This is an archive of past discussions about Germany. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have changed a couple of references to 'Federal Republic of Germany', since the latter was the official signatory to the treaties and the term 'West Germany' might be taken to imply a point of view regarding the issue of what territory the Federal Republic of Germany legally comprised at any given time in the past. More changes might also be appropriate here and in other articles about Germany as a whole, as the existence of the "two Germanys" (or "two Germanies") becomes more of a distant memory. The parts of Germany that constituted East Germany became part of an existing Federal Republic of Germany, but they did not become part of an existing West Germany. I would avoid the term "Western Germany" in anything implying a legal personality. --Boson (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 10 external links on Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
I have just modified 2 external links on Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
I posted this over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries but got no response, so I'm posting over on a popular FA to hopefully get some feedback.
I'd like to make a recommendation on the opening sentences in this article and other country articles. Currently, I believe the opening sentences of these articles are too busy with with pronunciation and official name jargon that it hurts readability. (See MOS:LEADALT) For example:
I believe most readers don't care about the pronunciation and official name details. They scan past all of that that until they see "...is a federal parliamentary republic in central-western Europe" so they can keep reading. I'm sure most of you do it too. I am recommending that this article and others on the WikiProject adopt a footnote policy for information like this in the lead. For example:
I think this drastically improves readability and invites the reader in nicely into the lead, instead of asking them to strain their eyes just to read the first sentence. Thoughts? TarkusAB14:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Support B – Great idea! If you can get support for this change on some of the most complex country intros, then perhaps you can go back to the wikiproject and suggest a global change. Let's see if it gets traction here first… — JFGtalk17:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
In principle I support this initiative. I think the official name should appear in the first sentence, though (especially for places like Taiwan and South Korea and East Germany), so I prefer A. If the pronunciations disappear from the lead, maybe we can find a good home for them in the infobox? —Kusma (t·c) 17:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The current GDP figures, as of this edit are formally incorrect (3,423 trillion is rather excessive), so they would need to be altered. I also propose to alter all 4 references to this to avoid duplication and include the source figures for 2015, 2016, and 2017.
Since the year 2017 has a long way to go, the figures for 2017 are forecasts, and should therefore, in my opinion, not be used. However, the previous figures (before the recent edits), which were allegedly for 2015, did not agree with the cited source (IMF 2017 database), so simply reverting is not really an option. I would suggest that we use the figures for 2016 (which would be consistent with List of countries by GDP (nominal), which also uses IMF figures for 2016). Any objections to using the 2016 figures or arguments for the 2017 or (corrected) 2015 figures?
--Boson (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
This edit seems to have restored the old 2015 figures from the outdated source (i.e the old 2015 staff estimates from the old 2015 database rather than the final 2015 figures from the latest 2017 database)? Can we get a consensus here on which year to use and take the figures from the latest database, i.e. here? --Boson (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Pending further discussion of which year to use, etc., I have updated the source to use the latest database. Since the existing figures were out of date, regardless of which year is used, I have provisionally used the 2016 data, but the database query used shows all three years, as I understand it: the final figures for 2015, the staff estimates for 2016 and the forecasts (also referred to as staff estimates) for 2017.
At a later stage, this will probably need to be discussed at a more central venue, since there is probably an interest in keeping all GDP figures for all countries consistent, especially since the rankings link to the lists of countries, and these are also not consistent. Currently, the lists of countries by GDP seem to use IMF figures for different years:
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.
Hey all, I noticed that the infobox is missing a vital section for country infoboxes, and that is the history section. I went through the archives and observed that there was a consensus to remove it in a RfC in March over a dispute involving whether to include the Third Reich. User Eggishorn gave the reason that a "Rough consensus has been established to remove the "Formation" section entirely as confusing and not being being informative." However, I am personally against removing information as a convenient solution to disputes, and am requesting support for restoring that section of the infobox, while also reaching an agreement as to what events to include. My proposal is to include the 1871 unification, the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) in 1949, the joining of the EEC, and the 1990 reunification as events for the infobox, because they are events that most directly influenced the foundation of the modern state of Germany. This is because the 1871 unification formed the basis of the united German state itself, while West Germany is the direct predecessor to modern Germany, EEC membership because the EU is a big part of Germany today, as well as reunification for obvious reasons. Anyways let me know your thoughts, thanks. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Update My new idea is to devote the history section only for the Federal Republic of Germany. This is because it is the current form of the nation of Germany. A good example is India, where its history section starts only after 1947 to coincide with the modern Republic of India. So my new proposal is to essentially do the same. I will include a new sample infobox. Pleas note, since the current reunified Federal Republic of Germany is the same state as West Germany, I will omit East Germany since that state was dissolved into West Germany in 1990. As the article for West Germany puts it: "East Germany voted to dissolve itself and accede to the Federal Republic in 1990. Its five post-war states (Länder) were reconstituted along with the reunited Berlin, which ended its special status and formed an additional Land. They formally joined the Federal Republic on 3 October 1990, raising the number of states from 10 to 16, ending the division of Germany. The expanded Federal Republic retained West Germany's political culture and continued its existing memberships in international organisations, as well as its Western foreign policy alignment and affiliation to Western alliances like NATO and the European Union.". Modern reunified Germany also uses the same constitution. So West Germany is modern Germany. That's why I will focus solely on the history of the Federal Republic in the infobox. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep section out. The information is present in the article, it is just too complicated for an infobox. "Germany" certainly did not start in 1871, but several hundred years earlier, in various iterations. —Kusma (t·c) 09:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Restore section - As I had outlined when I started this RfC, I believe that including the history of a country is a an important part of the infobox including complete information. I'm sure every country has a complicated history but I've never seen their pages missing the history section in their infobox. "It's complicated" is not a good reason. Kusma says that the information is in the article, well isn't all of an infobox's information in the article as well? Why not just remove the entire infobox then? Once again, "it's complicated" is not an excuse - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your criteria. World War II influenced the foundation of the modern state of Germany more than anything else, and it isn't listed. On your infobox point: Some information can be condensed into a couple of lines in a box, other things become misleading. No infobox (or an empty section in one) is better than a misleading infobox. A history section in this infobox will be either too long to be useful, or incomplete in a misleading way. —Kusma (t·c) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep out, but I could be convinced. The information was not "removed", since it is in the article. The problem at the bottom is that "Germany" covers multiple different geopolitical entities as late as 1989, so the explanation is bound to be complex (not that this fact is unique to Germany, even if the reunification was later than in other countries). The problem is that there is no real criterion to choose what would go in there.
