Jump to content

Talk:Germany/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Article review

I think it was John who recently mentioned that the article probably no longer meets the FA criteria. Before starting any FAR process, I think it would be helpful to discuss the issues here and try to achieve compliance. Perhaps we should also advertise this informal review at WT:GER and to people with more experience at bringing articles to FA status. --Boson (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are lots of paragraphs which miss citations. StoneProphet (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should look at the problem of citations and reliable sources first. One way would be to first add citation-needed tags, but I'm a bit loth to do that with an article that is accessed so often. I suppose we could use citation-needed comments that are only visible to editors. The alternative is for the same person to check the text and provide the citations in one go, which might be much less efficient with an article of this size. --Boson (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Another problem is that the history section, in particular,is far too long and does not make proper use of summary style. Ideally, the problem of pruning such sections should be tackled first, since reducing the text also reduces the amount of work involved in copyediting, citation verification, checking reliability of sources, etc. The problem is that the history section should be a summary of History of Germany, so that article should be dealt with first and then summarized here (and that article has 132 kB of readable prose, so needs the same treatment). --Boson (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It's fine to put a [citation needed] or [dubious – discuss] into the text, in fact I can't even believe that someone would propose not doing that if it was needed. I don't want anyone reading anything that's on Wikipedia without a citation and taking it as a fact. I'm sure if we go through this article we're going to find things that aren't facts that are in the text. Just as importantly, leaving a [citation needed] tag encourages people (not just long-term page watchers and editors) to contribute.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
As regards the flagging of citations, I would say the threshold for requiring a citation-needed flag in order to alert the reader to a statement that may well be incorrect is somewhat higher than that for indicating that a citation would be appropriate in an article that exemplifies professional standards of sourcing. Massive tagging could be seen as disruptive. --Boson (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the history section is too long. It's 3000 words which is not that bad and length is not one of the criteria for an FA article or even a Wikipedia:Good article criteria. What IS important is not having a large numbers of [citation needed], [citation needed], [clarification needed] and having an article that is "broad in its coverage (addresses the main aspects of the topic.---I think the best thing to do is roll up our sleeves and get to work editing, researching and participating in the improvement of the article. We can set limits on the amount anyone can edit in say 24 hours to keep the editing process slow (one edit per day?, no more than +/- 150 characters). It might take a few weeks but if people chip in and do the research instead of largely forming new sections or votes on the talk page (it does not seem to be helpful at this point) than I think we're going to create a much better, organic, and original article that reflects the wikipedia's spirit of collective participation. Let's remember to assume good faith, we're all trying to improve this, we just need to work together a bit more collaboratively. I think actually doing some editing is going to help us get there.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As regards number and length of sections, the FA criteria specify:

  • Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
    • The article, in particular the history section does not meet this criterion. The history section is supposed to summarize History of Germany, not duplicate it. The section is supposed to be "quite similar" to the lead section of the summarized article. See below for guidance on size.

The criteria also specify

  • "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
    • I'm not usure it meets that criterion (even on large screens).

--Boson (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

After going through the recent changes, I dont think the overall lenght of the history section is the problem. It is more that it mentions lots of unnecessary details and focuses too much on a single point of history (WWII). E.g. most country articles serve WWII with only 1 or 2 sentences, but in this one the section looks very bloated. For such a general country article, things like the Ardennes offensive, the Italian surrender, exact unemployment figures, outsingled election results, Pearl Harbour, the Ruhr occupation, the Hitler oath, the BoB and many more like this are too much overkill. This is not the WWII article, this article is meant to give a brief overview of 2000 years of German history. I certainly think the entire Third Reich section should be trimmed down. One paragraph for WWII would be certainly enough.StoneProphet (talk)
Honestly? The first thing you just happen to think of removing is the section I just added to (a grand total of 360 characters, I might add)? The section that deals with Germany's history in WWII is the most well known and controversial historical era in the country's history. It deserves proper explanation and what amounts to 1 1/2 or 2 paragraphs describing the events of WWII. The Wiemar/Third Reich Section is a clearly the most controversial section in the whole article and needs the text to fairly (NPOV) convey the extreme complexity of events which resulted in the world's largest war and genocide. If your goal is simply to remove unnecessary text (and I am assuming good faith so I believe that it is) then let's be a bit more logical in our assessment. How about removing the Military section or merging it into the foreign relations section (military sections are fairly uncommon in country level articles anyway). Also the size of the Education section is very long and could be reduced by half, excluding details like kindergarten admissions, lists of top-ranked research institutes, and the country's 7 oldest universities, etc. My point is that if your goal is simply to remove text, I'm not in theory opposed to that and I see places where it could make sense but when the first thing you decide to write is to remove the parts of the Nazi Era history alarm bells start going off. I would suggest tabling that idea and tackling some of more obvious and not the most highly debatable example of excessive text on the whole page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
We need to distinguish between what needs to be written and what needs to be written in this high-level article. This is likely to be a problem in any high-level article written in summary style. There is always a danger that editors will expend a lot of effort during the FA or FAR process to make the level of detail appropriate and keep the details in the sub-articles, and other editors later come along and negate all that effort by putting the details back in again. Though we should avoid the impression of article "ownership", we also need someone to prevent this creep. We should also be careful to resist the temptation to ascribe improper motives to those who remove the inappropriate level of detail. The history section is pretty long,so it seems appropriate to start there. Your point about "the extreme complexity of events" reinforces my point that such details belong in the appropriate sub-article. --Boson (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I basically agree with Boson. This is a topic which can be expanded indefinitely, but this is an extremely high level article, and we simply cannot go into that much detail. Again, this is a general country article. The history section should only be a small part of such a general article, and the section about a specific 12 years period should be even smaller. Imo for example all those points I have mentioned above should be removed from this section, because they are far too detailed. Those are points which are simply not relevant for the country called Germany existing in 2014. Please don't take that as a criticism against you, that are just some general remarks. I dont have much time atm this weekend, but If nobody else does, I will look through all that next week... StoneProphet (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
First, the section deals with a quarter of a century of German history, not just 12 years. That period, without any doubt, involved modern Germany's most important and transformative historical events. Arguing immediately, as has been done here, that this is the section that needs to be shortened is the least logical place to start for the simple reason that it's fundamentally important to understanding so many things about the current state of German government (politics, society, demographics, culture, you name it). Second, the Wikipedia criteria for length takes concerns like this into account and allows for additional text when it is essential for providing neutrality and comprehension of the topic. Boson, you can't describe the rise of the Nazi regime without including the series of elections, laws and executive/cabinet level orders that made that possible (You've used the German terms "Machtergreifung" and "Gleichschaltung" and suggested we remove these from the text which I strongly disagree with). Suggesting the removal of those things to me is like saying "Lincoln freed the slaves" (no, a law, later included in the constitution, did that; following a good deal of parliamentary/democratic debate which included opposition to freeing slaves). The process of how German democracy fell into a state of totalitarianism is an essential part of the German history of that period and really a unique historical event in 20th century Western history more broadly. That said, I'm still not against removing some text from other parts of this article but for now let's avoid the Weimar/Third Reich sub-section. If it turns out to be a problem in the review and the reviewers say that that section is superfluous then there's justification to return to this issue but to start off with that as your goal, after all of the conversations on this talk page so far, it appears suspect. If the goal is to reduce the length, let's do it. We seem to be developing consensus on a few sections already (education, military, and i would agree with the long section on "immigrants" in the demographics section). Let's work on that first.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. This is one of the areas that is most in need of pruning. However, the order in which we tackle the pruning is of less importance, so I suggest you work on some of the other areas, while waiting to see if there is consensus for your previous edits to Nazi Germany. I agree that a full description of the rise of the Nazi regime requires material about the legislation etc., but (again) it is not required in a summary at this level.
Your paraphrase of what I wrote is misleading.You wrote
  • "You've used the German terms "Machtergreifung" and "Gleichschaltung" and suggested we remove these from the text [my emphasis of your words] which I strongly disagree with."
I've no idea how you arrived at that. What I actually wrote was
  • "the period of Machtergreifung and Gleichschaltung is a bit too detailled [emphasis added]".
Please try not to do that.
Details of German history (such as the exact names of laws and much more) are not appropriate in an article at this level (which will also be read by someone who is looking for information on the economy or flora and fauna of Germany). Readers who are interested in the details of German history should be pointed to History of Germany, where they should be guided to the articles on the periods they are interested in, such as the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany.
--Boson (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand you want to cut parts out of this section. You've made that very clear. I don't want that and I've stated reasons (based on Wikipedia's Good Article criteria) why there is no need to do that right now. I've also agreed with you on multiple other sections that do need to be cut down or merged.
The Machtergreifung and Gleichschaltung terms are not links in the text and don't currently appear. Are you saying you would like to have them added to the history section? If not, are you just saying that the text about the rise of Nazis to totalitarian power should be cut-down? If it's yes, to the later, then please see my comments above about why it's important that the text on that is included.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. They don't appear, which is why your claim that I wanted the terms removed was so odd. I think I was abundantly clear: the description of that period is too detailled; that implies that the details need to be replaced by a less detailled summary (not just a shorter sentence). I may make additional suggestions when I have more time, but I think it is more efficient at this stage to pinpoint the problems in the article and do the editing later; it helps to keep the discussion focused and reduce the constant repetition. It also makes it easier to get more viewpoints . We should wait to see what others have to say before deciding which of you edits have consensus and what needs altering or removing. I understand you reasons for wanting to add details, but I disagree. The featured article criteria are, of course, more stringent than the good artcle article criteria, and one of the important differences is
  • Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
If you are focused on GA criteria, that might explain our differences. In my opinion it is at the FA stage that pruning is important. It definitely was (and is) for this article. The history section is still more than 30% longer than the history section of the next longest featured country article and over 25% longer than the version at FAR (which had to be condensed to scrape through the FA criteria on summary style). --Boson (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I also understand that some sentences may be longer than necessary. Here is an example of a compromise to reduce some text without cutting any of the meaning from the article:
Go from:

