Talk:Germany/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
← Archive 7 |
Archive 8
| Archive 9 →

Contents

Colonizing Bohemia and Moravia?

"During the long stays of the Hohenstaufen emperors (1138-1254) in Italy, the German princes became stronger and began a successful mostly peaceful colonization of West Slavic lands, so the empire increased in size and came to include Pomerania, Silesia, Bohemia, and Moravia."

Could anybody tell me how exactly did the German princes colonize Bohemia and Moravia? These lands were ruled by the original czech Premyslid dynasty until 1306. I keep being surprised by many references to german supremacy over the West Slavic lands on Wikipedia.

so change phrase in question and provide reference. what is the problem? it's not sufficient for npov tag. --tasc 13:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
well I am no historian to change the content of this article, that would probably just produce more mess, but I do know that Bohemia was an autonomous part of the HRE long before 1138, and even under the czech Premyslid dynasty. The problem is, that people who contribute to wikipedia often express their own nation's historical point of view (or even their own nationalistic point of view), like this tale about noble German princes colonizing wild West Slavic lands thus extending the glory of the HRE, which has a lot to do with the idea that these lands were actually ruled by Germans from the beginning and also with the Lebensraum and Heim ins Reich things. But historically, it is an absolute nonsense.

See this note in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bohemia about problems with that article:

You're absolutely right, and it's clear unfortunately that the article was begun (or substantially rewritten at an earlier stage) by someone who didn't give a damn about Bohemia, couldn't be bothered to find out where it was and didn't even know enough to realise that its frontiers are among the oldest in Europe (a millennium apart from an extremely unfortunate interval in 1938-45). Of course it was all originally someone's effort to show that ten million Czechs show everything they've achieved to the greater German fatherland of which they're an organic part. It sometimes takes time to excise the remnants of this drivel, but it'll go. Thanks for raising the problem. User:David Parker.

Should I delete the whole sentence from the article because I feel the whole thing with German Princes colonizing something is a nonsense or wait until someone who knows about the history changes the article?

Well I would not delete it but change it. For example: "partly colonized" or better "many Germans setteld in Bohemia" I think your statments like "references to german supremacy over the West Slavic lands" are a bit over the top. That there have been a German colonization (for sure not by noble princes, but by farmers and craftsmen) is true and before 1945 nearly 30% of the Bohemian people considered themselves as Germans (3 millions) and Germans played an importent part in Bohemian history for a long time (as an not so smal minority). You have only to watch the History of Praha- I had some lessons in architecure about the city. I realy wonder why people always have the tendency to answer a wrong "black" with a "white"- but reality is mostly grey ;-). Well I'am from Germany and I'm very angry about some (few) German wikipedians which use national shit in articles but I have also to say that I have seen at least the same quantity of nationalistic shit from "Pro-Slavics" (or maybe more Anti-Germans) in the English wikipedia. I for example think it makes not much sense to speak of "German or Slavic lands" in the historic context. The Slavics also not settled in central europe ever. For example in Lusatia the Slavics arived only 200-300 years before the first Germans (in many parts like the Upper Lusatian Highlands only 100 years ealier). And before the Slavic people there have been other tribes - Germanic tribes, Pre-Slavic tribes, Illyrer... and today the Germans are largely mixed with former Slavic people and the Slavics are mixed with former German people. So I don't like the "bad Germans conquered our land" attitude, at least not for the times long ago.
You are right, the history is quite complicated sometimes. I don't want to imply that "bad Germans conquered the slavic land", I just wanted to say that disinformation like this leads even the Germans to believe that today's Czech Republic is a "Kunststaat" created on a formerly german land. It is not a problem of Czech people - it is a problem of Germans I met, who, without being nationalists or anything actually believed that Prague was German before 1918.
I don't know about Lusatia, but Czech were in Bohemia by 600, germans by 1200-1300, and they lived together quite succesfully for a long time. I dont want to discuss this particular error - stating that Bohemia became a part of the HRE in the 13th century after some german prince conquered it is simply wrong, and if it seems a little bit nationalist-deformed to me, doesn't matter. I erased the words Bohemia and Moravia from the article.

Combining Olympic Medals of East and West Germany?

I am not sure whether this could be of interest to members of this forum - I created a table with Olympic medal statistics that includes a total medal count for all former parts of Germany (among many other things). I know that such tables are quite common in Germany. Still I'd be glad if someone could find some time to comment on this: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Thanks a lot in advance! Medalstats 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a commentary on the validity of your table: statistics about the former East and West Germanies need to be kept separate. Any discussions of what one or the other country did need to be clear that it is not a combination of the achievements of the two, unless there are other valid reasons to do so (unified German team at the '56, '60 and '64 games, etc.). If it takes an asterisk, a footnote, whatever, but as they were separate countries at the time, keep the statistics relating to them for those time periods separate as well. --Easter Monkey 17:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion on Sources

FK. Why ignore good-faith here[[1]] Apart from being offensive and provocative John Kenney, I think you lumped me in with some of the Article I hadn't written. It is always hard to flip around but I refer you again to source you could have checked with as stated originally at my edit.[[2]] I provided from Dr. Luther ex-chancellor and Finance Minister provided by Arthur Rosenberg .

FK. Welfare , and budgeting deficits are all straight Edgar Ansel Mowrer, I rather think I sourced that at his Artcle. Again good faith would help here. Do I have to ask you whether you actually understand this history enough to edit like that ?