I checked four articles on other EU countries to see what is in them. I see no such infobox in France and Italy. There is one in Spain and United Kingdom, called "Formation" (with an "Easter Egg" sovereignty_type entry in the template, but never mind that), and noting major changes in territory of the main entity. I guess this could work in the case of Germany, but I would say that the ECC is not needed, while the Anschluss was certainly a major episode of boundary change. (And here we open the can of worms of NPOV etc., which is why I think we are better off without that). TigraanClick here to contact me15:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's another idea then, how about we focus the history section solely on the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany specifically, and omit the contentious history of Germany overall? A good example would be India's infobox, where the section uses the "sovereignty_type" format and focuses only on the history of the Republic of India from 1947 onward, even though India as a civilization has thousands of years of history. We can focus on the formation of the current Federal Republic of Germany with history entries from West Germany's formation in 1949 and onward from there. I chose West Germany because obviously the current Federal Republic of Germany is the direct successor to West Germany, which absorbed East Germany upon reunification in 1990. So I propose we begin the history section with the formation of West Germany in 1949, and include EEC accession in 1958, and reunification in 1990. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment Was about to suggest that, then read your final comment. In a complex scenario like this, begin at the formal inception of the current republic, unless that yields an insane result, which it doesn't. There's no reason to jump down the borehole that is Nazi reich vs. Weimar republic vs. imperial reich vs. confederation and back into antiquity... Advocata (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Restore section – looking at the example, I am convinced that this is the kind of information that should be in an infobox. Readers would expect it, and the functionality exists for that very purpose. The 'box is supposed to sum up important parts of the article, and it currently isn't doing that. Laurdecltalk11:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep section out. I think the cleanest solution is to leave the section on the country’s establishment or change of status out of the infobox altogether, as previously decided. It is difficult enough to avoid misleading the reader in the body of the article – and much more difficult to do in the infobox. Even for the post-war period, any description needs to avoid giving a false impression about a number of things concerning territory and status. I can see no reason for including joining the EEC. If the European Union were to become a federal state (and Germany ceased to be an internationally recognized sovereign state), that might be appropriate (more like the Republic of Texas becoming part of the Union). If we include the establishment of the Federal Republic as 23 May 1949 and reunification as 3 October 1990, what territory did the Federal Republic include (and when?) and what was re-unified? What about the (“so-called”?) German Democratic Republic, the Hallstein Doctrine, the existence (or not) of two states (two members of the UN)? --Boson (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Leave it out – Providing a handy summary of the formation of modern Germany is tempting, but that would either include too much or too little. Best leave it out. — JFGtalk18:10, 10 June 2017 (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.
Group of Seven/Eight
Since Russia was suspended from the G8 in 2014, making it the G7, should I replace G8 with G7?
Or should it be similar to my edit to Canada?
"Canada is a realm within the Commonwealth of Nations, a member of the Francophonie, and part of several major international and intergovernmental institutions or groupings including the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the G7 (formerly G8), the Group of Ten, the G20, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum."
Update: For now I have used the latter option, if anyone sees anything wrong with my addition, feel free to edit it. Toreightyone (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Amazon rainforest (Portuguese: Floresta Amazônica or Amazônia; Spanish: Selva Amazónica, Amazonía or usually Amazonia; French: Forêt amazonienne; Dutch: Amazoneregenwoud), also known in English as Amazonia or the Amazon Jungle, is a moist broadleaf forest in the Amazon biome that covers most of the Amazon basin of South America. This basin encompasses 7,000,000 square kilometres (2,700,000 sq mi), of which 5,500,000 square kilometres (2,100,000 sq mi) are covered by the rainforest. This region includes territory belonging to nine nations. The majority of the forest is contained within Brazil, with 60% of the rainforest, followed by Peru with 13%, Colombia with 10%, and with minor amounts in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana. States or departments in four nations contain "Amazonas" in their names. The Amazon represents over half of the planet's remaining rainforests,[1] and comprises the largest and most biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world, with an estimated 390 billion individual trees divided into 16,000 species.[2] Owen m 11 (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
not support; The current text ascribes 'socialist' to East Germany; and 'democratic' to West Germany. These summary descriptors being used here consistently, as both correspond to a preferred self-description of the respective regimes. Of course, in each case the 'other side' might have preferred a different descriptor; but it is a good principle in Wikipedia to choose terminology that the persons to whom it is applied would recognise. The specific alternative terms 'capitalist' and 'communist'; which have sometimes been suggested at this point, are variations of 'antogonistic descriptors'; in each case implying the Cold War opposition of 'Atlanticist' versus 'Warsaw Pact'. TomHennell (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of adding links into the relevant Wikipedia articles, to clarify the usage of the current terms. Happy to discuss. TomHennell (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
support; I disagree that "democratic" and "socialist" are logical descriptors for identifying or differentiating these two states, I disagree that these two states wouldn't recognize themselves as "capitalist" and "socialist" respectively, and I also disagree that the "democratic/socialist" distinction follows any kind of preferred self-description for these countries in light of the explicit name of the socialist German Democratic Republic. "Capitalist" and "socialist" correspond to the real-world socioeconomic systems of West and East Germany, meaning it's the most instructive and objective way of describing the difference between the two. Following the "democratic/socialist" convention makes as much sense as calling these states "beautiful West Germany and socialist East Germany." Ryanmps (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Tending to not support. I can see a certain logic in using the same criterion for both states, e.g. "capitalist" vs "communist" (ownership of the means of production) or "democracy" vs "dictatorship" (roles of the people and government, though the two systems have differing definitions of "democracy"), but I don't see a need for any such evaluative characterization. It reminds me only a little bit of Cold War rhetoric (e.g. one name automatically preceded by "peace-loving" and the other by "imperialist"). I don't see "communist" as that antagonistic but, unqualified, "capitalist" could be regarded as a misrepresentation of the social market economy .
so we are mainly talking about 1949 (though the word "states" night have been controversial at that time).
I don't think it was till the (late) 1960s that East Germany explicitly self-identified as "socialist". This may be reflected in the Google Books ngrams,
which also suggest that "communist" is the more usual characterization.
I would suggest removing the two characterizations entirely. I suppose they could be replaced by a reference to the Soviet occupation zone and the other three tones.
