Talk:Germany/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Health Care

Around 300 mineral and mud spas, hydrotherapy resorts, climatic health resorts and seaside resorts in Germany offer an amazing choice of preventive and therapeutic well-being treatments. There is always a perfect balance between medical expertise and your individual requirements. Water, the vital element without which we could not exist, bubbles out of numerous springs in Germany. Medicinal water is water that has been enriched by valuable minerals and trace elements deep beneath the earth's surface. The quality of spring waters is guaranteed by strict and continual health controls.[1]Germany is also known for hospitals with high standard of technology and hygiene and highly qualified and experienced doctors. Add to this that most hospitals are easily accessible by airplane, train or motorway and the prices compare favourably with those of many other industrialised countries.[2]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainia (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Language

Hi I am from Germany and I was surprised as I saw the map showing the knowledge of German in other EU countries. I just want to mention that Turkey is not a member of EU! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.249.73 (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have amended the image caption. Regards, Hayden120 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you add Turkey and Croatia than I think you also need to add all other countries on this map (like Marocco, Lybia, Tunesia, Algeria, Egypt, Norway, Iceland and the rest of the former Juguslavia states, Bulgary and so on) or at least all other European countries (Iceland, Norway and the rest of the former Juguslavian states). Otherwiese this map is confusing the viewer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.226.51 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"... you also need to add all other countries ..." Why don't you do that?

"... Bulgary and so on ..." What do you mean? Bulgaria? This country is already on. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

{{editsemiprotected}} The introduction states Germany is the "third-largest number of international migrants" with a link to a list showing it now has the fourth-largest number of international migrants. Please change "third-largest number of international migrants" to "fourth-largest number of international migrants" Thank you. D. T. Mayer (talk) 06:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The figures for India in the list have been manipulated. Germany is, as cited in the UN source, still the third largest. Please revert the last edit, it was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.78.89 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Deaths in WW2

The article states "Approximately seven million German soldiers and civilians—including ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe—died during World War II." while in the next section it says "The war resulted in the death of nearly ten million German soldiers and civilians". How does this fit together? 87.78.98.243 (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be a question of semantics, i.e. one only counts deaths up to the start of the occupation in May 1945, and the second also counts deaths in the following years during the occupation that were related to the war.

Civilians were dying of starvation in occupied Germany for years after the war, especially infants.[3],[4]. Then you have the issue of the expulsions, these took mainly place in the years 1945 - 1948, with sometimes people shipped in open train-sets in winter. Death rate estimates for the expulsions range between 1 - 2 million, these were mostly women and children. Some ended up dying in the Soviet Union as forced labor, e.g. Forced_labor_of_Germans_in_the_Soviet_Union.

Then you have the issue of the healthy men, the captured soldiers. In the west more than a million were used for forced labor until 1948/1949. Of the 740,000 the U.S. shipped to France as labor, by 1947 290,000 were missing.[5]. Possibly some of these missing were dead. Some soldiers died clearing mines[6]. Many spent many months on a diet in camps that the Red Cross was denied access to. In the U.S. zone the Red Cross was not permitted access to prisoners until On 4 February 1946, i.e. for almost one year.[7] But the vast majority of the prisoners that died, maybe one million, probably died in the Soviet Union. (although presumably a big chunk of these died during the war) In the Soviet Union many were held as long as until 1956. There are still 1.3 million Germans known to have been prisoners of war by the Allies that are currently unaccounted for, these POW's are still registered as missing according to the German red cross.[8]--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We still need sources. I'll tag it. Phoenix of9 20:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Population

According to the proper German government source, the population of Germany is currently 81.8 million. (The CIA Factbook is a speculatory agency of the US government, not a first hand source.) see: [9] Slaja (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I could accept this change. The source is reliable. Or is there a need for consistency across country articles which desires to use CIA data? No, I do not think so. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

War aginst Poland because of Poland?

In the Third Reich section, the war against Poland is mentioned as follows:

"In 1939, growing tensions from nationalism, militarism, and territorial issues and a pact promising support from the Soviet Union led the Germans to launch a blitzkrieg against Poland, which was divided between Germany and the Soviet Union which attacked the country from the east." (my emphasis)

While it is certainly true that "nationalism, militarism, and territorial issues" were not an exclusive domain of Nazi-Germany those days, the above sentence seems to place Polish nationalism, militarism, and territorial issues brought up by Poland on an equal footing with Nazi Germany's politics in regard to the causes that let to WWII. For example, the material in Operation_Himmler make it clear, however, that Hitler fabricated a casus belli.

I think, we need a more accurate description here. Best regards, jan --JanBarkmann (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I understood that nationalism and militarism were listed as German attitudes of the time. So I had no problem with the formulation. Certainly, one can also interpret the sentence the way you did. Why don't you propose a rewording. The style of the sentence anyway needs improvement. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, Tomeasy, now I see that it was meant otherwise. Here is my suggestion:

Nazi-Germany's expansionist moves from 1938 onwards were a direct prelude to WWII. In 1938, Austria was annexed (Anschluss), and later that year Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland—a German aggression reluctantly accepted by the UK and France in the Munich Agreement. In March 1939, the remainder of Czechoslovakia was occupied or rendered the client state of the Slovak Republic (1939-1945), respectively. Backed by support from the Soviet Union (Hitler-Stalin pact), Hitler staged mock negotiations with Poland in 1939 on "resolving all pending territorial issues" while preparing for invasion (Fall Weiß).

On 1 September 1939, the Wehrmacht launched a blitzkrieg against Poland, which was a few weeks occupied by Germany and the Soviet Union attacking the country from the east. This incedent...

Essentially, this adds a paragraph, but it conveyes an accurate flavor of the German aggression.

Best regards, jan --JanBarkmann (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think, the text you wrote is quite good. However, I do not endorse adding so much text here. The article is way too long already. Any major change should be directed at shortening content, not adding. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the younger European history is diffucult to understand without this kind of detail, one could add 4 more sentences ;-). But I respect your opinion, and propose the following shorter version

On 27 February 1933, the Reichstag building went up in flames, and a consequent emergency decree abrogated basic citizen rights. An Enabling Act passed in parliament gave Hitler unrestricted legislative power. Only the Social Democratic Party voted against it, while Communist MPs had already been imprisioned.[22] Using his powers to crush any actual or potential resistance, Hitler established a centralised totalitarian state within months. Industry was revitalised with a focus on military rearmament.[23] In 1935, Germany reacquired control of the Saar and a year later of Rhineland, which had both been lost as a World War I fallout.

Leading to World War II and roughly in parallel with military rearmament, German foreign policy became more aggressive and expansionistic (Lebensraum im Osten). In 1938 and 1939, Austria (Anschluss) and Czechoslovakia were brought under control and the invasion of Poland prepared (Hitler-Stalin pact, Operation Himmler). On 1 September 1939, the German Wehrmacht launched a blitzkrieg on Poland, which was swiftly occupied by Germany and by the Soviet Red Army. The UK and France declared war on Germany marking the beginning of World War II in Europe. As the war progressed, Germany and its allies quickly gained control of much of continental Europe.