In August 1934 the cabinet enacted the "Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich" which altered the traditional loyalty oath of servicemen so that they affirmed loyalty to Hitler personally rather than to the office of supreme commander or the state[1] and in a special referendum 90 per cent of the electorate approved merging the presidency with the chancellorship.

To:

In August 1934 the Nazi cabinet enacted a law which forced servicemen to swear loyalty to Hitler personally rather than to the office of supreme commander or the state[2] and the 1934 special referendum merged the offices of the presidency and the chancellorship.

I'm completely fine with this type of change because it doesn't change the meaning, it just drops 8-10 words from the sentence.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Dropping 10 words is not much help. The details belong in the sub-article. --Boson (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
This was one sentence. My point was that similar changes could be possible throughout the history section. It would take some time do rephrase things in a way that didn't remove the meaning but that's what good editing is all about and it certainly seems like a more prudent method than simply removing whole paragraphs or blocks of text from the section because you think it's "too long".Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, I've looked over the other FA Class country level articles. There are only about 10 of them and none of them cover the controversial and difficult to summarize topics discussed in the Weimar/Third Reich section (not to mention all of the topics not discussed, e.g. the important role of paramilitaries in the 1920s and 1930s, the massive recruitment of German children into Hitler youth organizations, and the pervasive culture of fear created by Gestapo and other military police who operated throughout the society. All of which are important factors in understanding Germany's post-war democratic evolution). To say it's "too long" is really suspect because you are rejecting the important of these things as significant facts of Germany history. That said, you are correct that those articles include history sections up to about 2300 words (or about 700 words less than is currently in the section here). Again though, that does NOT mean that the history section (or for that matter the Weimar/Third Reich section of the history section) is automatically too long. Since there are no requirements for the section length, much less, history section length, I don't think it makes sense to do what you want to do and start cutting out sections when if it's even a problem. In the meanwhile, reducing the other sections that are too long seems appropriate and minor edits that reduce text without reducing the meaning should be encouraged. I would also encourage you to take a look at other parts of the history section besides the Weimar/Third Reich sub-section and see if your length problems can't be partially fixed there.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Trying to shorten the text but keep the details is not a solution. I am not sure what you intended by "I don't think it makes sense to do what you want to do and start cutting out sections [my emphasis] when if it's even a problem." I don't recall suggesting "cutting out sections". I suggested keeping the details in the sub-articles. The only suggestion of cutting out sections that I recall was your suggestion regarding the Military section. Your point about other featured country articles reinforces my point. The details are mainly covered in the sub-articles. The featured article on India uses less text to cover the whole period of modern India from 1848, including the British Raj, than this article expends on Nazi Germany.
I think we should pause this conversation now and let others get a word in. --Boson (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Eureka! I was re-reading your above comment, trying to understand if the tone of your comments and my impression of talking to a brick wall might be due to the difficulty of politely expressing differences in a foreign language. It suddenly struck me that a likely explanation is your apparent misunderstanding of a comment that StoneProphet made and I agreed with, which you are apparently referring to when you object to "cutting out sections", which nobody had suggested ; so you appear to be understanding " . . . the entire Third Reich section should be trimmed . . ." as " . . . the entire Third Reich section should be cut out . . .", i.e. removed. That might explain your (utterly inappropriate ) use of the adjective "suspect" when referring to StoneProphet's comments and mine. As I have stated repeatedly, I am only advocating removal of inappropriate detail. I assume that is also what StoneProphet meant.--Boson (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Boson, your tone has become accusatory and condescending. I've spent a lot of time reading and responding to your comments (even now as you post them to my talk page). I expect your comments at least to be respectful and not the tiraids they're verging on. I've made reasonable suggestions to you over and over agin. You seem upset that I don't agree to everything you want to do. Well, I don't. I will list my main points one more time just so they are clear and don't get confused with the other stuff you seem to have mixed up into your comments about me. Here they are:
1)There are ways to reduce text without removing entire paragraphs and this should be done before anything more drastic is undertaken (even deleting entire paragraphs would be easier). In the long-run it's better to take the time and work through the text.
2)Removal of additional text from article subsections should be done after it is suggested by the FA Class or Good Article Class Reviewers. I would be very surprised if this article got FA Class status very soon but I think, with some hard work, it could probably get Good Article status.
3)There are areas that I've agreed need to be trimming and you've listed them below.
4)Lastly, remember that Wikipedia does not have a template or a set format for article length (or section, or sub-section length) and lack of quantity does not always equal quality. The goal is to provide readers with a balanced NPOV text that covers the relevant subject matter without omitting or avoiding important facts, especially when dealing the controversial topics.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to find the link to the Flag of Germany article through the Germany article, and I found that unlike the pages of many countries (Ex. France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, etc.), the flag and coat of arms of Germany are not linked in the infobox. I'm not too well versed in editing infoboxes, so I wanted to suggest this as a change.