Thanks Boson. Personally I support continuing in this opening paragraph with a summary tag for each state; though if there is no consensus, then mutual removal may be the be best course. As far as I am aware, East Germany never self-identified as a 'Communist state', but always as a Socialist state; on the same basis as the other post-war 'socialist states' of central and eastern Europe. The Google findings I suspect simply reflect the skewed nature of that source. The tricky issue is West Germany, and I see no substance in the argument that the two summary tags should be a 'matched pair'. How East Germany self-described has no relevance to how West Germany self-described. So we need to turn to sources; the most salient of which I would propose as being the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. This states that, "The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state". Which might imply the expanded formulation 'democratic, social and federal' at this point. However, elsewhere in the Basic Law, there are repeated references to the Federal Republic as constitutionally required to embody a 'free democratic basic order'. I think it is clear that the term 'democratic' in common use covers a considerably wider field of political arrangements than the Basic Law understands as 'free democratic'. Another possible expansion then might be liberal democratic. Which also links in to the Wikipedia article title for the category of state polity that (to me) most clearly corresponds to that of post-war West Germany. The Basic Law nowhere provides constitutional protection for capitalist economic structures; and indeed West German post-war political structures are notable for facilitating the participation (even in government) of explicitly ant-capitalist political parties (the SPD until 1959, the Greens). TomHennell (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Boson: better to leave out these single-word characterisations. "Capitalist West Germany" sounds almost like Eastern bloc propaganda to me, and not nearly nuanced enough to describe the social market economy. —Kusma (t·c) 09:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that removing the two descriptions might be the best option. One of the problems with the description of one as "democratic" and one as "socialist" is the implication that these are defining characteristics of each, not shared in common. In response to TomHennell's point that the descriptions don't need to be a "matched pair", the current dichotomy already implies a matched pair, falling into a common conflation of western social and economic forms with "democracy" and socialist states as "undemocratic" (again, despite the explicit name of East Germany, the Germany Democratic Republic, if we're basing this article on self-identification). This ironically touches on Kusma's point about Cold War-era propaganda, only in reverse; the pitting of "democracy" against "socialism" was central to the narrative of the Western bloc. Ryanmps (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Counterposing "democratic" West Germany and "socialist" East Germany gives the impression that these are opposite terms. "Capitalist" and "socialist" would be an accurate juxtaposition, even though it's been objected above that that sounds like Eastern-bloc propaganda. If "capitalist" is an unacceptable descriptor for West Germany, then either the descriptors should be left off altogether, or the sentence should be rewritten to note that West Germany was established by the Western Allies, while East Germany was established by the USSR. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to have the opportunity to edit this page, 'cause there´s a mistake in the section "Religion". How can we fix this? Regards, --Tonialsa (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Describe the (perceived) problem here, as exactly as possible, and make a suggestion for a better text, same as with protected articles in deWP. If you're right, someone will probably change it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)18:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Na, das hättest du ja auch auf deutsch schreiben können, Kollege ;-) OK, ich formuliere das mal, dauert bei mir aber einen Moment, so schlüssig kann ich nicht in englisch schreiben. --Tonialsa (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
<quetsch>Definitely not, this is the enWP, it's not right to discuss here in a foreign language, at least it's not höflich. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)08:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)</quetsch>
Here´s my suggestion:
In the section "Religion" will be find this sentence: "Islam is the second largest religion in the country." This is a complete wrong statement, i think, it´s vandaliszm. I suggest to delete this wrong statement. Regards, --Tonialsa (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be correct, and is consistent with what is claimed at Religion in Germany. Do you have sources that suggest otherwise? (Keep in mind that all Christian denominations, both Catholic and Protestant, are all counted simply as Christian). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately im unable to write in english in a way, to understand my intention. In that way, i give up. it can all stay as it is. --Tonialsa (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be dependent of your definition of "religion", for me "Orthodox" is just one flavour of Christian, if you want to look at such subtleties, you have Lutheran, Protestant, Roman-Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, you name it, and of course Shiite, Sunnite, Sufi, Alevite... with Islam as well. If you just look at "the three big "Schriftreligionen", they are only three, and thanks to my grandfathers generation the former second largest, Judaism, is this no longer. If you count Atheism as a religion, it's off course second largest, probably soon largest. So again: What's your problem? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)08:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The 2011 microcensus results linked above by Tonialsa need to be interpreted before using them: The first microcensus question was for membership in an established church and answering that question was compulsive. The answers are shown in the link. Here the answer "Islam" did not count at all, for Islam is not an established church in Germany. The second question (not shown) was for religion and answering it was voluntary. Here many Christians, Muslims, Jews and others did not answer at all, so that microcensus of 2011 does not give a valid estimate for the number of Muslims in Germany, only a lower threshold, see the official interpretation of that microcensus (can be downloaded as PDF, 237 kB). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
" "Orthodox" is not in itself a religion, although it's most often used to refer to a Christian church "
The term also applies to Orthodox Judaism, a traditionalist variation of Judaism. Its birthplace was 19th century Germany, though I am uncertain whether it still has adherents in modern Germany. Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Introduction
Introduction: "The German revolutions of 1848–49 resulted in the Frankfurt Parliament establishing major democratic rights." This is not the full truth. In reality the German revolutions of 1848–49 were a great failure. Germany did not get a modern constitution, but the "Reaktionsära" and the (East German) Prussian way of governance. The (mostly West German) Forty-Eighters finally had to emigrate, Germany lost her best intellectuals.--Tfjt (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC).