This version of the two paragraphs now has 204 words versus 206 of the previous version. What do you think? --JanBarkmann (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that I think you are really contributing a good amount of serious work. You managed to mention more relevant facts (or at least introduce links) with the same amount of words. So in general, you have my support for this substantial change.

Thanks for the flowers.

Now, some critical points I see:

• Many key points have been incorporated by the use of parenthesis rather than a straight prose, which I would prefer. However, I see the difficulty to do this with German terms or special names.

Sure exclusively prose would be nicer. However, I feel that we make good use of an limited amount of space and the specific capabilities of WP this way.

• Perhaps we can improve, but it is not a big issue anyway.

• Is it true that all communist MPs had been imprisoned. As far as I see, this is at least not claimed by the cited source.

I have no objection to omitting "all" at this point.

• That would be the easy solution. More advanced would be to find out whether it is indeed all and then to write it, and otherwise to write most or almost all or some, depending on what is appropriate.

• The Rhineland was not lost after WWI, but demilitarized. It remained part of Germany.

Yes, I was not precise enough here.

"In 1935, Germany reacquired control of the Saar and in 1936 military control of the Rhineland, both of which had been lost by the Treaty of Versailles."

This version now focuses on actual control.

• That would be fine.

As before, I edit some passages of your draft, because I see it as a valid proposal for substituting the current text. At last, I would be happy to see the opinions of more editors before we rush to insert the text. However, if nobody else makes a move in the next days, we may assume that nobody is against the new text. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and best regards, jan --JanBarkmann (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nobody has complained during these 5 days. So, it appears save to me if you want t make your change. We can always make changes later if somebody sees a problem. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for critical discussion and support! jan (now trinitrix) Trinitrix (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Government

In the section "government" I found the following phrase: "Amendments to the Grundgesetz generally require a two-thirds majority of both chambers of the parliament; the articles guaranteeing human dignity, the separation of powers, the federal structure, rule of law and the right to resist attempts to overthrow the constitution are valid in perpetuity and cannot be amended." - The right to resist attempts to overthrow the constitution is not valid in perpetuity. It is a part of Article 20 so one could think that. In fact it was amended in the 1960s and therefore cannot be a part of the "perpetuity clause" in Article 79. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.19.201.62 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you propose reliable sources for this? Tomeasy _{T C} 16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the amendment of 1968 which (if I recall correctly) inserted the clause about resistance that you are talking about:

"(4) Gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese Ordnung zu beseitigen, haben alle Deutschen das Recht zum Widerstand, wenn andere Abhilfe nicht möglich ist."

Obviously it was not covered by the "perpetuity clause" before it was inserted.

However, one should, perhaps, write "overthrow the constitutional order" rather than "overthrow the constitution", to avoid confusing Germans, Americans, etc.--Boson (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, im referring to the phrase you quoted above. I can give you sources but they're all in German. [10] says: "Das in Artikel 20 Abs. 4 garantierte Widerstandsrecht fällt nicht unter diesen Schutz, da es erst später in Art. 20 eingefügt wurde. Diese Ansicht ist unter Verfassungsrechtlern heute kaum umstritten." which means: "The right to resist that is guaranteed in Article 20 Line 4 is not protected by Article 79 because it was amended later. This point of view is not controversial among German constitutional law professors." They cite as source "Grundzüge des Verfassungsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland"(=Main features of the constitutional law of the Federal Republik of Germany) by Konrad Hesse who has also been a judge in the German federal constitutional court. I have also looked it up in the book "Grundrechte - Staatsrecht II" (=Fundamental Rights - Constitutional Law II) by Bodo Pieroth and Bernhard Schlink (marginal 1029) where they also say that Arcticle 20 IV is not protected by Article 79 III. They are also referring to Hesse's book there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.19.236.22 (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I have changed the text. --Boson (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cuisine

A typical German dark weed beer

Pretzel

The cheese and cold meat buffet shown under "cusine" is not very typical for private festivities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.12.110 (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It looks more french with all that different types of cheese.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I`m from Northrhine-Westfalia and Lower Saxony, and the cheese and cold meat buffet is quite common, not only at private festivities but also at business meetings.16:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)89.245.108.100 (talk)

A "Kaltes Buffet" is indeed fairly typical at many somewhat upscale private or business events. The image looks more like a caterer-provided cold plate, not a full buffet. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And I really think that different sort of cheese look French. They might be served in Germany, but to mind are not produced in the country... just like red wine, which is drunk in Germany, but in most cases bought from France.

I also think beer and pretzles as archetypical German foods should have a picture in the article. I found two pictures, but they were to big and I have no idea if there is the possibility to shrink them.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

National Motto

Difficult to grasp for contributors in whose country of origin every state has an official state flower and an official state mineral (see this example from the lovely state in which I lived for 2 years ,-): Germany does not have a national motto! Although the first line of the third stanza of the national anthem is no bad shot, we just don't have a motto. Cheers, jan --JanBarkmann (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed endlessly in the past. Have you read those discussions. Do you want to reopen them again. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked all archives. If I did not miss anything relevant, the motto was seriouesly discussed 3 times:

There is an extensive discussion of the topic under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germany/Archive_12#Motto.3F.3F. Imho, the conclusion leans towards **not** claiming a motto that does not officially exist.

There is another discussion under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germany/Archive_14#Motto with your input. The last comments challenge your prefernce for "Einichkeit und Recht und Freiheit".

The last one occured recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germany/Archive_15#Motto - but here someone (stupidly) had replaced ERF by the completely nonsensical "Land der Ideen".

So, yes. The point has been brought up several times. Why? Because there simply is no national motto. I would like to challenge the current article by claiming "original research" with regard to the motto. And as there is no official motto, it will be extremely hard to find citable evidence to the contrary. You may be right that ERF is a phrase as close as it get's - but in this case "as closeas it gets" is still too far away to measure up against the editing principles of an encyclopedia. Best regards, jan --JanBarkmann (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Added a "refernce needed" tag - with the (unforseen) result that the motto has currently disapeared. If someone has a reliable source, please provide it, and make the motto visible again. Best regards, jan Trinitrix (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just read my statement from then and think it quite fits. Are the other mottoes really defined more officially. Anyway, since it is challenged, and there will not be a reliable source supporting this claim, I think it should be removed. After all, it is original research. Tomeasy _{T C} 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Third largest Population in Europe?