The change would include linking Flag of Germany to the word "Flag" under the Flag_of_Germany.svg image in the infobox, and linking Coat of Arms of Germany to the word "Coat of Arms" under the Coat_of_Arms_of_Germany.svg image in the infobox. --NigeriaNoKamisama (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Split Weimar and Third Reich?

No consensus for splitting the section. Number 57 21:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is just a suggestion, and I'm guessing it might have been considered before, but wouldn't it make sense to split the Weimar Republic period from the Third Reich period? I realize that all together the time span is not that long but conceptually there's an obvious break/change/watershed there. Otherwise if the two periods are kept together, and there is a need to keep the material at a reasonable length then the "Weimar part" would be/should be essentially about how it led up to the Third Reich period.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Support- I know users in the past have done this and it's the way that it's done on the German language version of the page. The number of years is not important, what happened is.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Support- I don't see a reason to mix both. prokaryotes (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Support - greater clarity and differentiation and less ambiguity if separated. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Support This will allow greater detail towards the Weimar Republic and the Nazis. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Comment. The problem is that the history section is far too long. If the history section were a more appropriate size, there would be no reason to create more sections. The summary in the history section is supposed to be "similar" to the lead section of the article History of Germany. It is supposed to be written in summary style. The history section is still much longer than in other featured country articles. For the reader interested in that period of history we do need more detail about the Weimar Republic, but not here – we should not fall into the trap of thinking that we need everything (information and images) in this article, rather than in the article Weimar Republic. A reader looking for basic information on the economy or the population should not be presented with loads of information on the Weimar Republic and the holocaust. In the case of Germany, the history section links to a whole hierarchy of articles, each of which has sections that are supposed to summarize articles at a lower level:

So we should be careful not to repeat the same detailled information and images contained at the next lower level. --Boson (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't think it's "far too long". Just eyeballing it really quick, it seems to be comparable in length to the History section in the article on France, England, Italy, etc. And there probably is some text that could be cut in OTHER parts of the history section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the proper articles for comparison are other featured articles, because it is usually in the FAC and FAR processes that the article is checked against the relevant guidelines and other recommendations. Articles tend to get bloated and wander away from good practice until they are reviewed.
The featured article criteria specify:
  • "[The article] stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style."
The history section does not properly adhere to summary style, which would make it much shorter, with less sections.
Another recommendation is to have about 1 image per section. This section has 12 images (this is partly because it has too many sub-sections, but it still has 2 images per sub-section), far more than comparable articles (i.e. other featured country articles).
Compared with the average and maximum figures for the history sections of the other featured country articles, the history section of the Germany article is 74% longer than the average and 22% longer than the maximum (word count). It also has two-and-a half times the average and twice the maximum number of images. I think we can – temporarily – live with what we have now, but any changes should be aimed at merging content (including images) into appropriate sub-articles. Sub-articles and featured article criteria both exist for a purpose. --Boson (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the history section is probably too long, and we should be careful about making it much longer. Surlyduff50 (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
These comments seem to assume that the Weimar section is going to be the same length as the Nazi Regime and WWII section. It won't be. It can, and probably should, only be one paragraph. The important thing is not to lump the two together since the historical importance of the Nazi period and the overview of that is important to view by itself.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the Weimar Republic deserves a separate section – in the article History of Germany. But here the topic is Germany as a whole and the section is meant to be a summary of a summary, where it merits a separate paragraph, as do Nazi Germany, World War I, and the Reformation. History is being given too much weight for a top-level article. We don't need a separate sub-section on each short period, however important. Similarly, we don't need (and don't have) a sub-section on any of the states in the geography section. Some editors (or even readers!) may be more interested in the history than in the geography or politics, but we have a whole article on the subject. The culture section is another section that is given undue weight by the number of sub-sections. --Boson (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the outcome of this discussion is NOT to split, then obviously, per the discussions above the image of Hitler and the image of Buchenwald prisoners (possible the one of survivors, possible the one of corpses) needs to be in this combined section, as these illustrate the most important aspects of this period; the rise of Nazis, and the Holocaust. Whether or not the image of bombed Berlin is included can still be discussed with editors needing to keep in mind that we need to worry about aesthetics here, and the section becoming cramped with images.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear, Volunteer Marek. While the Holocaust was horrid and devastating, as well as the Gulag and other political victims of the USSR or Mao China, or nuclear and napalm bombing etc. of the US army - these cruelties should still not be pictured in their respective country's articles. They're undeniably part of a country's history, though you have to keep in mind the force of such things pictured.
What the war really meant to Germans and the whole country, the totally devastating destruction especially of its cities caused by the Nazi regime's and many people's unlimited will to dominate, that's what's called Zero Hour for a reason. It was the time of casualties and guilt on all sites, but of course especially on the German, thus its near total destruction. I know that's exactly what you want to depict, the guilt and cruelty of war. And it was also the time of a new beginning. In that way a picture of destroyed Germany is perfectly leading over to the post-war era described in the text. And that's what the FA consensus of several Wiki authors with some reputation was based on. That's what encyclopedic illustration should deliver, contextual bridges joining the passages together. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2014