The English Wikipedia is much more strongly focused on sources than the German one is. Without a solid source to back your statement, you won't generate a lot of interest here. Samsara20:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It is basic history knowledge that these major democratic rights were passed on 23 Dec 1848 and formally abrogated by decision of 23 Aug 1851 (text), so the leade tells exactly half the truth, which is not the full truth. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Since that opinion corresponds to basic history knowledge; it should be easy to find a notable published English Language source where that opinion is expressed. TomHennell (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The translation in the English wikipedia of "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" - the first line of the national anthem - is a bit off, as "Recht" means law and not justice, as is written in the article. Justice would be "Gerechtigkeit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quambowambo (talk • contribs)
As being from the country I think the truth is right in the middle as both translations are more wrong than right. "Rechtsstaat" would indeed be the correct interpretation, but is hard to translate. Let's have a look in detail ... First a look at the direct translation "Recht" is correctly translated as "Law" in almost all cases, but here it fails because the mere existence of law is not the point. The point is that anybody in the country can expect to be able to be the subject of fair application of the law in his case in the sense that the law is used without regard of the person and is not bent, etc. So the heart of the statement is not the existence of a written code but spreads into the application of that code and into the content of that code (i.e. not putting some people above the law, etc.). The other translation as "Justice" is also plain wrong as is most easily visible in the statement that in court there is not spoken justice but law (sorry, here my English failes but I hope the sense is still transfered). There is no justice (fairness) to apply the same law to all cases (a poor and hungry guy to steal food is not the same as a rich guy doing the same for fun). So neither "Law" nor "Justice" are really carrying the idea that the state should give people a stable and predictable environment in this regard. I'm sure the extremely rich English language does indeed posses a word that would capture the sentiment, but I guess that word would turn out to be old fashioned and not in use today ... JB. --92.195.124.237 (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
A most helpful summary; which suggests to me that 'justice' is the better translation of the term in the motto. Rechtsstaat is commonly rendered into English as the rule of law; or as equal justice under law; but as a single term 'justice' is a better rendering than 'law'. The contrary concept that you present as 'justice' in the paragraph above - identifying justice with fairness - , would tend rather to translate into English as equity. Confusingly English Law recognises two distinct forms of legal remedy - those according to equal justice under law, and those according to equity - the difference being that 'justice under law' is available equally to anyone; whereas 'equity' is available subject to a condition of 'fairness'. You cannot obtain an equitable remedy if you do not have clean hands; whereas a similar constraint does not apply to remedies in common law. TomHennell (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the flowers ;-). Had a quick look at "equity" ... interesting material but right now I just don't have the spare time to get into the rather confusing (for me as an electronics engineer) details of British law. I would also suggest to rather avoid the use of such language as part of a motto as it is obviously intended to be understood by ordinary chaps and no only the educated (whoever that is). Reconsidering I agree that "Justice" is indeed closer to the truth than "Law", but it is far off a correct translation in both directions - it does not include part of the true meaning AND it includes things that are NOT part of the true meaning. The funny thing is that many people here make the same mistake by intuition, especially when the whole thing is explained to kids they are often left with the concept of fairness and later learn the hard way that if the outcome seems fair it is more a coincidence than anything else (On the high seas and before a judge you are in the hands of God ...). I'm always amazed when I find that some words are indeed almost impossible to translate into other languages, sometimes even impossible to explain 100% correctly as it seems that the words we are used to use somehow structure our view on certain subjects in such a way that where one language implements seams of logic in one location another language puts them elsewhere and you really have to think in the other language in order to completely grasp the concept. What then happens is that in 1990 two german guys stand on a bulgarian lawn talking in a mix of German and Bulgarian choosing the words in such a way that they are perfect for the intended expression - having much fun to be able to do so ;-) ... OK, let's stick with "Justice" as the whole thing is not important anyway. I never considered these words to be the "motto" of Germany (like those stupid company slogans) ... they are just the first 3 words of the national antem and more a prayer than anything else sometimes ;-) ... But being from East Germany that's not my history book anyway :-). JB. --92.195.32.169 (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
CET link
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change ((CET)) to ((Central European Time|CET)) and ((CEST)) to ((Central European Summer Time|CEST))
One information is complete bullshit: ethnic groups: 79 % Germans !! 20 % have an immigration background, of whom are many Million ethnic germans (included their children) from east Europe...and additional of the 20% there are many mixed germans (half African, half Italian, half polnisch,...)so ethnic Germans are 85 - 87%!!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLeinweber (talk • contribs) 23:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the definition of "ethnic groups" is something very arbitrary and usually has a huge personal flavour. There are some officially recognised minorities, like the Sorbs and the Danish, and there are immigrants and their offspring (as soon as they get a German citizenship, they are German, full stop). My ancestors have made any segregation along racist concepts a no-go with the usage of this (scientific nonsensical) concepts for putting people in concentration- and death camps. So you won't find so many people (outside some nazi circles) who would condone racial segregation or even just defining such pure arbitrary distinction for some fake statistics in Germany. Passport is all, that counts, everything else is just made up nonsense or folklore. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)10:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Frankly I hate to be put into one category with any Nazis, but a guy who came to Germany last year, looks perfectly like his african ancestors, does not speak a single word in German but got a passport because of his personal circumstances ... well, in my eyes he is not of german ethnicity. And just to make it very clear - that does not imply that he is in any way a lesser person or that he has no right (moral or legal) to be in the country. I'm not saying anything in that direction and, as mentioned above - a hate the idea to mix both concepts (Nazis regarding only certain people as worthy and welcome). But a person does not become german in the ethnic sense just because of a piece of paper. Sorry, but it is not a good approach to say "If Nazis have a given oppinion about anything it is clear that the opposite must always be correct.". Evil people are not always wrong with all they say. It is our task to think freely about everything and keep an open mind when approaching complex situations. Alienating everybody who is not 101% IMHO leads into disaster. JB. --92.195.55.158 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2018
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The captioned assertion is highly-dubious and unsourced WP:OR. I can find no reliable source to support the allegation that the Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is Germany's national bird. Taking that a step further, I couldn't even find a single reliable source to confirm that Germany has ever designated a readily-identifiable national animal.
I did find a few self-published blog sites that pretend to provide "authoritative" lists of national animals, such as einfon.com. That site claims that Germany's national bird is the "Black Eagle" – which at first blush appears more plausible, given Germany's heraldic traditions (discussed below). That web page shows lots of pretty photos of an eagle that appears more or less black. But they lose credibility as a reliable source by identifying this animal as Hieraaetus spilogaster. That's actually the African hawk-eagle – which lives only in sub-Saharan Africa, and which has as much white plumage as it has black. Well, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and dismiss that inconsistency as honest error.
Aha! At the bottom of the page is a link to another page using the same photos, this time claiming that Austria's national bird is also the "Black eagle". That page properly identifies the Black Eagle as Ictinaetus malaiensis. Great! But there is one small problem, one which the author noticed as well:
"Interestingly Austria’s national animal, Black Eagle, lives in Tropical Asia. ... northwestern India ... northeastern Pakistan and the base of the Himalayas through Bhutan, India, and Sri Lanka, and down into Indochina and Malaysia."
Seriously? Umm... no. Finally – so as to remove all doubt – this site also shows that the bald eagle is the national bird of Armenia! Of course, that iconic eagle is endemic only to North America. Armenia... America... same thing.
So here's the deal: the "black eagles" that are national symbols of Germany and Austria are not identifiable as a specific species because they are instead heraldic creatures, dating back over many, many centuries, reaching all the way back to the Holy Roman Empire. Like the Russian "double-headed eagle" and the "purple lion" of the Kingdom of León, the German and Austrian "Bundesadler" are mythic, heraldic creatures that need not be associated to a particular species, just because it has black plumage or the word "black" in its name. As to the golden eagle? I can't explain from where that originates... maybe from the Bundesadler's gold background? Please.
—grolltech(talk)14:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2018
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I don't see why it should. The president is the de jure head of state and nominally appoints the chancellor. Obviously the power is de facto in the hands of chancellor but based on my understanding of German government the president in Germany is akin to the Queen in the UK. The Queen is above Prime Minister in that article as well as in real-life (ceremonially at least). - MTWEmperor 17:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTWEmperor (talk • contribs)
Marx
Not sure why this image keeps getting remove, it is not causing clutter, and for better or worse Marx who was a German philosopher, was a figure whose ideology swept across half the world, and the recent ceremonies in Trier attended by Juncker, show that Marx is rooted in Germany. --E-960 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Regardless of anyone's opinion of Marx, his writings have impacted literally millions of lives. - MTWEmperor 17:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTWEmperor (talk • contribs)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2018
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Jaellee (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Reichtag34.ŚS.Ĝ
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Jaellee (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2019
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Currently the GDP per Capita estimate for 2019 in the info box for both the nominal as the PPP GDP are inconsistent with both the stated source and the values for the overall GDP.