In the beginning paragraph it is written that Germany is exclusively the 3. largest in Europe. This is somewhat misleading as Russia´s (European) population is estimated larger. While checking the edit history it seems that this fact was only recently introduced, which doesn´t make sense. KarlMathiessen (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC) It says the "third largest immigrant population" in Europe as it is evident it has the second largest population in Europe after Russia.--88.24.242.195 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Seat of government

I propose adding an entry about the seat of government to the overview on the right side. Germany belongs to the few states whose capital and seat of government aren´t identical. Germany´s capital is Berlin, but a few ministries continue to have their main seat in Bonn, which is why Berlin and Bonn are seats of government. --92.226.80.172 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Bonn is not the seat of governemnt. A few ministries may still be there located, but all important decisions are made in Berlin. The federal Chancellory, the Parliament etc are in Berlin.-- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 12:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey,

yes, Bonn is a seat of government, which is why, according to the Berlin/Bonn-Gesetz of 1991, Bonn has the unique title of a "Bundesstadt" (federal city). It´s not that just "a few ministries may still be there located". Six ministries (one short of half of all ministries, including the ministry of defence) have their main seat there, and all other ministries have a second seat there, as do the President and the Chancellor. According to the Berlin/Bonn-Gesetz, the federal government even MUST have more employees in Bonn than in Berlin. While the Chancellory is located in Berlin, the Chancellor alone isn´t the: government. And for the question which city is seat of government (executive branch), the question of where the parliament is located (legislative branch) is completely irrelevant. As is where "all important decisions are made". Actually, a lot of federal offices were moved to Bonn back then (e.g. the federal audit office), some even moved from Berlin to Bonn (like the Federal Monopolies Comission). The sense of this whole process was to keep Bonn a main centre of German politics where a lot of "important decisions" are made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.80.172 (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP in so far that the Berlin/Bonn-Gesetz is the all decisive reference for this question. i also agree that some ministries are located in Bonn (while the corresponding minsters are still showing their faces much more in Berlin). I do not agree with the conclusion that Bonn is a seat of government. Let's look waht the law says about this:

• Präambel Berlin is the capital (I think this was anyway not disputed), but also Berlin is the seat of the government and the parliament - Bonn is not mentioned as such!
• Paragraph 3 Again and explicitly: Berlin is the seat of the government. Bonn is not mentioned in this paragraph, which is all about the seat question.

So, if have to mention somewhere the seat of the German government, we must state Berlin and nothing else. If somewhere else we elaborate deeper, we can say that some ministries are located in Bonn. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hej,

I´ve looked into it again, and you´re right. Which is odd, actually, because this means that legally Germany´s seat of government is Berlin (§6 even states that Bonn hast lost this function), while at the same time this law states that the government is situated in Berlin and Bonn (§4), making Bonn a de facto-seat of government. So I think that the reference in the "Berlin Republic and EU integration" section of the article suffices. Thanks for clearing this up. --92.226.16.56 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Collapse of Holy Roman Empire -> Being referred to as Germany within 5 months?

Germany was unified in 1871, but according to "A Whimsical Sketch of Europe" from 1806, 5 months after the HRE collapsed, it was already being referred to as Germany. (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3668797093_32893f6877_o.jpg) Not sure what this means, could it be of any importance/relevance? (86.168.84.179 (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

The Holy Roman Empire has been refered to as "Germany" for hundreds of years then. What's been founded in 1871 was the modern German nationstate, also refered to as Germany.--MacX85 (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

German Flag Should Be Changed To Include 'Bundesadler'.

I think the German flag should be changed to have the 'Bundesadler' in it, this is the offical flag, and it looks a lot better, than the original German flag, i don`t know why it says 'Used By government officials only', as people at germany footbal matches use the this flag !, i have 2 in up my bedroom Lieber Grüßen, Craigzomack, 21:23, 21 February 2010 (CET)

Most people I know use the standard 3 stripe one. The one in my room is like that. I have never actually seen one with the Bundesadler either... -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 21:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant which flag looks better. No comment about the bedroom argument necessary. It is also of little importance which flag is used by most people. This has all been discussed previously here. Also, note that you are confusing the State flag with the invented flag that is often shown by football supporters. The only thing that really matters is what the constitution says about the flag, and that is pretty plain and simple: Artikel 22 (2). Tomeasy _{T C} 21:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention OWiG § 124 Benutzen von Wappen oder Dienstflaggen.--Boson (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Craigzomack,

what you´re talking about is the so-called "Bundesdienstflagge" - a flag with the German coat of arms used by federal government offices. So it actually isn´t the "official flag of Germany", but the "official flag used by government offices", just as the German President and the German navy have their own "official flags" (that means it´s not "invented" either). Actually, it´s illegal for citizens, including football fans, to use the Bundesdienstflagge (§124 OWiG), but it is a minor offence and usually not prosecuted. --92.226.80.172 (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, what Craigzomack is talking about is not the "Bundesdienstflagge", which shows the so called "Bundesschild", but the flag that shows the federal coat of arms instead of the Bundesschild, which is indeed invented, and which is technically illegal, but tolerated. The use of the official flag is indeed prosecuted.

As Tomeasy stated: It's all discussed here. --Caballito (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're getting confused here. The official state's flag of Germany is the tricolor. The "Bundesdienstflagge" is used by officials and prohibited for privat use. And then there's another flag... a tricolor flag with the Bundesadler in the middle which IS NOT OFFICIAL but quite popular. You can use that in privat--MacX85 (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unemployment rate

"The overall unemployment rate has consistently fallen since 2005 and reached a 15-year low in June 2008" - it should be mentioned that this steady decline has been achieved by constantly tuning the statistics and changing the definitions of "Unemployment"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

|population_density_rank = 36th is wrong, cant edit

|population_density_rank = is not 36th, it's 55th 91.54.182.75 (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Lars T. (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehova's Witnesses

Under Religions in Germany: there are 165,837 Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany; why aren't they mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.180.231 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I imagine this is because they are treated as a Christian denomination and account for less than 0.25% of the population. There is probably an argument for including them in the main article Religion in Germany, but this article would get rather long if we included all such Christian denominations and went into the same level of detail on other topics. --Boson (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

The percents given for the ethnic groups are not correct (in particular: 2.4% Turkish)? The Turks_in_Germany page states that, there are over 4,000,000 Turks in Germany, while including those of ancestral descent. From other resources I've seen, I believe this number to be accurate. With a population of less than 82 million in Germany, it is clear that over 2.4% of the population belongs to the Turkish ethnic group. (and probably in reality at least around 5%). I suggest that the given percents be deleted until an accurate source is discovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.246.175.245 (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Natural resources

While reading the text I observed that the Geography section contains almost no information regarding natural resources such as minerals. This is an important part of Geography; therefore I propose adding the following text (copied from Economy of Germany):

Natural resources

The German soil is relatively poor in raw materials. Only lignite (brown coal) and potash salt (Kalisalz) are availabe in significant quantities. Oil, natural gas and other resources are, for the most part, imported from other countries.

The potash salt deposits are a result of the drying up of the Zechstein sea, which 250 million years ago covered large parts of North and Central Europe. Potash salt is mined in the center of the country (Niedersachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt and Thüringen). The most important producer is K+S AG (formerly Kali und Salz AG).

Germany's bituminous coal deposits were created more than 300 million years ago from swamps which extended from the present-day South England, over the Ruhr area to Poland. Lignite deposits developed in a similar way, but during a later period, about 65 million years ago. Due to the fact that the wood is not yet completely transformed into coal, brown coal contains less energy than bituminous coal.

