German Workers' Party, was founded on January 5, 1919, not in September of the same year (see Wikipedia's History of Germany). No reason was given for the date change. I therefore reverted the change. Nellov5 15:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

German immigration to Spain

That, according to "The Guardian", German residents "spend a significant part of the year living in Spain" is no proof that an increasing number of Germans are actually emigrating to that particular country. Nellov5 08:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Read well. A lot of them are considered immigrants by all means. Millions visit it every year, but those are tourists. See again well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1830838,00.html

Just to help you I have cut and pasted this:

"That brought the registered British population in Spain to 274,000 - equivalent to a city the size of Bradford or Leicester.

But experts estimate that up to three times as many Britons, about 750,000 people, spend a significant part of the year living in Spain. Only Morocco, Ecuador and Romania have more foreign residents in Spain. Germany, which comes second among the EU countries, provides only half as many."

In fact Germans make up the second largest EU immigrant community in Spain after Britons and their numbers are increasing every year. It is an important fact of one of the the patterns of emigration within the EU.

If you want more information about German immigration to Spain check these sites, which are in German:

http://artikel.4.am/archives/1018-Weg-aus-Deutschland-nach-Spanien-auswandern-....html

http://www.handeln.cc/urlaub-auswandern-spanien/

http://www.deutsche-in-spanien.de/community/links.php?fuseaction_lba=showsites&category_lba=25

http://www.businessportal24.com/de-at/Existenzgruendung_Spanien_Auswandern_Publikation_Spanienclub_26822.html

From here I have cut and pasted this:

"In den nächsten fünf Jahren planen nach einer Umfrage des FOCUS-Magazins 460.000 Deutsche ihre Auswanderung in den Süden Europas- überwiegend nach Spanien. Nicht nur Rentner wandern aus, Spaniens Wirtschaft boomt, es herrscht in vielen Bereichen grosse Nachfrage nach gut ausgebildeten Arbeitskräften."

Translation for those who do not read German:

" In the following 5 years 460.000 Germans are planning to emigrate to the south of Europe, mainly to Spain. Not only pensioners are emigrating, The Spanish economy is booming, and in all fields there is a large demand for skilled workers."

And I could add many more. This is a fact known by a lot of people, it is not new. So I am posting again this information that is important and verifiable.

Veritas et Severitas 14:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Thousands of German senior citizens are spending a significant part of the year in Spain for medical reasons. This has been the case for several decades now. Are those included in the figure provided in The Guardian article? If so, it isn't made clear. Moreover, a foreign resident is not necessarily someone who has "emigrated", i.e. left his country for good. All the other German articles are stating that the estimated figure is for those Germans who "are planning" to emigrate (I'm a native speaker of German, thank you!) You are anticipating something that defacto hasn't happened yet. Moreover, no figures for other European countries - to which Germans have alledgedly emigrated - were given. Please provide verifiable statistics that prove your point. All links should be to English-language articles. I have therefore removed the link to a German-language website.

Nellov5 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

I you want more precise data here you have the official statistics from Spain in Spanish. Obviously most information concerning Germans in Spain is either in German or in Spanish:

http://www.ine.es/revistas/cifraine/cifine_ext0605.pdf

As you can see in page two (you do not need to understand Spanish for that: Germany is Alemania in Spanish))the number of German immigrants amounted to 130.232 in 2003., being the second largest group of EU immigrants after Britons. These data are for immigrants, of course, not for tourists, since about 60 million tourists visit Spain every year. These data only account for registered citizens and are from 2003. Over the last 3 years immigration has increased dramatically and has almost doubled since there are now about 5 million immigrants in Spain. Last year alone almost 700.000 came in from all over the world, some of them also from Germany. Veritas et Severitas 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The page talks about "Extranjeros", which means foreigners - not (necessarily) immigrants. Lars T. 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, the number of Germans leaving the country has clearly decreased between 1992 and 2005. These are official data provided to members of the Bundestag. http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/bevoe/bev_bsp_t3.htm Germans may be the second largest group of EU immigrants in Spain, and immigration to that country may be on the increase in general. But on the whole, German emigration today is less than what it was in the years following German reunifaction. That Germans are "increasingly emigrating to Southern Europe" is therefore an unsourced claim (what about emigration to other countries in and outside of Europe?). Nellov5 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can download more extensive reports here [7]. Latest numbers from 2005 show Spain is now the biggest target in south Europe (if you exclude Austria and Switzerland from that ;-), beating France by one person - unlike the year before. BTW, more Germans move to the UK than to Spain Lars T. 17:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then where are the statistics that back up your claim? The link you provided is for the FSO shop with no further information. Do I have to purchase one of their publications in order to find the missing data? Sorry, but as long as the appropriate sources are missing, I will take down the (unsourced) sentence about German emigration. Nellov5 18:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The link timed out. Here is one that should work: [8]. The downloads are free. BTW, this is the original site I got the link from: [9] Lars T. 23:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I am sure that you can find information about other countries. I have provided valid sources here for this fact. You can change the wording though and introduce other places too. Veritas et Severitas 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The German immigration is some places of Spain and other countries is important. If you do not want to show it in the article, I think it is because you do not want to show it. Do as you want, I have left already more than reasonable information here. I am myself a German in Spain but I am not going to discuss what is written in black and white. Veritas et Severitas 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Culture/Sports

The other two most popular sports in Germany are marksmanship and tennis represented by the German Marksmen’s Federation and the German Tennis Federation respectively, both including more than a million members.