Change to:
GDP per Capita (nominal): 53,276$
GDP per Capita (PPP): 54,987$
I would change it to:
"The largest share of people with a migrant background consists of returning ethnic Germans (Aussiedler and Spätaussiedler, mostly from former Sowjetunion and Poland) such as people from Turkey, Arab countries and former Yugoslavia."
- There is no proof that the ethnic Germans are the biggest group with migrant background and I also do not believe that they are the biggest minority in Germany. The estimates of the Turkish minority in Germany also varies from 2,5 to 7 million people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Germany).
- There are more than 1 oder even more than 2 million people of Arab descant (without all the migrants who immigrated since Syrian war) inkl. circa 1 millionen immigrants since Syrian war.
So there are 2-3 million people of Arab descants living in Germany and possibly more than the number of Yugoslavian people.
- In Germany, a big number of people who have roots in Turkey are Kurds and most Turkish-Kurds see themselves not as Turkish or of Turkish origin, so "people from Turkey" is a better term for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnnc19 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I think "Germans" are no ethnic group. "Germans" are only defined through their Citizenship. Slavs, Danish, Alemans and so on are all German — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicfart (talk • contribs) 22:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "Germany is a very decentralized country" to "Germany is a very decentralised country" because the rest of the article uses "ise" and "isation". 208.95.51.53 (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- 3.4% Turks??? "However, since the first decade of the twenty-first century, numerous academics suggest that there are "at least" 4 million or "more than" 4 million people of Turkish origin or 5% of Germany's 82 million inhabitants (accounting to 4.1 million)(some academics have also quoted the much higher estimates of European officials, suggesting as many as 7 million Turks living in Germany, including descendants)"
There are NO official numbers how many Turks live in Germany. There are only rough estimates. And yes, the "Mikrozensus" in Germany is also not a real census, only an estimate.
- 1.3% Arabs??? This is the funniest part. It makes no sense because 1,3% is only approximately the official number of arab immigrants who immigrate to Germany since Syrian war(!). But most "arabs" in Germany are not immigrants of this decade, most "arabs" live in Germany since many years or grew up in this country.
And even the number of Arab-citizens without a german passport is also higher than this number.
I have just looked at official numbers of Iraqis in Germany. Until 2009, 130.000-150.000 Iraqis have maded asylum applications in Germany. And based on the Data of the Naturalizations and foreigner statistics inkl. my estimate how many people with Iraqi roots are born in Germany with german passport I would say circa 160.000-210.000 people of Iraqi origin live in Germany (without those immigrants since 2010). And when you live in Germany, you will know that most Arabs who grow or grew up in Germany are not of Iraqi descent. Most people are Maroccan or Lebanese. And I would also say there are a similar number of people with Palestinian and also Tunesian as Iraqi roots. And next to that, also many Egyptians, Algerians and Syrians live in Germany (I only talk about the people who are born in Germany or immigrated before 2011).
Overall, I would say there are 3-3,8% arabs living in Germany.
- 34.4% Irreligion??? Really??? For me, this is ridiculous because almost every person in Germany is religious and believe in god. And yes, most are Christian. And the number of Christians have to be much higher than only 60%. You do not have to be baptized or/and go to church or/and be a churchman to be Christian. Yes, circa 25% in Germany are member of the church/churchmen. But most Christians in Germany are not member of the church, only a small proportian.
- Only 5,5% Muslims in Germany??? So few people.... The Fact is that there is no official number how many Muslims living in Germany, only estimates. You do not exactly know how many Muslims living in Germany, maybe it is 7%, maybe 9%, maybe 11%, you do not exactly know.
Conclusion: The list is completly nonesense. I would delete it or replace it with official statistics, for example German nationals/citizens and foreign nationals and than you can say there are .... Turkish nationals (without german passport), .... Arab nationals, ... Sub-Sahara-African nationals, ... and so on.
The same with religions. Jnnc19 (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Like it or not, the sources are there. Those wishing further nuance (of which there is plenty, no doubt) are welcome to consult them. I do not understand on what clear basis you seek a change. MikeLynch (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
On 4 August, I reverted this edit: [4] by Xqq1238, who was at the time evading a block, and is now indeff'ed as a sockpuppet. In the edit summary I explained: "Unsourced changes that contradict the existing sources." [5]. Despite this, on 6 August, the edit was reinstated by Nillurcheier: [6], with the summary: "These are the correct data, also aourced by official statistics"; yet no such sources were given. I've only noticed it now, because it wasn't done as a revert, so I didn't receive a notification. I have now reverted it again as unsourced, and request that the figures not continue to be changed without providing reliable sources, thanks.
The edit changes the figure for the total area of Germany, as well as the figures for the percentages of different ethnic groups. It fails to provide a reliable source for the new figures, and the figures contradict the existing sources.
The existing figure for the area of Germany, 357,385.71 km2, is sourced to a table on the "statistics portal" website, which is a cooperation of all official federal and state statistical offices: [7]. A rounded-off figure of 357,400 is also given on the main website of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany: [8] (English: [9]).
While it may be possible that the figure of 357,578 is more accurate or up-to-date, a reliable source is required to verify it. The source would need to be very strong, in order to justify replacing the citation of the figures currently given by the official statistical offices' websites. Xqq1238 repeatedly inserted this figure, claiming "other wikipedias" as the source:
These edits were all reverted, by several different editors, as unsourced. I checked the German Wikipedia article, de:Deutschland, which does in fact give the figure of 357,578. However, it also contradicts the existing source in that article, which gives a figure of 357,375 in a slightly different version of the statistics portal table used in this article. I was not able to find a reliable source for the 357,578 figure.
The edit also changed population figures in the infobox for ethnic groups as of 2017, by replacing the total population number of 81,740 with a figure of 83,019, thus changing the calculated percentages. The existing figures were sourced to two pages of the Federal Statistical Office of Germany: [15] in English, giving the total population in millions, per year, according to the results of the micro-census. The figure of 81,740 used is from 2017. This page: [16] in German, gives the population of people with a migration background, by country, also according to the results of the micro-census. The numbers used in the article were also from 2017, see the archived page: [17]. Being from the same data source and same year, it seems reasonable that they can be combined in a simple calculation of percentage as of 2017, per WP:CALC. However, the figure of 83,019, given later in the infobox and sourced to: [18] is from the end of 2018. It can't be combined with the figures from 2017, see WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
In the meantime, the second page has now been updated with 2018 data per country, and could be combined with the total figure of 81,613 for that year, given in the first page.