Lignite is extracted in the extreme western and eastern pars of the country, mainly in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Sachsen and Brandenburg. Considerable amounts are burned in coal plants near to the mining areas, to produce electricity. Transporting lignite over far distances is not economically feasible, therefore the plants are located practically next to the extraction sites. Bituminous coal is mined in Nordrhein-Westfalen and Saarland. Most power plants burning bituminous coal operate on imported material, therefore the plants are located not only near to the mining sites, but throughout the country.

Could someone please consider inserting this (if you think it's a good idea; I'm new here so I may have understood something wrong, but I believe this suggestion is OK.) Tropical wind (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Image layout

Observation: The image layout does not comply with WP:MOS. There should never be text in between two images. There can only be an image on one side. Please fix so this doesn't get delisted from FA. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"There should never be text in between two images." What do you mean? Can you link to the relevant subsection of MOS? Tomeasy _{T C} 21:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.183.16.99, 26 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} It says that Germany adopted the euro currency in 1999, which is not the case, I was in Germany over New Years 2000/2001 when they adopted the euro.

209.183.16.99 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)

Depends what you mean by 'adopted';

The currency was introduced in non-physical form (travellers' cheques, electronic transfers, banking, etc.) at midnight on 1 January 1999, when the national currencies of participating countries (the eurozone) ceased to exist independently [...] The changeover period during which the former currencies' notes and coins were exchanged for those of the euro lasted about two months, until 28 February 2002. The official date on which the national currencies ceased to be legal tender varied from Member State to Member State. The earliest date was in Germany where the mark officially ceased to be legal tender on 31 December 2001

From Euro#Introduction_of_the_euro.

I'll see if I can add a reference for it though. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Your New Year's trip to Germany was probably 2001/02, when Euro notes and coins substituted their DM equivalents. The non-physical migration happened 3 years earlier. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

After some research, I've added this.  Chzz  ►  17:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The extended new version about the euro introduction does not sound elegant. The previous shorter sentence was more concise I think. KarlMathiessen (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

But it missed a very important point: People did not touch the new currency before 2002. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess the detailed circumstances of the Euro introduction are covered in the History. As I understand the article-intro it should be very condensed to the important facts, but nothing more. KarlMathiessen (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Request to add fact to international ranking section

{{editsemiprotected}}

I request to add a specific information to the international ranking section.

A table showing the situation of the Global Press Freedom for 2010 was recently released as a ranking on freedomhouse.org.

Accodring to the Freedom House’s annual report for 2010, Germany is ranked on position 19 together with Estonia.

With the help of this report an informative overview is given, in which countries the freedom of press is free, partly free or not free.

Freedom Of The Press 2010

Mischen (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

DoneSpitfire19 (Talk) 20:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Switch picture of president with picture of chancellor

The picture of president Köhler should be changend to the picture of chancellor Merkel, since she is the head of government and the president mostly has representative status. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angela_Merkel_%282008%29.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.206.18.218 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We have her depicted in the section Foreign relations. The president is the head of state. A picture of the head of state should not be missing from any country article. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The chancellor is the highest ranking politician in Germany and her picture should be shown at this place. Current Foreign Mininster is Guido Westerwelle. Please check the facts and change this. (--62.206.18.218 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Checking the facts, I found that the president is the highest ranking person in the German state. What are you trying to say about Westerwelle? Tomeasy _{T C} 20:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The chancellor ranks third. --Boson (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the chancellor is the third ranking politician in order of precedence, but also the most powerful. So i think a picture of chancellor Merkel should be shown in the article too. 84.176.222.102 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All this was said or answered above. The article already contains a picture depicting Ms Merkel. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

Under Religions in Germany: there are 165,837 Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany; why aren't they mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.180.231 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There are very many Christian denominations of similar size, which are not mentioned explicitly. Actually, only Catholics and Protestants are mentioned and Jehova's witnesses are subsumed among Protestants. Is this highly inappropriate? Te reader who wants to know more can follow the main link to Religion in Germany. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo

"from a Gallic term for the peoples" should be "people" Abdulshafy (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

1937 borders

@Tomeasy, re this. Actually Lysy was very wrong in 2 respects. 1: the year 1937 was chosen specifically for a purpose, which is why we, just as everybody else does, should use it. and 2: 1919 has nothing to do with the external borders of the map.

1. In the London protocol of December 12th, 1944 the Allies decided that; "For occupational purposes, Germany will be divided into three zones, within her borders of December 31st 1937, to each of which one of the three powers will be assigned, as well as a special zone for Berlin, which is governed by the joint occupation of the three powers". (France was added at Yalta) The choice of the 1937 date is itself twofold.

a. this way they could somehow ignore the legally binding Munich Agreement of 1938 and also negate the right to self determination of the Sudetenland-Germans, thus forcing them to come under Czech domination again. (however brief, since most of them were ethnically cleansed thereafter.)

b. the 1937 borders do not correspond to the 1919 borders.

2. Germany did not have a fixed external border in the years 1919 - 1937, as your edit implies.

• The Free City of Danzig was created in 1920.
• The Area of Soldau was removed to Poland in 1920
• The Memelland was put under Allied (French) Administration in 1920 and allowed to be annexed by Lithuania in 1923
• The East Prussian plebiscite did not take place until 1920.
• The Schleswig Plebiscites also took place in 1920.
• The Upper Silesia plebiscite did not take place until 1921.
• For the sake of curiosity we can also note that the Saar (League of Nations) was under occupation by the French, and then ruled by Britain and France from 1920 to 1935. (Note also that the independent Saar (protectorate) that lasted until December 1956 was larger than the pre-war one, since France had annexed to it parts of the Rhineland etc.

So in theory, for the sake of encyclopedic accuracy you should write the rather meaningless 1921 - 1937, and even that is probably wrong as there may be some later border modifications beyond my list. --Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Stor stark7 is right on this, I have removed "1919" accordingly. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are of course right. I got somehow on the wrong track, because by your edit, I thought you misunderstood Lysy as if he wanted to call the map 1939 border instead of 1919. Since this was not the case, I acted to fast and forgot about the many territorial changes you mentioned above that indeed make a difference, and you are right that it is for this reason that the allies (and all text books) specifically talk about 1937 borders. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of passive voice in summary of Holocaust deaths