182.183.190.26 (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2014

Mikeycoll (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC) 

2014 FIFA World Cup Champions
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  NQ  talk 02:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Already done  NQ  talk 03:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Clear references

  1. ^ Kershaw, Ian (1998). Hitler Hubris. New York, NY: W.W. Norton,pg. 317
  2. ^ Kershaw, Ian (1998). Hitler Hubris. New York, NY: W.W. Norton,pg. 317

--Boson (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for trimming

As I understand it:

I don't think I actually said that the Weimar section was better now. Even with your latest change, I think it still needs improvement, so I will come back to that later.--Boson (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ths sub-section on the immigrant population could also be reduced in size, with the details being merged to the appropriate sub-article (if not already there).--Boson (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the points on the sections other than the Weimar/Third Reich section (I suggest that be tabled for now since it highly debatable and since we have agreement on so many other sections before even having to address that). I agree on reducing the sections on education, military, and immigrants in the demographics section. The section on immigrant is long, and there are other problems with its sources which I mentioned above on this talk page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The etymology section could also be condensed. The details are in the linked article. --Boson (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it could be said in two sentences.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Demographics, migrant background

Could Sdg198, or someone else, explain exactly where the (new) data for the so-called ethnic groups came from? The page number (189) given for the Migration Report does not appear to be correct, and there are unexplained discrepancies with some of the figures if I use the table on page 138. By the way, I believe the usual English term is "migrant background" (not the "literal" translation migration background).

"Ethnic groups" is also not correct, of course. The figures, presumably, apply to the present or former nationality (not ethnicity) of the persons concerned (or their parents). --Boson (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


Regarding the page number, it appears that the migration report has changed since I last saw it, and thus page 189 is indeed incorrect. The same information is on page 138. What exactly are these discrepancies on page 138?
I'll change the term to migrant background if that sounds better. Regarding ethnicity vs nationality, you are right on that, although it's worth noting that "former nationality" is the only statistic that the German government records, so any previous statistics alluding to ethnicity will have in fact been actually nationality (of course given the main countries Germany has received migrants from are relatively homogenous nationality and ethnicity will be highly correlated in this case, but I still concede your point). What do you think the statistics should be described as? Sdg198 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your reply. I am still trying to work out exactly how you arrived at you figures. So far, I find some figures in your table agree with the source document (either page 136 or 138)

From page 136:

  • Total population: 81,913,000
  • Germans without migrant background: 65,570,000

From page 138:

  • Turkish: 2,998,000
  • Europeans (EU): 5,167,000
  • Africans:577,000
  • Other (ohne Angabe): 1,208,000

The following figures need some explanation:

  • Americans: 418,000. Source has 416,000.

I can't find anywhere you have explained your maths, but you seem to have deducted the "ethnic Germans" ((Spät-)aussiedler) from the Asians.

  • Asians, Australians, and Pacific Islanders:2,034,000. Source has 2,601,000. You appear to have subtracted your figure for ethnic Germans from Kazackstan)
  • Europeans (non-EU): 3,377,000. Source has 6,375,000. I presume your formula is 6,375,000 (non-EU) minus 3,219 ((Spät-)aussiedler) plus 567 (to avoid counting Kazackstan in Europe and Asia). Which comes to 3,723,000, leaving a discrepancy of 386,000, which I haven't worked out yet..

I don't think we can draw any reliable conclusions about ethnicity. --Boson (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: I see that the figures add up to 100%, which means that "Europeans (non-EU) must exclude Turkey, which could explain why the figure for "European (non-EU)" is wrong (or wrongly labeled), but it still doesn't seem to add up. We definitely need an explanation of the calculations, and I think we have exceeded the bounds of WP:NOR. I think we should report the actual figures on migration and population with a migrant background presented by the German authorities (or other reliable sources), avoiding any talk of ethnicity, which is not documented. This all belongs in the article Demographics of Germany, which should be briefly summarized here. --Boson (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

For "European Other", the source I used includes Turks in the total figure whereas I have counted them individually. Subtracting Turkey from "European other" gives us the 3,377,000 figure. Regarding the American figure, that appears to be a mistake on my part, I will fix that. Regarding the Asian figure I did indeed subtract the ethnic German figure. Sdg198 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


I removed the table and pie chart because the citation did not fit the graphics or the table. The citation was in German (which I, and English language readers more generally, normally don't speak) but I could understand that it was discussing statistics of EU country nationals living in Germany and not the much broader global categories shown in the table and pie chart. Second, the terminology in the table and pie chart are not consistant. For example the pie chart states: Germans without migration background (80.5%)
 Europe (excluding Turkey) (10.4%)
 Turkey (3.7%)
 Asians (2.5%)
 Africans (0.7%)
 America (0.5%)
 Others/unspecified (1.7%)

Germans, Europe, Turkey, Asians, Africans, and America are places and people. Which is it? I believe they wanted to write Europeans, Turks, and Americans but they did not. In addition I wonder weather Americans is actually U.S. citizens or whether it refers to Latin Americans as well. ---My preference would be for an English language source, probably from the EU or UN which provides this information. The citation needs to be corrected before anything gets put up again and if the chart and table show the exact same information from the same source than it's probably better to just have one of them unless there's no really good reason to repeat things twice.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2014

Please delete 1 or 2 Pictures of Bavarian culture out of this article. Germany is not just Bavaria, no chance for prejudices please. 87.163.102.50 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The folk dance image has been removed (no clue why it was put there in the first place, either). I can't see any problem with the image of the Bavarian woman in the cuisine section of the article, though. As the article stands, this is the only image focused on something related to Bavaria (Oktoberfest), so I don't think the article's images are overly Bavaria-centric now. Surlyduff50 (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fewer-ethnic-germans-immigrating-ancestral-homeland/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2014

Request for section '6.5 Languages' to be corrected. The second sentence states that Germany is one of 23 official languages in the European Union. There are 24 official languages. Please change '23' to '24'[1] D. Alex Hostetler 21:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexhostetler (talk • contribs) 21:22, 28 July 2014‎

Done Green Giant (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/language-policy/official_languages_en.htm

Womans football

> The Frauen-Bundesliga is the top league of women's club football in Germany. > The German women's national football team won the FIFA Women's World Cup in 2003 and 2007 and the UEFA European Women's Championship in 1989, 1991, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, and 2013.