In the first paragraph of the Science and technology section, you state " It produces the second highest number of graduates in science and engineering (31%) after after South Korea.[182]".
Unfortunately, that is not a true statement, although I can understand where you got confused.
According to the Business Insider article that you cite [182], the statistics for Germany are:
o Third highest total number of science/engineering graduates, trailing the US and China.
o Second highest percentage of college graduates majoring in science/engineering (31%) after
South Korea.
I think you would like the sentence to read "It produces the third highest number of graduates in
science and engineering, trailing only the much more populated United States and China".
In the infobox there's a figure of 38% that formerly linked to "irreligion", and just recently the link description was changed to "no religion". I changed that to "no affiliation" and added an explanatory note and a citation of where the number comes from. The source says the figure represents "Konfessionsfreie / ohne Religionszugehörigkeit", which does not translate as "no religion" or "irreligion" ("Religionslosigkeit") but is closer to "no denomination / no affiliation". For another explanation see de:Konfessionslosigkeit (in German).
In Germany, for example many people are not registered members of the Christian churches in order to avoid paying the church tax, but still consider themselves Christians, and up to a third of people who indicated they are not members of a religious organization still indicated that they consider themselves "religious". These people are all included in the 38%. In the 2011 census, only about 10% indicated that they had no religious beliefs. See Germany § Religion for citations.
I noticed today that Balolay has once again changed it to "no religion", without giving any explanation. Based on the above, I've reverted that. --IamNotU (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
For the divided country between 1949 and 1990, a wikilink for East Germany should also be included
At the top of the page, on the note regarding the redirect to this page for "the Federal Republic of Germany," there is only a link for West Germany. I believe that section would be improved some in clarity and usefulness to Wikipedia readers if there was also a link included for the East Germany page.
That's primarily because once the very brief description of "West Germany" is given -- that it is the state of Germany or the FRG that existed between 1949 and 1990 -- it can create some confusion as to what was going on with Germany in that time period, and probably most especially among people who didn't really live through it.
Since this is the page for Germany/the FRG, which supersedes West and East Germany, and includes both of them, then I think it makes quite a bit more sense to include a link for East Germany as well, as it is also part of the Germany/FRG which is this article's subject, then to leave it out. Psalm84 (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I propose standardizing the citation formatting on {{cite}} family templates for full citations and {{sfn}} for short cites. Let me know if you object, otherwise I'll make this change in a few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Demographic trends
This article should include information about the projected future of the German people, specifically what is the decade demographers believe they will become a minority in their own country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyroams (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
It sshould be expressed that after the start of new year 2020 Turkey is the second most populous country in Europe after Russia. The latest official census result of Turkey has been declared on 4th of February 2020. The population of Turkey was reported as 83 154 997. So this number slightly passes the Germany's one. Now Turkey is the second most populous country in Europe. By the area of European Union and its candidate members , Turkey is the most populous country now. That should be remarked ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.88.150.88 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, the text you "trimmed" is longstanding and contains reliable references. Also, it is contextually noteworthy to mention that Nazi Germany during WWII caused the deaths of MILLIONS of eastern Europeans, due to the inhumane policies in occupied territories. Also, the section on lost territories after WWI presents a rather skewed picture, suggesting that the German territorial loses were somehow unjust, ignoring the fact that those ares were taken by Prussia in 19th century, and the majority of the population were not German. Also, it is rather unfortunate that this un-sourced statement was kept "Strategic bombing and land warfare destroyed many cities and cultural heritage sites." but the statement on the death of millions of Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians and Russians was removed. --E-960 (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi E-960, if there are other statements you feel may warrant removal I'm happy to discuss that. Because this is a summary article, it cannot and should not endeavor to present every detail of German history - that material can be more properly contextualized in the more specific child articles, as per WP:DETAIL. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If we need to trim the text in this section, I would take out the reference the 12 million abductees (since most of those people were abducted form Slavic countries), and many of the eastern Europeans who died under Nazi rule died as a result of being worked to death, so those two mentions overlaps somewhat. So this point can be lumped together under the broader term of " under Nazi policies", which is mentioned earlier --E-960 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The consolidation work thus far is great and should be extended ...last thing we want is the article to read like United States. More trimming is needed with some image reducing as well.--Moxy🍁00:00, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Infobox
@Nikkimaria: If there are issues with the amount of detail in country infoboxes, this should probably be discussed at Template:Infobox country. However, hiding nearly all information by default is unhelpful and/or confusing to readers (as demonstrated by the IP question in an above section), including in some scenarios mentioned at MOS:COLLAPSE. Many other country articles have a significant amount of information in the infobox, but none have nearly all of the details hidden by default. As far as I am aware, there was no discussion prior to this change just over a month ago, and it seems Tuvixer had similar concerns. Such a prominent change to a featured article should be discussed first to gain consensus before being implemented. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi S.A. Julio, MOS:COLLAPSE specifically allows for partial collapse of infoboxes like this containing intricate detail. I'm happy to discuss where specifically this collapse should occur and/or what content should be removed from the infobox or body. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that hiding most of the infobox seems unnecessary. It's not really that long fully expanded to begin with, and there are no other articles I know of that has this format. It just causes confusion and requires users to click an extra button for no good reason - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I think such a sweeping change should have been discussed bevor implementing. We are certainly not doing the reader any favours. I recommend reverting. Agathoclea (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Lead
The purpose of the lead is to briefly summarize material that is detailed and sourced in the article body. I have reverted this edit because it does not meet those requirements: it contains material not even mentioned never mind sourced in the text and is overly detailed for the lead of a summary article. Additionally a four-paragraph lead is appropriate given the size of the article. Open to discussing a different organizational structure if good reasons can be put forth for same, but OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't require us to follow. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The physical geography has to be mentioned before the political geography as the physical is the natural geography, and the political is the artificial one. Please don't justify this with the bad geography paragraph, this could easily be changed there too. An own paragraph for the political geography is not justifiable as there are only four paragraphs in the lede. The focus concerning the physical geography should be on where the country lies, and not from where to where its elevation ranges. It seems that you wrote that just for not having to mention Lake Constance and the High Rhine as the natural southern borders. It is uninteresting that Switzerland lies to the south-southwest and almost noone understands that. It seems that the only reason why you wrote that is because you wanted to make the political geography paragraph longer, so that an own paragraph is justified. France, Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands border Germany only along its western borderline, Switzerland only along its southern borderline. Austria is the only country bordering it along two of Germany's borderlines: the southern and the eastern one. More detailed information than north, east, south, and west is completely uninteresting and not suitable for the lede, the purpose of which is to give an overview. Not to mention the Ruhr but instead Hamburg, Munich, and Cologne is unacceptable given that this is the urban area where most Germans live. Most probably no good reason can be given for not mentioning Frankfurt being Germany's financial capital. Frankfurt is more than just the country's fifth-largest city. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
The physical geography has to be mentioned before the political geography as the physical is the natural geography, and the political is the artificial one. Why? The entire concept of "Germany" is a political construct. Not seeing any requirement anywhere that information be presented in that particular order.