This article uses the passive voice in describing the 17 million deaths attributed to the Holocaust. This construction may be ambiguous or misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnlandry (talk • contribs) 11:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate further what you object. I do not get your point. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, could you explain what is ambiguous and/or misleading. The only sentence I can see that uses the passive voice in this context is "About seventeen million people were murdered during the Holocaust . . .", which seems to be an entirely appropriate, unambiguous and non-misleading use of the passive voice. I suppose you could replace it with the active "About seventeen million people died during the Holocaust", which would be equally unambiguous (though different). As I see it, in the original sentence, the use of "during" might be ambiguous, misleading, or incorrect - but not the use of the passive voice. --Boson (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he would like a statement such as "The Germans killed 17 million during the Holocaust." The passive voice may imply that the crimes were not committed by the Germans but, simply, in their country. Although I can't imagine that anyone would find the original statement to be misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.34.96 (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibly that's what was meant, but it has nothing to do with the passive voice. In a statement about the deaths, rather than the Germans, the passive is quite appropriate, possibly adding "by the Germans", but that would probably be more than misleading if a few of those millions were murdered by people other than Germans, so we would need some statistics about who committed the murders. --Boson (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Passive voice in an excellent solution here for the issue you mentioned. "The Germans" would be a very bad solution. Did all Germans kill all 17 million, or did some Germans kill most of the 17 million? Not only would such a phrase be bad style, it would bring all the POV discussions that we do not want to have. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have another problem with this sentence: To me, Holocaust means foremost the genocide on the Jews, the killing of about 6 million people. I know that it is sometimes used to refer to other genocidal acts and war crimes committed on civilians as well. However, this usage is by far less common and also less clear (as to what kind of acts are included). Hence, I think that we should reserve the term Holocaust to what it is usually used for. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

President

The infobox sais that Horst Köhler is a member of the CDU. That's wrong. He was a member of the CDU and when he leaves office he surely will become member of the CDU again. But as long as he is President, he is no member of any political party. --Harald Meier (talk) 10:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that his party affiliation should be removed from the infobox; as head of state in a parliamentary democracy, he is above party politics. His membership is dormant while he is in office. His (currently dormant) membership of the CDU should be mentioned in his biography, but not in the infobox for the president of Germany.

• "Lebenslauf von Bundespräsident Horst Köhler" (in German). Retrieved 2010-05-17. Horst Köhler, evangelisch, ist verheiratet mit Eva Luise Köhler. Sie haben zwei Kinder. Er ist seit 1981 Mitglied der CDU. Die Mitgliedschaft ruht während der Amtszeit als Bundespräsident.

--Boson (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace the current photo of Horst Köhler by File:Koehlerhorst08032007.jpg which is both more recent and used on the German wikipedia site on Horst Köhler. 78.55.245.125 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't. I think, we are better of with the professional and formal picture we are currently having than the snapshot you proposed. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Demographics in Germany: Ethnic Groups

The article in Wikipedia entitled "Demographics in Germany" states that 81% of the country's population is descended from indigenous (non-immigrant) inhabitants. However, the infobox for this article states that 91% of the German population is ethnically German. This presents a discrepancy. As per the aforementioned article, 91% have German citizenship, supposedly, but this in no way implies that 91% are ethnically German. Also, Germany, like France, does not collect or retain information on the population regarding ancestry, so how can we derive any figure at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.34.96 (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Germany collects some information about ancestry, see: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrationshintergrund -- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.216.98.205, 6 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

The part about the government isn't right. I'm German and the chancellor, Angela Merkel, is the head of state not Jens Böhrnsen. She has the main power and she is from the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) which has in a coalition with the FDP the power. Please change that.

85.216.98.205 (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The head of state of Germany is the president, not the chancellor. Being head of state does not necessarily involve wielding any power. Algebraist 15:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way: The link Head of state should be replaced with President of the German Bundesrat or even better Head of state. --Harald Meier (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

request for something better , less superficial , then the reference to claudia schiffer ...

... request for something better , less superficial , then the reference to claudia schiffer ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wernergerman (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

New Map

The new map.

Hello everyone. I created a new map for Germany. A lot of big countries using orthographic projection maps. I think we should use it in Germany too. I hope you share the same idea and enjoy this map. Also there is red, black and flag versions. In order to be harmonious. Have a good day.  The Emirr Disscussion 19:47, 06 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you have been doing, but your map is not an orthographic projection as is claimed by the title. Compare it to other maps that are used on Wikipedia (e.g., for the EU) and, I hope, you will find lots of things to improve. An orthographical projection shows exactly half of the globe's surface.

Assuming that Emirr will be able to provide the orthographical map with the quality we are used to, we should discuss the question whether we endorse using them. I am open to such a change, because it would improve consistency of the locator maps being used on Wikipedia while more and more countries use this type. 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think this is not a orthographic projection?  The Emirr Disscussion 11:19, 07 June 2010 (UTC)

"Compare it to other maps that are used on Wikipedia (e.g., for the EU) and, I hope, you will find lots of things to improve. An orthographical projection shows exactly half of the globe's surface." Tomeasy _{T C} 07:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion dozens of times before, and the current map has become the de facto standard for all European country articles. An orthographic projection is not particularly suitable for Europe's smaller countries, so in my opinion, we should stick with the existing style consistently. Also, The Emirr, your map is highly simplified and does not portray particularly accurate borders for Germany. Hayden120 (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall different discussions on the locator map, but not a discussion whether to use the new style (i.e., orthographical) that is currently used for larger territories. If I am mistaken here, please Hayden, provide a link to the discussion you mean.

I am not neccessarily for this change, but I think it is a valid question to bring up. A neccessary condition, however, is that we can dispose over a high quality map, which is currently not the case. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There have been various discussions for all kinds of maps... but I can't think of any significant ones for the orthographical style (except a few small ones here and here, but I'm sure there are more across Wikipedia). Regardless, what we have now is a relatively stable result that is finally uniform – after years of inconsistency – across Europe-related articles. If it isn't broken, why fix it? Hayden120 (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Davidscoville, 13 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the title "Government," starting with "The President--currently vacant,..." says "of state ist Jens Böhrnsen." "Ist" should be changed to "is" . Davidscoville (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

The article talks about Germans who are of "foreign or partially foreign descent", when it talks about people, who have a Migrationshintergrund, but I think that it could be a wrong translation, because not all persons, who have a Migrationshintergrund are of foreign descent. A person of (partially) German ancestry born outside Germany (Spätaussiedler) may also be counted as a person with Migrationshintergrund.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most immigrants to Germany during the 80s and 90s were ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and the former USSR (Romania, Kazakhstan, Russia, Poland...)--88.26.56.217 (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So I think we should add this. Also the statement about only 9% being of Germans "of foreign or partially foreign descent" is wrong to my mind. The article Germans states "As of December 2004, about seven million foreign citizens were registered in Germany, and 19% of the country's residents were of foreign or partially foreign descent". That is the same statement which is made by the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrationshintergrund and a number I have heard over and over in the news. Also there is no source for that 9 percent. So i think it should be removed.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Protection Please

The article needs protection as soon as possible, the vandalism level is to high! Please contact a responible admin. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.130.233 (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is protected through "pending changes". All edits by unregistered or newly registered editors need to be approved by an established editor before they are shown in the article. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian Wulff IS president

Christian Wulff is according to the German Constitution president of Germany after the acceptance of the election. The oath isn't necessary. We are not in USA. He isn't President-Elect. He is President of Germany with all privileges.see here --62.224.84.3 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes in chapter "Demographics"

Oops, the statements, were not backed by the source. I remember there another source, which has been in the article a while ago and backed the statements. I had looked at this a while ago. However. I found some source that backs the statements. Here is is http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/meldung34348.html. It says "Wie das Bundesamt weiter berichtete, hat fast jedes dritte Kind unter fünf Jahren in Deutschland einen Migrationshintergrund. Auch hier zeigt sich eine besonders große Konzentration in Städten - in sechs liegt der Anteil der Migrantenkinder bei mehr als 60 Prozent: darunter Nürnberg 67 Prozent, Frankfurt am Main 65 Prozent, Düsseldorf und Stuttgart jeweils 64 Prozent." "According to the Federal Statistical Office of Germany on in three German children younger than five has at least one parent born abroad. This is especially common in the big cities. In six cities immigrant children make up more than 60 percent of all children: they make up 67 percent of all children in Nuremberg, 65 percent in Frankfurt am Main and 64 percent in Düsseldorf and Stuttgart.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So i changed the source and also changed some numbers, which were not backed by the new source...