In Germany, womans football has no relevance at all. Is is neither present in media nor in the heads of the people. Therefore womans football is absolutely not worth being mentioned in this article as nearly every other sport is more important here. --109.125.90.49 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would remove the lines mentioned above as womans football doesn't play any role in germany. Please raise your hands ;-) --109.125.90.49 (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I raise my hand. The World Cup in 2011 was quite an event in Germany and the matches of the national team are usually shown on TV. The treble of VfL Wolfsburg in the 2012–13 and the defense of the Champions League title 2013–14 in was definitely noted. Claiming that is has no relevance is exaggerated. --Jaellee (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It has indeed some relevance in the context of German football. But it's not notable enough to get a section at the country's main article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Fully aggreed. --109.125.90.49 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
World Cup 2011 indeed was a quite popular event, but it's been the only one so far. Maybe this will change in future. --109.125.90.49 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

New RfC

The outcome is no consensus. Editors cannot agree what to do with this section of the article. A number of viewpoints are expressed but I cannot see much evidence that anyone has changed their position. By our rules, the article should remain as it is for the time being.

I do not think it will be possible to structure this part of the article in a way that everyone can agree upon. In my background reading for this close, I took the time to look at the equivalent sections of foreign-language Wikipedias. I am not surprised to see that the equivalent part of the German Wikipedia's images are merely a map and some ruins. The French Wikipedia takes exactly the same approach and has a note about edit warring at the top. It is tempting to say that by analogy, we should similarly show images of ruins and maps, but that does not really reflect what the English language sources say about Nazi Germany. I think most reasonable people would expect there to be a picture of Hitler and that image should remain.

Although my close is "no consensus" and the status quo should prevail for the time being, I also have recommendations after considering the discussion. I would suggest that a fresh discussion begins with a view to going up to three images in the section. The picture of Hitler should remain, front and centre. There should also be a picture of German ruins, and preferably a less wishy-washy one than the milquetoast picture of a few small-scale ruins in Berlin. (Subject to consensus I'd suggest post-bombing-raid Dresden?) And third, there should be a picture illustrating the brutality of the Nazi regime. Although Wikipedia is not censored, this picture should not be so unexpectedly graphic that it distracts from the text, so I would recommend some of the less extreme alternatives offered on this page.

It's not possible to satisfy all parties here but do hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the light of the discussion so far and the renewed edit warring, and in an attempt to make sure the RfC is efficient this time, I would suggest the following points for a new improved RfC to replace all other discussions about the images in this section.

  1. a gallery showing all the images that have been suggested so far
  2. no option to add new images once the RfC has started, but a delay of a few days before starting the RfC, enabling prior discussion of the draft RfC and possibly addition of images.
  3. a question asking each editor what he/she thinks the number of images for this section should be.
  4. a separate question asking each editor to support or oppose each image, indicating, for instance "Oppose" or "Choice 1", "Choice 2", etc. For instance, an editor wishing to retain the old consensus could answer
    • 2 images
    • Choice 1: Adolf Hitler
    • Choice 2: Berlin ruins
    • Oppose Paramilitaries
    • Oppose Hamburg ruins
    • Oppose Holocaust bodies
    • Oppose Hungarian Jews
    • Oppose Dachau
    • Oppose Buchenwald
    • Oppose 1945 Film
  5. After approx. 3 weeks, we first assess the consensus for how many pictures and then select the image with the most support as Choice 1 (currently Hitler) , followed by the image with the most support as Choice 2, and so on until the number decided by the qestion "how many pictures?" is reached.
  6. For the picture of the Berlin ruins, there seems no support for A over B, so I would remove image A.
  7. If the assessment is unanimously accepted, the results are implemented. If not, we request formal closure by an uninvolved admin/experienced RfC closer.

I will propose a draft shortly. --Boson (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: Since this is not, strictly, a vote some arguments may be given greater weight than others, but this discretion should be reserved to an uninvolved closer. --Boson (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

So this is my draft: --Boson (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. The draft has been here a couple of days, so I'm taking it live. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New improved RfC: Images to illustrate the section Weimar Republic and the Third Reich in the main Germany article

How many and which images should we use to illustrate the Weimar Republic and Third Reich section? --Boson (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Instructions (new RfC)

In the survey section please answer the two questions (number of images and image preference), adding a short rationale. Please support a maximum of 1 image from each group (e.g. do not select 2 pictures of ruins) Discussion should be kept to the discussion section and may be moved there by any editor.

Choice of images (new RfC)

Civil unrest
  • Paramilitaries Communist Party of Germany's paramilitary RFB meeting in Berlin, May 1928. The young Weimar Republic was dominated by political unrest.
Hitler
Ruins
Holocaust and concentration camps

Discussion on the draft RfC

This section may be collapsed after the RfC starts

I think this is a very reasonable proposal that could help us find consensus about this image problem. —Kusma (t·c) 10:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I have taken the poll live, and will shortly advertise it using the RfC template. Now is the time for any last-minute change requests before anyone besides me answers the survey questions. --Boson (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


Survey Question 1 (new RfC)

How many pictures should this section contain? Please give a number between 1 and 4 and a rationale and sign your post.

Responses to Question 1

2 images. This is the long-standing status. There is a recommendation for 1 image per section, and the history section is already rather long for summary style. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey Question 2 (new RfC)

Which of the above pictures would you choose. Please give answers for each picture, in the form

  • Choice 1: designation of picture
  • Choice 2: designation of picture
  • Oppose: Designations of picture(s).

Please also give a rationale (if you wish) and sign your post. . . .