I'd like to mention that this needs some comments. Marksmanship is not really a popular sport in Germany but a folkloristic thing. Nearly every small village (not the larger towns) has a "Schützenverein" a marksmen club. That means once a year most male members of the community come together to shoot at a wooden bird high on a pole. Mostly with a gun fixed to a base. When the last bit of the bird comes down (after seveal hours), the man that had the last shoot is "Schützenkönig" King of marksmen for one year. That means he has to pay the beaverages for the hole community to party all night and get drunk. Biggest and most important party of the small village year. Yes, one of our more ridiculus traditions. You can not call this a sport. It dates back (I'm not shure about this) to the time after Napoleon and was supposed to show, that the population can defend itselfe an to keep the people in training. No one cares about that military aspects anymore today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.63.114.124 (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

in my home region (East Saxony) no one even cares for marksmanship and there are few "Schützenvereine".84.181.109.180 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but in Northrhinewestphalia it still is a big thing (e.g. my hometown, pop. 13.000 and at least 5 "Schützenvereine") But this is not sport but Tradition. Of all the hundreds of people I came to know untill now there is only one person who does marksmenship as a sport and she's from poland ;-)Could someone please change the sentence I copied above because it gives an false impression. To have a firewapon and practice with it may be quite a normal thing in the USA but is very unusual in Germany.

Expand?

I see this article has just been flagged "Expand". If I recall correctly, it was condensed in the course of the Featured Article process and the details transferred to the subsidiary articles. What should be added to this article?--Boson 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the expand tag. It was in the "History" section, which is certainly not in need of expansion. It still contains unnecessary details; people should only add to the subarticles. Kusma (討論) 07:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IPA Spelling of 'Deutschland'

Are you sure it is IPA: [ˈdɔɪtʃlant] and not IPA: [ˈdɔɪ̯tʃland̪]? -- 84.159.109.239 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the last character of your rendering is displayed correctly by my browser, but the final consonant is, in my opinion, a voiceless alveolar plosive when the word is spoken alone. The [d] currently shown in the article (2007-02-23) is incorrect, in my opinion, though there might be regional differences, and the last consonant would vary when singing (possibly being replaced by something like a glottal stop when chanting). --Boson 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree... I'm taking a class on the phonetics and phonology of modern German and this final "d" should definitely be de-voiced.169.229.81.21 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Serafin sentence

World War II and the Nazi genocide were responsible for about 35 million dead in Europe, with nearly 30 million of these in Poland and the Soviet Union alone.

That leaves a margin of five million deaths in all the other European countries. But even Germany alone has 7.5 million deaths according to World War II casualties, the "source" that was used. And what's everybody's impression after reading the above quote regarding the numbers of deaths in Poland? 17m dead or something like that? According to the wiki article again, it's 2.6m when not counting Jewish victims, much less than Indonesia and much much less than China. User:Serafin is evading his block to indulge in Polish advocacy, as so many times before. By not undoing these edits outright or even make concessions, one would indirectly support and encourage further block evasions on his part. In the German wikipedia, he mainly (or even only) tried to replace "Silesian" with "Polish" against consensus, soon got blocked indefinitely, accused everybody who opposed him as a Nazi (see User:Contra Nazi's talk page for Serafin's "truth"), but in the end got nowhere and with his current behaviour he should not get anywhere here, either. Sciurinæ 14:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To Lars T.: I'm sorry to have reverted some of the good changes by mistake. Because of Snieg's/Serafin's continued vandalism, there have been so many revisions that it's become kind of confusing. Sadly, removing this nonsense on a daily basis seems to have become the main contribution for a lot of editors. Nellov5 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the "undo" link on a differences page works quite well ;-) Lars T. 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Third Reich