However we still must discuss if that should be mentioned in this article. It definetly could be mentioned as it is true, but still it might be not necessary or even harmful to mention it.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I edited some of your addition as the grammar was off in parts (I understand English is not your first language). Also I removed the statement 'the young are more likely to ...' as it is a very sweeping statement that is not backed by figures. Yes there are significant numbers of immigrant and repatriated ethnic German descended children in some major cities but this is not repeated across the country, the source makes this clear ("Most of them - 96 percent - live in West Germany and Berlin") therefore that line was misleading.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my grammar :) (no, English unfortunatly is not my first language and not even my first foreign language. I hope my English is not too horrible) Still wonder, if it was necessary to mention the percentage of immigrant children in Nuremberg, Frankfurt am Main, Düsseldorf and Stuttgart. How do other think about this?.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the numbers for the 3 cities is irrelevant to the article, also they are misleading. I would support their removal.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

GDP values - not estimates

Now there are estimates for 2010 (IMF). I don't know how to correct - remove the word "estimate" or write 2010 estimates? Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the 2009 data are no longer shaded in the IMF data, I would remove the word "estimate". I wouldn't use the 2010 data, which must actually be predictions.--Boson (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "estimate" (twice) is generated by the template, I don't know how to prevent it.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

!!!! Article Protection ASAP!!!!

The spam and vandalism is getting out of hand, it just doesn´t stop. This is a major article whcich has been protected for years for a reason. Please protect, ASAP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.131.209 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is one of those in the Wikipedia:Pending changes protection trial Lars T. (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you can comment on how effective the trial is here:Wikipedia:Pending changes/Feedback --Boson (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&action=historysubmit&diff=371902253&oldid=371831630

The article states: Education in Germany is compulsory for all students until the age of twelve I really think that statement is wrong. See: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulpflicht Length of compulsory schooling varies by state of Germany, but there is NO state, in which schooling is only compulsory till age 12. Also it states: Sachunterricht as an introduction to art To my mind Sachuntericht is not an introduction to art. The subject, which is an introduction to art is called Kunst. Sachunterricht is a subject dealing with the natural sciences.

Also the edit is partly unsourced and a little bit oversimplistic to my mind. For example it states that: "students, educators, and parents" make the decision which school the child is going to attend. Well, in some states only persons who have a certain GPA are allowed to apply for the Gymnasium or Realschule and the parents or students do not have much choice. In other states they need a letter of recommendation from the teacher in order to apply. In still other states the decision is totally up to the parents (and their children) and the teachers recommendation does not matter much. That is why I am going to undo this edit.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the additional material is dubious. Also, it belongs in the article Education in Germany. This article should only have a summary.--Boson (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction Re: Post WWII

Wasn't Germany divided into four sections (French, British, American, and Soviet) not two, as is stated? Yes, it eventually ended up as two distinct areas because the USSR block off their sector, but still isn't it more accurate to say four? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursus Lapideus (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The appropriate section states

The western sectors, controlled by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States, were merged on 23 May 1949, to form the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland); on 7 October 1949, the Soviet Zone became the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, or DDR).

but the summary in the intro

After World War II and the defeat of the Third Reich (1933-1945), Germany was divided in 1949 into two separate states—East Germany and West Germany—along the lines of Allied occupation.

could perhaps be worded better.--Boson (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel

There's a potential minor edit war brewing between two IPs as to whther this band should be included as influential.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Category: Established in ....

I've changed it from 1291 to 1871. Don't know how it comes to 1291, there was no really significant event in Germany's history, except maybe the death of Emperor Rudolf I and the formation of the Swiss Confederation in the south of the Empire. Since the Holy Roman Empire can't be seen as a "state" or "nation" from a present-day perspective (especially after 1648), and the Rhine Confederation and German Confederation were certainly not states but rather confederations, as their names say, the first state was established on 1 July 1867 with the North German Confederation as a federal state (Confederation from 23 August 1866 to 30 June 1867) and as German Empire on 18 January 1871 with the unification with the southern states. MikeAtari (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

german population

14th largest not twelth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muskydusky (talk • contribs) 22:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Boson (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Germania paiting from 1848

Germania is a painting by Philipp Veit created in March 1848 during the Revolutions of 1848. It was used as an allegoric decoration in the National Assembly in Frankfurt's Paulskirche, where it concealed the organ. It was meant as a symbol of a united democratic Germany and remained a national personification until the end of World War I. and so this painting should be on this section of Restoration and Revolution 1814 to 1871. that is why I try to put it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P-Schmidt22 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ASLIJAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.118.157 (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The era is already pictured with the assembly in the Paulskirche (Frankfurt parliament). The Germania Veit painting seems superfluous especially because the former pic already includes the Germania. It´s size appears to overload at least 2 sections. An extra value can hardly be proofed. KarlMathiessen (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ja denkt niet he-.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.82.67 (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection Needed

Best nice country, soms nice chicks jwzzzzzz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.82.67 (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This article suffers from ongoing vandalism and spam. Every day several times, it does not stop. Where are the responsible editors to initiate semi protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.4.205 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

why no mention of Nazi Germany in the header?

it mentions the German unification, but doesn't mention how in 1933 Hitler took power and the 3rd Reich began. Why no mention?Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

By "header", I presume you mean the introduction. The introduction is meant to briefly summarize the article in about 3-4 short paragraphs, and it seem reasonable to devote one paragraph to the history of Germany. The current rationale for what to include seems to be to focus on the formation of Germany as a country, therefore also mentioning the period when Germany was divided , before being re-united. Extending the selection to include a summary of major periods in German history would make the history paragraph longer, and one would need to decide what to include, presumably not just the Third Reich.--Boson (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a good explanation as to why it was not mentioned so far, and therefore perfectly answers Tallicfan's questions.