Responses to Question 2

Discussion of the images (not the RfC structure)

I think the article should stay the way it is. Perhaps with another image for Weimar but not necesarily the Weimar picture above. I think i know where the opposition to the bombing picture is coming from. There are almost no English documentaries on bombing Germany and in those that exist you mainly see the bombers and their peril and little of the bombed. Today every visitor of Bremen seems surprised of the bombings of Germany and just about all its cities. "Oh, Bremen was destroyed too?" Ask them how many bombs were dropped on Germany and you'll find estimates between 500 and 10,000 bombs on Germany. But little Bremen alone, for example, received around a million bombs. Germany received an absolutely unprecedented 1.6 million TONS of bombs (=more than 16 thousand times the infamous bombing of Rotterdam, which was 97 tons). Every day some 15 still unexploded bombs are found and some 100,000 bombs remain (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/luftmine-bei-koblenz-killer-im-schlick-a-801397.html). Cleaning off the 400 million cubic meters of rubble took many years. Because of the bombed cities hundreds of thousands more died in the hunger winter of 1946-47 (http://www.ndr.de/kultur/geschichte/Hungerwinter-194647,hungerwinter166.html), the white death, but the Allies helped provide food and aid for the population. Berlin wasn't fully rebuilt until the 80's (http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/berlin-end-war-1945/). Cleaning Germany of the bombs will take some 50 years more and cleaning the North sea will take some 60 years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic5Nc0cRNmQ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.115.111 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear misunderstanding of cause and effect here. Any pictures of bombings during World War II are an effect of the war that Germany at the time started. Pictures of concentration camps show atrocities that took place during the time the regime was in power. Could anyone enlighten me that the atrocities that took place in German concentration camps are in any causal connection to the war? They were considered to be a crime against humanity and are therefore a distinct icon of the Nazi regime – on which this section of the article is about. Keep the Buchenwald picture. As an alternative simply show BOTH pictures--Catflap08 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the IP address user - though Berlin wasn't actually the worst hit city; cities such as Hamburg, Bochum and Mainz came off worse. In my opinion, any illustration showing the aftermath of the air raids should feature one of these cities. Surlyduff50 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Again one picture shows Berlin in ruins the other Buchenwald victims. What has one to do with other if the section is about the subject of concentration camps ??? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Showing a picture of destroyed Berlin is in my eyes unappropriate when looking at the article’s (sections) content. Even when we look at the statistics the result of the Nazi regime was not so much Germany’s destruction, but the number of victims. If one looks at the victims of allied bombings and German soldiers that were killed one gets a number of roughly 6.8 Million (3.2 Million German soldiers and 3.6 Million German civilians). If we look at the Holocaust there were between 5.0 and 6.0 million murdered Jews. Keeping this in mind the total number of victims of Nazi mass murder is about 13.0 Million victims which includes Jews, Sinti and Roma, mentally handicapped, Homosexuals, political imprisoned, etc. etc. As a result of World War II there were about 50.0 Million victims world wide. So in my opinion the picture of Berlin in ruins does not reflect the sections content, but the victims of mass murder does. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The main theme of this summary section (which still needs pruning) is the rise and fall of Hitler and National Socialism in the aftermath of World War I and the resulting World War II, leading to Germany's complete and utter defeat. The concentration camps are a sub-topic of that, dealt with in sub-articles. If the concentration camps are given undue weight for this top-level article that should be dealt with. The image of Hitler symbolizes all the things associated with Nazism (including the concentration camps). The image of the ruins symbolizes the war and the defeat of Nazi Germany. Pictures illustrating or symbolizing individual aspects of this period (such as the invasion of other countries , Stalingrad, concentration camps, the alliance with Italy and Japan, motorways, etc.) belong in the sub-articles. --Boson (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I find this rather disturbing given that all together 13 Million victims carry less weight that than a few rubbles. The most destructive outcome of the Nazi Regime, and that’s what we are talking about as this is not the article on World War II , is the mass murder of what was also partly the country’s own population. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to thank Catflap08 for his comments. Attempts by editors to prevent ANY changes to the Nazi era history section, reverting hours of research, editing and improvements in order to keep the text in it's current state and consistently pushing for images which show Germany as a victim, but THE victim, is revisionist to say the least and amounts to POV pushing.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Historians underline that the war left Germany in ruins, with civil institutions broken and the (surviving) population starving. This article should say so because it is about Germany, and we should have images that show this. Shabratha (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reichstag image

The Reichstag image (the one with the flags) is wrongly dated. Since the reconstruction (including the construction of the glass dome) took place in the late 90s the picture cannot be from 1990. Please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian A. Schneider (talk • contribs) 08:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC) Christian A. Schneider (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the caption to mean that this is a picture of the German Unity Flag, which was first raised in 1990 (oh, and that is the Reichstag in the background). I understand the caption as a rationale for including this image where it is, suggesting that the image illustrates the text on German unity. Since it clearly doesn't, it is causing image stacking, and the article has too man images in any case, I would suggest removing it. --Boson (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
How about "annually raised ... since "Christian A. Schneider (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)?

I guess we should have a translation of de:Fahne der Einheit if we want to make this clear (the flag seems to be there all the time). However, given that we have more than enough images in the article already, I guess removing this image is the best course of action. —Kusma (t·c) 09:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's one of the best images in the article, it should remain. However, a translation for the Unity Flag article should be put into focus. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Addition of 2 new photos of German police

The typical police car image is some years old. I have uploaded three more images of typical German police cars. One undercover police car, one undercover police car with special security protection and one regular typical German police car. Here are the links, I would like them to being added: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Typical_German_police_undercover_car_(BMW_530d).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Typical_German_police_undercover_car_with_high_security_protection.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Typical_German_police_car.jpg The cars were photographed on an exhibition and are now in use (www.bundesregierung.de / Bundesministerium für Inneres) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello today 2014 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

In this high-level article that is two stages removed from "German police car" I would prefer an image that was not just of a car in garage or exhibition, and I don't think we want more than one police car in this article. On the other hand, it is a more recent image, so I would not object strongly to replacing the current image with the new image of a typical police car. I think the new images should be suggested for Police vehicles in Germany (currently a section of Law enforcement in Germany but it could later be made into a separate sub-article). --Boson (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Concentration Camp image removals and enlargement of post-WWII bomb damage images

U.S. Army soldiers show German civilians corpses found in Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

It is clear that certain editors have an agenda and are attempting to shape the WWII section into a German victim portrayal. In the past few weeks an image of Berlin post WWII was changed to a much larger image of the ruins of Dresden, a german city's whose bombing is associated with the killing of large numbers of civilians and a the near total destruction of the city.

At the same time I added this image of German civilians being shown inside Buchenwald Concentration camp following its liberation. This image was immediately removed by one the same editors who has added the Dresden image.