Please don't justify this with the bad geography paragraph, this could easily be changed there too. If you want to change the article text with appropriate sourcing, please feel free to do that first. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article.
An own paragraph for the political geography is not justifiable as there are only four paragraphs in the lede. Your edit has three paragraphs. Why?
It is uninteresting that Switzerland lies to the south-southwest and almost noone understands that.[citation needed]. People who are not familiar with European geography can localize a country relative to other countries easier than relative to a lake not easily visible on the map and mentioned in the lead and then never again.
Not to mention the Ruhr but instead Hamburg, Munich, and Cologne is unacceptable given that this is the urban area where most Germans live. Again, not mentioned nor sourced in the article text. If you'd like this to be in the lead that should be done first.
In short, rather than edit-warring, please present policies or guidelines supporting your changes and/or make appropriate sourced edits in the article text before trying to implement your proposed additions to the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Your version of the lede is so bad, it's not acceptable. It is just a big non-info. The German Wikipedia is much stricter than the English one and what do they mention there in the lede: all that you try to prevent being mentioned: Baltic Sea, North Sea, Alps, Lake Constance, Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, the Ruhr, and Frankfurt as financial capital. This proves it's not some weird idea of mine. Please note that you began to change the lede so you gotta discuss this first and reach consensus. What you do is write a bad geography section and then summarize this in an even worse lede paragraph. It then surely complies to the rules with the result that the paragraph as well as the lede are completely uninformative.
It is common practice to talk about the physical geography first. Almost all country-related articles do that. People who allegedly don't know where a country lies, most probably don't know where its neighbouring countries lie, either. Chances are bigger that they know where a sea is. Plus someone who doesn't know where a country lies, most probably doesn't know what "south-southwest" is supposed to mean, either. Yet this doesn't seem to be a problem for you.
Your cardinal directions are completely uninteresting, too detailed, and even wrong. North, east, south, and west is sufficient to provide an overview.
In your version, the lede has four paragraphs, one of which is political geography only. This is not justifiable.
Talking about the elevation of a country in a physical geography section before telling the reader where the country even lies is not common at all. I have never read an article about France which says that its elevation reaches from the Camargue swamps to Mont Blanc, before even telling the reader that it lies between the North Sea to the north and the Mediterranean Sea to the south.
The Ruhr, Frankfurt, and Lake Constance don't have to be sourced because this is common knowledge. And if it has to be sourced why don't you do it. It would be better if you enhanced the very bad geography paragraph instead of insisting having to summarize a bad version of it.
First off, please remember to remain civil in your interactions with other editors. Second, if you think the geography section is "terrible", fix it. The most flawless lead in the world is not much use if it's not supported by a well-written and well-sourced article.
Just to give us a basis for discussion, this is "my" version, and this is "yours". They differ only in the first one/two paragraphs. Presumably the rest of the lead is not in dispute, or do you feel it also "is so bad, it's not acceptable"? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I only meant the first/first two paragraphs of the lede. And Lake Constance is one of the largest lakes in Europe. And i don't think that Germany is in Western and Central Europe, but in Central Europe only. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
List_of_largest_lakes_of_Europe puts Lake Constance at 24th; on a quick look I don't see that the larger ones are mentioned in their countries' leads. Why do you believe this particular lake should be?
I think it should be mentioned because the southern border of Germany can be described through natural phenomena easily and therefore should be, and because it would be the equivalent to the Baltic and North seas in the north. But the southern border would actually have to be described through Alps, Lake Constance, and the High Rhine. But Alps and Lake Constance would still be better than just Alps, also because it were then two in the north and two in the south. Only Bavaria is known for an Alpine region and Baden-Württemberg isn't, so just saying it lies between the seas and the Alps would insinuate a Baden-Württembergian Alpine region. Plus Lake Constance is one of the best-known lakes in Europe, and one of the largest lakes in Central Europe, it is so well-known that it even has an English name. TheCarlos1975 (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Other well-known lakes with English names are not mentioned in their countries' leads, even when they lie on a border. We could specify Bavarian Alps if you felt people were likely to be confused. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
This article has grown considerably since its last WP:FAR, and it does not appear that topics are being summarized to sub-articles. The article is in numerous maintenance categories, with dated statements. The External links are listy. Citations are not all fully formatted and complete. At 13,000 words, better summary style to sub-articles is needed. A good deal of the hard data in the article is more than 10 years old. Unless anyone is able to bring this article back to standards for featured articles, it should go to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I see Nikkimaria is slowly but surely bringing this article back towards FA status. But there is still a ways to go. There is uncited text in the Climate section, and some unattributed opinions in other sections.
*The version of the article that was last reviewed, in June 2011, it was a manageable 7,864 words of prose. Of that, 2,261 words were in the History section.
* The article today is at 10,338 words of prose, which is one-third History, at 3,353 words of prose.
A broad summary of a country should not be one-third History: that is an entire article, and there is an article, History of Germany from which this content can be summarized. Cutting the History back to the size it was in the last reviewed version would help address the article bloat.
There is an excess of images in the Geography section, causing white space. There is text sandwiched between images in the sections East and West Germany, and German Confederation and Empire. The Art and design section lends itself to trimming to reduce the listiness. The media section (and others) have generalized statements of opinion that should be cited. Sections like Media go into more specific detail than is needed in a broad overview and could be trimmed to sub-articles, using Summary style. (There is a tendency to want to add everything in the main article; resist :)
With more trimming, and a bit more citation, the article will be to a size and state that others can look at the prose, citation, and MOS for a fuller review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Getting better ... At 2,700 words, History is still well over a quarter of the article. As a reader, I wonder why I have to read through almost 30% of text on history before I get to anything current. If I want to read history, there is a separate article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria and DrKay: things are looking very good here! Do you all feel it is now appropriate to remove this now from the FAR notifications template? I am working to minimize my watchlist over the coming months, and would like to see what we can wrap up. FAs don't have to be perfect; are we close enough? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The spelling of the pronounciation in the IPA [ˈdɔʏtʃlant] is quite strange. I don't know, if even any German speaking any dialect would pronounce it like that, the normal pronounciation in standard German would be [ˈdɔɪ̯tʃlant]. I already needed to correct that in the German wikipedia anyway, probably due to the fact, that only few people can read and write the IPA properly.--Heinz (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Infobox edit request for internet TLD
Germany also uses the .eu tld alongside .de, would add in
Hindenburg is only mentioned once in this article and is not identified any further than his last name. And his role, presented here, was simply to appoint Hitler as Chancellor. I can read deeper and see about Paul von Hindenburg, but I don't have faith in the average reader digging that deep. This article should summarize the situation more clearly. What gave Hindenberg the power to appoint? He was a World War I military general, defacto dictator, retired and returned to become President in his late 70's. He used emergency powers to prop up a succession of previous Chancellors. Why did he appoint Hitler? Was it an act of appeasement? Some of this might be significant to how Hitler became what he became and how it turned the world upside down. I am not an expert in pre-World War II Germany, I might be missing a few key points here. I shouldn't write this. Someone qualified should. Trackinfo (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
That would be a lot of detail for this article, which is near the WP:SIZE recommendations, and has to cover over a thousand years of history in a single section. CMD (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I want to update gdp (nominal and ppp) estimate from 2019 to 2020.