However, should the question be meant as a request to add Nazi Germany in the lead, I would endorse to do so, i.e., add succinct content between 1871 and 1949, preferably one or two sentences. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This line of thinking is a little strange. World War II was arguably the most important series of events in the 20th century. Its politics changed the world forever. Failing to include Germany's role in this major historical period in the introductory paragraph (it's glazed over and picks up with "When it lost World War II" or something like that) is awkward. --Atwardow (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any objection to a short sentence mentioning the two world wars, but the current coverage seems fairly standard to me. The introductions of the articles for France and the United Kingdom don't seem to mention their roles either, and the articles on Russia, Belgium, Poland, and the United States have only brief mentions of WW2 in the introduction.--Boson (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

why don't you introduce genocide of amerindians in united states section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.111.38 (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it seems odd not to mention the Nazi period at all; it can hardly be regarded as just another one of several different governments. I have added a short sentence accordingly. Alarics (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In line with the above discussion, I added the sentence "It became a totalitarian dictatorship in 1933; under this regime it started World War II in 1939 and was defeated in 1945." However, KarlMathiessen removed it, stating that "The history section in the introduction concentrates on statehood, not on specific ideologies or political concepts". I still find it quite bizarre that the lead jumps from 1871 to 1949 without even a hint of Germany's defeat in two world wars: especially the second one, which Germany unequivocally started and was then completely destroyed by. Do others agree? Alarics (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the observation that the history para of the lead is very short concerning the time between 1871 and 1949, which includes three different government types and two world wars where the country played a key role.

Nevertheless, I agree with Karl's revert, as the wording you proposed sounds too emotional about proving a point that Germany at the time was bad, stupid, and a looser. Even if it is hard to disagree here, it just does not come across encyclopaedically. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

At all: Right now the History summary covers around 1/3 of the entire introduction. This seems already very long compared to the size of the History in the total article. Please keep in mind that the History of German states, as it is presented so far, covers 2000 years. It seems obvious that not all incidents can be covered. This said, I believe this article has a great comprehensive History section and nothing crucial (nazi/ communist dictatorship) is left out. Have a look at Japan, USA, France, UK and you will find that in total, History has a large presence in this article. KarlMathiessen (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of music

There is grouped into one line the musical examples of Beethoven, also Kraftwerk (!) and Rammstein (!!!) I guess one should form separate lines. Otherwise one could get the impression that Beethoven and Rammstein have anything in common. Beethoven would certainly feel insulted if he would see his name in a seemingly logical evolutionary line with Rammstein. And I personally think, too, that this is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.46.129 (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello I am from Germany, I agree that Rammstein really is only one specific genre and is fare away from met the requirements to get listed here.TuxFighter (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Rammstein is globally the most successful and most well known band of the last 2 decades originating from Germany with lyrics written in German. KarlMathiessen (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Culture in introduction

Why is the culture of Germany not part of the introduction ? Italiano111 (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The introduction, or lead section, is a very prominent part of the article that summarizes briefly only the most relevant facts treated in the later sections. Now, there is a decent section on culture which would merit some mentioning in the lead. However, it seems that the authors of the lead still thought that other facts were more important. As the lead is already long, I think we should not always try to shorten it before we add new material. You can propose such a change, but it is likely to imagine that the necessary deletion of other content will cause opposition. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Scottish emigration

I have not yet an academic source, but I think that there should be an article on the Scottish emigration in Germany in the 19th century. There were not numerous, but this fact has existed.--Highlandist (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean emigration or immigration? Can you provide source, so one can compare the scale of this movement to other movements mentioned in the article. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Template grouping

There are many templates within the container 'Articles related to Germany' at the bottom of the page. I suggest you either group them within this container or group them on the top level and omit the generic 'Articles related to Germany'-container. I would put the 'Germany' template on the same level as the major template groupings. Suggestions are:

• Geographic locale (containing Countries of Europe, Countries bordering the Baltic Sea, ...)
• International membership (containing European Union, G-20 major economies, Council of Europe,...)
• ...

This way you can add even more usefull templates when needed, while keeping everything nice and tidy. Tbacker (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Tbacker (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Information on ethnic groups challenged

There is a mistake regarding ethnic groups in Germany-

in the article it says that 91.5% of the people in Germany are ethnic Germans. It is rather that 91.5% of the people in German hold a German passport.

If you see the statement "In 2009, 20% of the population had immigrant roots" later in the article, it becomes obvious that the "91.5% of the people in Germany are ethnic Germans" sentence can't be a correct statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.117.55.169 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The information in the infobox is sourced to the CIA factbook. I have checked that this information is still up to date. It is, but the CIA does not give the source of this information. It may be difficult to obtain authoritative information, because official statistics do not normally include ethnicity. The Statistische Bundesamt does have information showing that about 19.2% of the population have a "migrant background" (they or there parents were immigrants, possibly including some ethnic Germans who "returned" after 1949). There is information on current or previous nationality for this group: http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/Statistiken/Bevoelkerung/MigrationIntegration/Migrationshintergrund/Tabellen/Content100/MigrationshintergrundStaatsangehoerigkeit,templateId=renderPrint.psml

but this is not the same as "ethnic group".

Since the information in the infobox is clearly incorrect/misleading, I would suggest removing it completely and adding a comment (and possibly a footnote) explaining why. The term "immigrant roots" should also be changed, as it is vague and implies a longer term than "immigrant background" (which is well defined). --Boson (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Map

Hello, how did you make that beautiful map on there? The one that has hyperlinks on it. Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxDestinyxX (talk • contribs) 14:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

European Court of Justice

Why is there a picture of the European Court of Justice associated with this article? The European Court of Justice is in Luxembourg, which is a country separate from Germany. Moreover, the relevance of the image is not explained in the narrative. I can imagine why the image would be relevant to the discussion of the EU, but to one of Germany? I suggest that the image be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.231.103 (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Germany underlies EU law and EU jurisdiction. I amended the caption to avoid irritation. KarlMathiessen (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the relevance of this image needed clarification, but technically EU law is not "part of" Germany's jurisdiction. They still are two separate legal jurisdictions (national cases usually can't be appealed on EU level for example), with a precedence of EU law where applicable. Some national jurisdictions also assume, that EU law can't override basic national constitutional rights as the EU still consists of it's separate Member states. Probably the image should really be removed, as it's relevance for Germany as article focus is minor. GermanJoe (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the image is not sufficiently relevant.--Boson (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. Even if national court decisions could be appealed to the ECJ the photo would still not be sufficiently relevant to an article on Germany. An article on Maine is highly unlikely to include a photo on the US Supreme court building, legal niceties notwithstanding. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Editions and removals in a featured article (German culture)

A featured article is featured article because it has already reached a high level of quality. Consequently it`s reasonable to be careful with major editions or removals of established(!) parts of the article. I like to give you a vivid example of what I`m talking about:

Three years ago (or so) I`ve written a part of "German culture" chapter. The purpose of this contribution was to end the long and heated "was-mozart-german" (etc) debates by finding a compromise. The idea was to explain the reader some basic historic backgrounds briefly instead of debating each singular case (Mozart, Kafka etc.). This contribution has been part of the article ever since (and it has been often copied..) Lately it has been rewritten: "As a result German traditions have to be seen in a larger framework of European high culture, Western popculture and globally connected subculture.[sic!]"

a.) Why not taking a look at the talk-page archives: Maybe there is a good reason why established parts of an article are written in specific way and contain certain statements. (I like to think this is the purpose of the archives)

b.) Rewriting a sentence is good as long as the sentence still makes senses and fits into the rest of the text. (To stay with the example: I question that the traditions of german culture have to be "seen in the framework of western popculture"...)

c.) Editions should be sourced - with a valid reference.