It seems entirely one-sided to only include images of Adolf Hitler and the ruins of a German city when apx. 200,000 German civilians were murdered by the own government, hundreds of thousands more were sent to concentration camps and the Holocaust, humanity's largest modern genocide, was the result of a policy created by the Nazi government.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that certain editors have an agenda and are attempting to shape the WWII section into a politically motivated campaign against modern Germany. If certain editors really would be interested in a balanced historical view for the sake of it, they would lobby for similar "improvements" on other country articles (USA, Russia, Cambodia and easily a dozen more). Maybe certain editors would like to read WP:AGF and start discussions in a less aggressive, more collaborative manner. Then suggestions from said certain editors would be taken more seriously. GermanJoe (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Nope, that one is not clear at all. This has nothing to do with any "politically motivated campaign against modern Germany". That's just some ludicrous fantasy, paranoia, and bad faith (and I always love it when editors who lecture others about AGF are so quick to assume bad faith in others). What does the Holocaust have to do with modern Germany anyway? On the other hand, we have editors removing photos illustrating the Holocaust and replacing them with photos showing "how much Germany suffered" as result of WWII. How can a "balanced historical view" exclude the Holocaust? Oh yeah, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you want to suggest some photos or improvements to the articles on USA, Russia or Cambodia, nobody's stopping you. But quit trying to use them as an excuse to prevent improvements here. Volunteer Marek  06:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The current addition is not an improvement, the images display as a cluttered mess and partially outside the WWII-section. And quit distorting the events here, the Holocaust image got added to a long-standing article version without previous consensus (if you like essays, WP:BRD is also a nice one). Despite the last RfC's closing recommendation a graphic image was chosen for shock value. GermanJoe (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
How can the section on History of WW2 in Germany NOT have an image illustrating the Holocaust? Why is such an image being replaced by an image of "destruction of Germany by the Allies"? If that particular image is outside the WW2 section, remove the destruction one. The image was absolutely NOT chosen for shock value. In fact that's quite an offensive suggestion (and may I remind you one more time that you're the kind that started lecturing people about AGF?) which says more about your POV than about others. Yes, the image is graphic, because what happened was "graphic". We have all sorts of stupid graphic images all over the encyclopedia and if you try and remove one of those, bunch of people will show up and cry "WP:NOTCENSORED". But here we have an image which yes, is graphic, but which also has tremendous educational value - it illustrates the Holocaust and you gonna argue we should remove it because it might upset someone's sensibilities? And seriously, as far as the graphic-ness of images that could be chosen, this one's pretty mild. Volunteer Marek  17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not gonna enroll this all over again after such a short time span. We didn't reach consensus and won't now. Are you out of your mind, got nothing better to do? Seriously, get work to do. And contribute constructively. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to point out that you were the first one to start messing with the images. Volunteer Marek  18:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, this picture is a must. Without that and the casual link to Germanization of Poles this article will never be complete. Advice Polack (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:DFTT. Volunteer Marek  18:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
How about the "Polonization of German cities" then? Perhaps we could stop politicing this and start treating it like an encyclopedic work again. Thank you. It's not all about some clumsy pictures. Content is what matters. While of course a picture of heavy-bombed Hamburg or Dresden is more suitable to illustrate the bombing aspect of the article. Please keep in mind: the article is about Germany itself. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
"Please keep in mind: the article is about Germany itself" - Which is why a picture of the Holocaust should be in that section. BTW, the user above "Advice Polack", was just a banned sock puppet trolling. Volunteer Marek  19:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
And that's exactly why the image is of a German concentration camp (not a polish death camp like on the German language version of the page). In my opinion it's better than any possible other image since 1)it's not overtly graphic (the bodies are far away and can only be seen clearly if the user chooses to click the image), 2) it places the viewer in the same position (visually) as those German civilians when they confronted the Holocaust, and last but not least 3) it's entirely necessary due to the text of the article and the historical gravity of the event.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
While I very much welcome your idea to improve this section visually, I think it's important to keep an eye on the overall visual arc of the history section as a whole. The pictures in the history section show either single events or people, that were of utmost importance in the history of Germany.
While the Holocaust is definitely an important part of German history, it was not a single event but a process spanning several years, which might be the reason, why it is so difficult for you to agree on any image about it in the first place. Monopoly31121993 delivers some reasons for the image he proposed, but couldn't similar reasons be made for any other image about the Holocaust as well?
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not challenging the reasons he provided, I just think that there are literally thousands of other images, that could be brought forth and reasoned for just as well. This is why I do not believe that arguing about specific images here can therefore ever settle the debate or change any opinions about it.
Maybe if we go about it in another way, and adopt a different perspective, we might find a compromise. As I wrote before, the history section of the article displays single events or people, that were of enormous historical significance. So if we cannot find an image that captures the Holocaust as a single event, since it was a lengthy process, we might be able to find the image of a person, who represents this. And I think there is just 1 person, who embodies this part of German history in all its horror, and that is Hitler himself.
Since Hitler is already shown at the beginning of the section on The Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, I suggest we move his picture further down, so that it is closer to the Holocaust part, and that we introduce a third picture at the top about the Weimar Republic. This compromise would also solve the issue of not having any images about the first German republic/democracy in the article, something quite significant after more than a millenium of feudal rule in Germany. I suggest the following image as it depicts a single event of greatest historic significance, and would therefore fit well within the overall history section image arc: Scheidemann proclaims the Weimar Republic.
Please don't focus so much on the image itself, and more upon the idea of the compromise. The image is just a suggestion, that I think would fit well and is used in many other articles on the Weimar Republic around other language versions of Wikipedia. If you find a better image to represent the Weimar Republic, please share it here. My main idea is the compromise. --Theaitetos (Δ•Θ) 23:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust death figures in the lead

The lead should indicate the scale of death during the Holocaust. A consensus has been formed to put the "approximately 11 million" death figure in the lead of the WW II article. That is just given as an example of the use of the figures in the lead of another article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead cannot make only a single reference to the atrocities of the Nazi regime in a single word: "Holocaust". The reader needs to be given some sense about what the policies of the Nazi regime were. One way would be to mention that the regime had a number of anti-Jewish policies and that it established death camps and concentration camps. A simpler way is just to give the number of deaths in the Holocaust.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
That's unnecessary detail for the lead. As you seem to forget, this article is about a country called Germany. And the lead should only include the most basic facts and keywords. There's more than enough room for those details in the history section and in the linked articles.
Do we mention the millions of victims of China's Mao or Russia's Stalin in the lead? No? Surprise surprise. They even killed more people. Still, it doesn't belong in the lede. I don't understand what this current rage about putting the holocaust first in the Germany article is all about. But I see it's not about contributing to the article constructively, as it's the only thing a couple of people focus on, they don't actually care for the article's quality. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
A suggestion for this sentence could be, to give a bit of scale: The establishment of the Third Reich or Nazi Regime in 1933 eventually led to World War II and the Holocaust, with millions of dead civilians and major destructions of the country.
That way both the millions of casualties are covered (not simplyfying it to only one group of victims) as well as the results for the country that led to Zero Hour. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that User:OnBeyondZebrax wants to place the Holocaust in France's lead as well.[1] I oppose his claims whether it is on "France" or on "Germany" articles.Blaue Max (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget that I put the number of victims in the lead of the WW II article, as well. I think that the death figures communicate a lot about the scale of the killing. Another alternative would be to define the Holocaust.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
What's this all about? You seem to be misguided about what the lead of a country article should be. We live in the 21st century, you're linked to the topics you need to know more about. And you'll also find that information in the very basic and compact history sections. We don't have to chew down everything down the reader's throat. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

German Asians- German Turks?