This may be controversial, but I have reverted NOON'S additions about the Holocaust. The details he provides are important, but should be in the sub-articles ("History of Germany", "The Holocaust" etc.), IMO. The history part of this article is meant as an overview of German history, not as a detailed description. One moderator stated that this part shouldn't be expanded any further. If the moderators find my revision to be against the rules, please undo my changes. I have also removed the disputed sentence about Poland and the Soviet Union. Nellov5 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Subjugation alone doesn't necessarily kill. It's the "systematic extermination performed on an industrial scale" in extermination camps etc., which made the killing so effective. IMHO, that's the minimum that should be written in the Holocaust section. The total death toll (around 40 million) may be mentioned in the WWII paragraph and is not part of the Holocaust as such. Noon 00:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"That's the minimum that should be written in the Holocaust section". But this isn't the Holocaust section. This section is called "The Third Reich" and meant to provide an overview of that period in German history (the holocaust and its victims are mentioned, but further information should be in the main Holocaust article.) Please read more carefully and add your details to either "The History of Germany" or any other relevant sub-article. The history section of this article is not in need of expansion (see Kusma's and Baristarim's recommendations). Nellov5 00:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The 125KB article of The Holocaust is summarized in a paragraph of 3 sentences. It is still a very rough overview for a major genocide made by the Third Reich. If you wish to shorten the history section, please check other portions. Don't revert it back to an inaccurate and vague version. Thanks, Noon 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, how many country pages mention genocides at all? Lars T. 06:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted the changes. If you think that the main article about The Holocaust is too short, then add your details to it, but not here. I think it's time for the moderators to lock the entire history section of this article, except for those who are going to shorten it. Nellov5 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Content issues aside, there really shouldn't be any expansion of the history section for this article - it will just make any future summarizing more difficult. Besides, try developing the related articles - this article should link to them with the shortest summary possible. Even that should be done in a global summary of the topic concerned (in this case, history). Baristarim 10:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't need details of the geographical location of the deaths here. If necessary, refer (perhaps in a footnote) to other articles (Holocaust, History of Germany, World War II casualties, etc.) Boson 22:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Military section – mention of Afghanistan

The article mentions Germany’s contribution to ISAF in Afghanistan. It suggests this is a significant contribution (Germany had about 3000 ISAF troops in Afghanistan, the third largest contingent after the United States (14000) and the United Kingdom (5200)), but this can be seen as deceptive and needs some context, especially as Germany has been criticised for not helping enough with the fight against the insurgents/Taliban. Can we discuss this rather than get in an edit war? Chwyatt 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted your contribution by mistake! No harm meant! Nellov5 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, I may have been oversensitive :-)
Chwyatt 17:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but articles such as these have this tendency to turn into newscasts. Further analysis of issues mentioned in the article must be left to specific sub articles listed under "main" - not this one. This article exists to give an overview of Germany, and that in a historical timeline. That's normal because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not BBC News :) Listen, there is an article at Foreign relations of Germany, I suggest that such additions to be made there. Cheers! Baristarim 21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On a similar note, the history section needs to be cut down to a third of the content there is right now. This issue came up in the FAC, but was kind of sidestepped along the way because the article had a good quality anyways. But for stylistic purposes that section must become a much better summary of German history. Baristarim 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As was pointed above by Nellov5, most of the stuff needs to go to History of Germany. Take a look at some other FA country articles for ideas (Canada, Turkey, India, Australia etc).. Baristarim 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted again, and know that it is not neccessarily a content issue. The history section should not be expanded even if it concerns 7th century BC Germanic tribes, Medieval Germanic princedoms or post-war politics. There needs to be a discussion on how to best to proceed with summarizing the history section. That way potential content concerns of certain editors can be addressed in a more global context in a much more efficient manner. So any ideas? Baristarim 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, by reverting to the longer version, you just expanded the history section yourself. Why? Aren't you suggesting the opposite? Nellov5 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am really sorry - my bad. There have been so many reverts that I got lost along the way. You see, it does become confusing!! Baristarim 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if we should remove the exact numbers (cardinal and ordinal) for the different "campaigns" from this section. If they are given, they have to be correct, which means updating them whenever someone decides that American or British soldiers would be better employed elsewhere, where Germans cannot or will not go. I was somewhat reluctant to edit the original figures when I did, but they had been out of date for a while.
What should perhaps be mentioned here is the fairly recent sea-change that has taken place in Germany regarding military deployment abroad, and a bit more on the the special political, constitutional and educational factors in Germany, e.g. the very strict prohibition on involvement in hostilities that are not defensive (defence of allies and limited transfer of some sovereignty to international organizations may be permitted, but preventive war is almost certainly forbidden; and parliament has to be involved in most decisions). Another thing that should perhaps be mentioned is the "ideological" commitment to military service, as opposed to a professional army (because of concerns about the military becoming a state within a state). These are things that are possibly essential to an understanding of German military policy, though it may be difficult to express them concisely and in compliance with Wikipedia rules (one might be tempted to argue that the whole post-War system was designed to make Germany unable and unwilling to wage war--Boson 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Compulsory military service

"Military Service is compulsory for men at the age of 18 and conscripts serve nine-month tours of duty"

I'm 99% sure this isn't true, there is a 'social' option which involves various community based work e.g. working with the elderly etc.

Investigation needed!

Good point, that somehow got lost. Fixed. Lars T. 23:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:44 (UTC)


biggest exporteur of goods

I am not quit sure about the fact, that Germany is best exporteur of 2005 AND 2006. Could someone get information about it and add the fact to the text. thanks niggix in German Wikipedia see at www.destatis.de Exporte 2005 and Exporte 2006 +13%

Note 14

where is it??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.63.98.189 (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germany/Archive_10&oldid=1053132172"