Thank you --Sushi Leone (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no major removal. A small trim has occurred concerning a sentence about Mozart, Kafka etc. This content seemed to be a redundant sidenote. In a perspective of a brief introduction it serves no purpose. And yes, of course, Germany like the whole of western Europe is part of Western popculture. This is not even a controversial statement. KarlMathiessen (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not the one to dicide which explanation is a relevant and which is not. I think these information are very interesting. If it was a redundant "sidenote" I wonder in which part of the article you could get simular information? I`m repeating myself: This matter was the subject of long debates - so it can`t be that irrelevant. More than that: I`ve written large parts of the introduction of this chapter which was (and to some extend still is) a component of this article over the years. I don`t have to proof anything - YOU have to proof that your edition is bettering the article. (BTW: TRADITION and popculture are almost contrary terms. Popculture is a part of contemporary(!) German [youth]culture - but that is a different thing):

I`m a man of compromise, I have added the "popculture aspect" - but if you want to remove interesting information, please give me some good reasons (and good sources). Otherwise we will waste our time with a useless "revision war". :Thanks --Sushi Leone (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"[...] German traditions have to be seen in a larger framework of [...] Western popculture" sounds nonsensical to me. Popculture is a modern thing, while traditions have developed long time in the past, sometimes stretching int modern times. So, when you want to understand traditions, popculture is less important than many things, e.g., medieval Western culture. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I reinstalled the old version and fixed a problem with the reference attached to the statement disputed here. The link did not work (at least for me). When I read the source, I also found that Sushi's version was better supported by the source than the version that Karl advocates. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tomeasy. Dear KarlMathiessen I want to make sure that this thing is not about winning or losing. I do resprect your work here on wikipedia (like I do resprect all the other people that spend their spare time to contribute something). As I`ve mentioned before: This part of the article was the result of long discussions. That is the reason why I´m so precious about it. And it explains some very interesting specifics of German culture and its roots. The average reader is probably not familiar with these aspects and might like to learn about them - and exactly this is the purpose of wikipedia. --Sushi Leone (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, previous discussions dealt with the question if today's Austrian-Born artists should be mentioned in an article of Germany. This is not my argument. The whole issue in general does not belong in an introduction. It doesn't clarify anything, its of minor relevance. Wouldn't it be rather useful to mention all the German artists which are born on modern German territory ? Yes it would ! Instead you are introducing a number of artists who (admittedly belonging to German sphere) are only randomly associated with Germany. This is not logic. It seems sufficient to mention the "German speaking world" but not the random details.

BTW, the part "Consequently, it is difficult to identify" is weak prose for an introduction. Here is a question for all to consider: If it is difficult to identify German culture, why is the section "Culture" the second largest in this article ??? I hope this argumentation helps to understand. KarlMathiessen (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to get involved in the Mozart topic here. Either way would work for me. However, I have to repeat something mentioned above and in edit summaries, because Karl seems to have overlooked this information:

BTW, I reinstalled the old version and fixed a problem with the reference attached to the statement disputed here. The link did not work (at least for me).

So please, Karl, if you have to fight this discussion on the article itself, watch out that you do not unintentionally disrupt the article. Even better, of course, would be to leave the main page as it is until this discussion is concluded. Tomeasy _{T C} 17:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Good that references are mentioned here. The Encarta source does not cite Mozart or others. The Cambridge source does not open properly (I tried it several times). Nevertheless I incorporated them. KarlMathiessen (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the link to the Encarta source back to archive.org. Please check previous edit messages, Tomeasy already pointed out this problem and fixed it once (the direct link is out of date). I believe, it would help to engage in a more open discussion before making controversial changes, even if other contributors have different opinions. Just a general comment. GermanJoe (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Information about Angela Merkel's government in history since 1990

In 2005 Angela Merkel actually formed a government from her own faction, consisting of Merkel's party the Christian Democratic Union(CDU)and its sister party the Christian Social Union (CSU), and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), who had held power in a coalition with the Green Party of Germany (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) since 1998, the CDU now being the strongest faction in Bundestag. The CDU/CSU faction holds a unique status in Bundestag as they are the only two parties forming one faction, due to the great similarities in programms the only difference being the CSU's only existing in Bavaria. The SPD however is not linked to the CDU whatsoever as in contrast to the CDU's conservative background the SPD forms the labour counterpart to CDU. After the elections of 2009 Angela Merkel is head of a government coalition from CDU/CSU and Germany's liberal party the FDP (Freie Demokratische Partei). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.48.27 (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The article currently says

From 2005 to 2009 she led a grand coalition with the Christian Social Union (CSU), its Bavarian sister party, and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Following general elections on 27 September 2009, Merkel built the current coalition government replacing the Social Democrats with Free Democratic Party (FDP).

The coalition does comprise those three parties, so I wouldn't say it is wrong; it may, however, be slightly misleading because it does not explain that the CDU and CSU, though remaining separate parties, operate in parliament like a single party, i.e. they form a single Fraktion. The next problem is that Fraktion is not easily translatable: it corresponds to the "parliamentary party" in other parliamentary systems (such as the UK), but in this case it consists of the MPs of two separate parties; so it should perhaps be called a "parliamentary group" (as in the European Parliament). The term "faction" in English refers to a smaller, informal grouping representing a particular set of ideas within a single party (or other organization), though some people do try to use it as a translation of Fraktion.

How about

From 2005 to 2009 she led a grand coalition comprising her own parliamentary group (consisting of the CDU together with the CSU) and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Following general elections on 27 September 2009, Merkel built the current coalition government replacing the Social Democrats with Free Democratic Party (FDP).

--Boson (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, except you need a "the" before "Free Democratic Party". -- Alarics (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I propose:

From 2005 to 2009, she led a grand coalition supported by her own parliamentary group (consisting of CDU and CSU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Following general elections on 27 September 2009, Merkel built the current coalition government replacing the Social Democratic Party with the Free Democratic Party (FDP).

Motivations for changes:

1. A comma separating an introductory phrase always increases readability a lot.
2. Grand coalition is a term with a specific meaning in Germany, so I linked to the corresponding article.
3. I understand the term coalition to refer to the government. A parliamentary group, however, is not part of the government. It supports the government.
4. As our article is too long, I also shortened the text, while trying not to loose content, e.g., the text in parenthesis.
5. I linked to the party articles. I hope this is not considered overlinking. As far as I can see the links were not provided s far, and I think they are required.
6. Social Democrats replaced with Free Democratic party was not sound, as it was comparing apples with oranges.
7. And yes, I also think that there should be a "the" before FDP.

It's all up for discussion, just in case you disagree with some of the points. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree.--Boson (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)