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. To make an edit request, you must specifically state the content and location in the article of your proposed change, and you must also cite a source in Wiki format. — Tartan357 (Talk) 11:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aasim15:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Please change:
GDP (PPP) 2019 estimate
• Total
$4.444 trillion[6] (5th)
• Per capita
$52,559[6] (16th)
GDP (nominal) 2019 estimate
• Total
$3.863 trillion[6] (4th)
• Per capita
$46,653[6] (16th)
to:
GDP (PPP) 2020 estimate
• Total
$4,589 trillion
• Per capita
$55,306
GDP (nominal) 2020 estimate
• Total
$3,982 trillion
• Per capita
$47,992
please change because this is the new estimates from imf.
source: [19]
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Tartan357 (Talk) 01:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
2019 predictions for 2020 GDP are meaningless
Given what happened afterwards, invoking an old October 2019 estimate as a meaningful update for the 2020 GDP is a nonsense. Sapphorain (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria Well since Germany is a member state of the EU, Germans can identify as European, in the same way that Americans identify themselves. Most people identify themselves with their member state, but it still seems like it would be relevant and fitting to put the optional European demonym there, as any citizens of Germany are also officially European citizens, and can identify as such. AzaanDeen (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not what "demonym" means, as has been explained to you on several of the other pages you've spammed this. --JBL (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
There ain't no United States of Europe yet, imho sadly. So there ain't no real European citizenship yet, as well sadly. So I'm just German, of course as well European, but not in the same way, just like I'm Lower Saxonian, and a human being. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)17:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020
This edit request to Germany has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I’d like if you add the ethnic groups of Germany underneath the official languages and I’d like if you do that for the missing european countries just to name a few like Turkey, France (although we have the nationality of france but it would be preferred if it would added the the ethnic groups), Belgium (although it says “see demographics” it would be preferred if it showed the ethnic groups like Russia), Greece, Sweden (although it says “no official statistics” it would be preferred if it would give the ethnic groups), Switzerland, Denmark and Finland. 70.52.4.32 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, not done because it's not lead worthy information IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I’d like if you add the racial makeup of Germany in the infobox underneath the language section. For example,
| ethnic_groups =
78.7% German (including ethnic German repatriates)
There’s the same information in the infoboxes on the pages of Russia, Ukraine, Poland and almost every european country. So why not add it to Germany as well?? Davidjimnez (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
It’s unfortunate because my I wanted to show the Germany Wikipedia page to my German mother who would really like to know what’s the racial makeup of her country approximately because she wants to know if non-germans have become a majority in her country. Davidjimnez (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
...You've already linked a page that has the information you're suggesting be added; why not just show her that? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Davidjimnez, the article already answers the question in the "Demographics" section: no, non-germans have not become a majority. I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a sentence about the major immigrant groups in that section. You've had an account for four years, if you make a few more edits on some other articles, you could add it yourself... --IamNotU (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you or someone else add the sentence about the major immigrant groups because I’m horrible at coming up with sentences especially in English when my native language is German. If you do, thank you it is much appreciated. Davidjimnez (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Can Nikkimaria or IamNotU add the information underneath the demographics section in the germany page? We need a subsection about the ethnic groups in germany like we have for other countries in Europe. Do we agree on that? It is what I understood that IamNotU wanted. I would like to add it myself but I prefer not, by fear of getting it reverted again. Davidjimnez (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm ok with the article as it is now. I thought that if it's mentioned, it could go in Demographics rather than the infobox. But I don't propose that it should; I'm not really convinced that it's necessary, or not, so I'm not going to add it myself. One problem is that the meaning of such percentages is not really straightforward; does it mean people of foreign citizenship, foreign birth, foreign parents, or partial foreign descent, or what? So you need to provide context for that, i.e. explain Migrationshintergrund, which takes up space. I also don't know how I would write a short summary of the Population Table in the Demographics of Germany article in one sentence that was meaningful. The list given above seems somewhat skewed. There are large numbers in the "other" groups, e.g. the population of south/east Asians is higher than the Polish, and people from the former Yugoslavia area outnumber both Russians and Italians, as do Arabs as a group. I'd prefer to defer to Nikkimaria, who has been doing so much good work on the article lately, and has a better idea of how much space we have for such things. --IamNotU (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I’ve added a sentence (two actually) regarding the ethnic groups in Germany. Do you guys like it? Is it better like this? It’s an information that has been missing for so long on this page and I’ve finally added it. I really want it to be there. NikkimariaIamNotUDavidjimnez (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Could you complete the citation, with a title, website and the like? (There are other citations to this site that you can use as a model). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Davidjimnez, the citation template you added is missing necessary information as Nikkimaria noted, and was causing a red error message to display in the References section. Also, I wasn't able to find the information, i.e. the percentages of the different groups, at the given URL or archives of it. I've removed it for now, you can put it back again if you fix the problems.
I also think the list you gave seems a bit skewed, for the reasons I mentioned above, and probably too long. It says it's "significant ethnic groups", but most of those listed are less than 1%. It seems odd to mention Americans and Chinese, without mentioning the former Yugoslavia for example. You could look at the pie chart in the Demographics article for a more meaningful overview. I might say, for example, something like "immigrants have come mainly from other parts of Europe, especially Poland, and from the Middle East, particularly Turkey" - but I'm not sure, I'd have to spend more time (which I don't really have) looking at the source data. --IamNotU (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Done. Technically, this is a Commons issue, since that's where the vandalism occurred, but I went ahead and fixed it there. RivertorchFIREWATER 00:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Germany. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Jaellee (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: I have now repaired the formatting of the dead URL and tidied the page up a bit. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 07:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. Xjs corrected the values a few weeks ago, two days after you made this request (Special:Diff/879622168). Thanks for reporting, Jaconfronk!--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