How is this a featured article? There is an ethnic ignorance. What is a German Asian? It's clearly Asian or Turk. I'm sorry but it's like neo-faschism in a different way. This section is disputed and needs to be solved. We should who they are. Not Germanize them. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The only reliable source that talks of ethnicity (as opposed to nationality, migrant background, etc.) seems to be the CIA Factbook, so -- if we must have the section on ethnic groups -- I would suggest reproducing that information (without links, which might lead to reinterpretation):
  • 91.5% Germans
  • 2.4% Turks
  • 6.1% other (mainly Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish)
Alternatively, we could remove the section completely. --Boson (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted the latest good faith change. Given the current uncertainty about more detailed numbers and the gap in definition between "ethnic groups" and "groups with migration background", it seems better to stick to the most basic, accepted numbers (CIA), rather then trying to split those groups with WP:SYNTHESIS. GermanJoe (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it is better to show German statistics. All countries have different definition to ethnicity, that's why it's important to note how it is defined. The CIA seems to define all people with German citizenship as Germans by ethnicity. But this site has no sources and no informations about that numbers and not even a year. Germany use the migration background as definition and in the link is everything explained in detail. I didn't try to split those groups with WP:SYNTHESIS. I used just this one source. But the current version is combining material from multiple sources.--Plk (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
German authorities do not define ethnicity differently. For understandable reasons, they deliberately do not publish statistics on (non-German) ethnicity, which is a different matter altogether.. So we do not have reliable German sources for ethnicity. An alternative would be to show figures for migrant background instead of ethnicity, but this would require changing the headings in the infobox. One of the points of an infobox is that comparable salient data are provided in the same format and with the same headings for different countries.--Boson (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Removed the "group" parameter for now. Separating all explanatory footnotes in a separate section sounds like a good idea, but i lack the time to do it for the whole article. GermanJoe (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

Please change "on 7 October 1949, the Soviet Zone became the German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, or DDR)" to "on 7 October 1949, the Soviet Zone became the German Democratic Republic (GDR) (Deutsche Demokratische Republik, or DDR)" because in the latter part of the article, "GDR" was mentioned for the first time without any further explanation or external links. OliverHKU (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Map of constituent states

I have tried to fix coat of arms and label placements in Template:German Federal States. The old map had several overlapping, barely readable labels. Further improvements welcome - it's quite difficult to squeeze so many labels in such a small map. GermanJoe (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Festivities/Celebrations

Hi, a section on German festivities/celebration traditions badly needs to be added to the "Culture" section. Especially the Christmas traditions, Oktoberfest, Karneval and various other ones are globally known. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

All efforts will be futile, as whatever will be written, Nikkimaria will delete it.--Kgfleischmann (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I've already added a mention of this with a link to the main articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you?? --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
There now is the last paragraph of the Culture intro:
There are a number of public holidays in Germany. The country is particularly associated with its traditional Oktoberfest celebrations, its carnival culture and globally influential Christmas customs known as Weihnachten. October 3 is the national day of Germany since 1990, celebrated as the German Unity Day (Tag der Deutschen Einheit). -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material

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

Further, since this article is meant to be a broad summary of the topic, very specific details are undue weight here. They should instead be added to the more specific subarticles. The problem of excessive article size and detail has been raised several times here, most recently in June 2014 - see the archives. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The issue with the FA quality status is seriously flawed. When this status was declared the aim to gear towards, the article totally went down the drain. Large portions were deleted without any consideration to move them to appropriate sub articles. You didn't do that either. Compared to most other country articles, the Germany article's merely a sceleton today. We better get rid of the FA status asap. My 2 cents. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
If there is material that you feel should be included in subarticles, you are welcome to help with that process. I can't agree that seeking to "get rid of the FA status" would be a good solution, though. On English Wikipedia we have guidelines regarding article size and summary style that indicate that broad articles like this one should be an overview of the topic - more detailed than a skeleton (as this one is), but certainly not as detailed as it was becoming. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Stop it, Nikkimaria. There's no consensus for your actions. You're not improving but ruining this article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am working to bring it in line with English Wikipedia's guidelines and policies with regards to verifiability, summary style, and others. If there are specific edits you feel do not approach that goal, I am happy to discuss them, but wholesale reverting (including the readdition of unsourced material) is not a solution. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
While you rightfully think that "unsourced" material can be removed without hesitation, I'd much more like to see you to make an effort looking for sources/references, as there are plenty of, not only in the linked main articles. But so far you seem to be looking to strip off information from this article, rather than validating information you feel should be referenced. By the way, not each and every clause needs to be referenced, as per WP:CS. So I'm looking forward to see taking action and look for references by yourself, instead of leaving us with double the work, reinstating missing information and citations. That'd be great. Thank you and all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, being unsourced is not the only reason to exclude information: this article is meant to be a very broad summary, not to provide minute details on each topic area. Therefore, it might be a more productive use of your time, once you have located sources, to use them to further develop the daughter articles that are meant to contain such details. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
And you're right again. But even using summary style this is not meant to be a mere redirect collection. We need to give the reader the means to develop a comprehension of what makes a country/topic. This is one of the most compact country articles already, considering its population size and global meaning. There's no need to make it a mere flip-book with only rudimentary information. Compare this to the German article in its comprehensive scope. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The German and English Wikipedias have different policies and guidelines: while it's possible I might have missed them, it does not appear that de.wiki has any equivalent to the en.wiki guidelines WP:Article size or WP:Summary style. On English Wikipedia, this is far from being among the most compact country articles. It currently has over 11,000 words of readable prose. By comparison, looking at List of countries by population, 13 of the top 20 are smaller, including all of the ones that are GA or FA. While we need not go so far as making this a "mere redirect collection", this is meant to be a broad summary article, not a detailed description of everything related to Germany. That is why we have daughter articles at all: so that Germany#History has a broad overview, History of Germany has more detail on a more specific topic, then Germany in World War II, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Who is we? Are you using the pluralis majestatis for you? --Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germany/Archive_22&oldid=1192827638"