FK. You can see the un-constitutionality at Adolf Hitlerdiscussion as wellas at Fire decree, and I think it behoves you to consider your good faith , to the extent I ask. Please noew at this late stage read the source and then try and replace that which you so provocatively assert as crap [[3]]. Retention of good faith would prevent this slide and adversion to NPOV sourced based stuff, OK ? FK. By the way I used that you quoted Atkins and Tallet now again,in good faith and entirely in the manner in which you limited it -to the post EAct Centre /papal kickback scheme. I do hope not to further piss you, by using it, esp. now where it is spot on topic every which way. Thankyou, and please revert that undone by you here. I am very sorry we have to start again, and I assure you of my good faith, and ask for yours. EffK 23:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK's arguments (even if they were all accurate) are not relevant. I removed his addition as too detailed. This is the general article on Germany. Editors familiar with this article know that the size of the history section has been a matter of debate before. We don't have to worsen this problem by including details, especially when they'd first have to be de-POV'ed. Str1977 10:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It was the 15 December 2005 also that Adolf Hitler had the bargain/quid pro quo/classic kick-back scheme excised by this valiant editor ,and it will seemingly ever-more remain so, along with all links. Ludwig Kaas will not go blue to link, and any breath of scandal , a sourced description of all that began with the conpiracy to institute a totalitarian dictatorship, shall remain un-linked and legally peaceful. Hitler will seemingly rest with another victory, a Wikipedia victory, contradiction (of Shirer, to name one source) will remain. The whole of the Tribunal of 1946, and all the succeeding history will be subsumed, de-linked, and weakened to the point where most relevant factors are hushed. The sordid counter-revolutionary combination which brought Germany to its knees and ruin, will be largely invisible or fragmented at best.
Fortunately the real world continues out-side of the Wikipedia and the history is easily available to the faintest searcher. We can rest in our beds because there is a democratisation of information operating sufficient channels as to confirm our past outside of Wikipedia. The mirrors will mirror and the strange absences and gaps here may not impress over-time. No one can say whether Shirer is right or wrong, and the appearance of legality, Hitler's careful achievement, leaves us all still in a quandary over that legality.
Shirer is wrong, the Tribunal presumably also wrong. Un-constitutionality can be over-taken by procedure and it appears that a country has the right to amend its history to the procedure. All that needs to be done is for the remaining suggestions of un-constitutionality and illegality to be erased from the two or three mentions it gets. Various sanitisations of political back-drop will either remain unlinked to political sense, or cauterised from continuity between period. Gentility of opinion allowing everybody to be a little bit right or a little left, or religious, or transatlantically distanced, or constitutional, combines with distance of time from what is called history.

History become as equally subject to the vagaries of fashion as art in the Art world, where the sense of caducado /perimée or in American, out-of-date, conditions the acceptance. Far from being a civilising and consensual force, history is shield ansd sword, is barrier and defence, bolster against fearful loss of identity, of nationalism, or professional intrigue. Rather than build a whole, it re-constructs alternative history as if to make of itself a new repast for every scholar to be as yet one more Point of View.

Good, so they're all become POV, and so we can guiltlessly choose our own preferred point of view, or dismiss them all. If we are really naive, we can waste our time attempting to communicate what is, after all, really only this, a scholarly POV, in the chicken-coop of Wikipedia. Shirer is old, lets say nothing more about it- or lets shell out the ten bucks for that new block-buster, gazillion seller, by what's his name who's shocking us because he's telling us what we already knew but had completely forgotten. As to Was Hitler a conspiracy, or was it legal? Well, Wikipedia will at this rate consistently say that it wasn't even Hitler, who didn't have a program, which he didn't implement, and did it by telepathy, after drawing lots. EffK 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Extension of Ruhrgebiet

Cologne (Köln) and Düssedorf are not part of the Ruhrgebiet. I should know I live in Cologne… The Ruhrgebiet consist of: Bochum, Bottrop, Dortmund, Duisburg, Essen, Gelsenkirchen, Hagen, Hamm, Herne, Mülheim an der Ruhr and Oberhausen and the districts Recklinghausen, Unna, Wesel and the Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis.

As “Ruhrgebiet” is not an official term no official boarder can be drawn, and a lot of people including germans do not know.

But most cologne people I know would yell at you if you tell them that cologne is part of the “Ruhrgebiet”. I figure most Düsseldorf people would do the same.

Of course it is right to consider this whole bunch of cities with roughly 18 million people living in it as somehow politically, economically and geographically connected. But e.g. language, culture and economics vary. Sadly economics (e.g. unemployment) varies strongly. Don’t know how to put that in correct English words, but pls consider.

Greetings —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MIKQ (talk • contribs) 23:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree that very few ppl from Köln would regard the city as part of the Ruhrgebiet, although in the case of Düsseldorf, the opposition to identification as a part of the Ruhrgebiet is a bit less stressed. My guess is that this has a lot to do with both Düsseldorf's location closer to the Ruhrgebiet as well as over 50 years of history in which Köln regarded itself as a cultural center distinct from both the Ruhrgebiet's industrialism and from Bonn's "governmentalism", and in that "distinct"ion, superior to, and a healthy balance between, both. Tomertalk 08:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd say even Hagen, Hamm, and Wesel are pushing the borders of the Ruhrgebiet. For me, the Ruhrgebiet is bounded on the west by the Rhine, on the east by Dortmund, on the north by Marl and on the south by Hattingen. --Angr (t·c) 09:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Düsseldorf and Köln are surely not part of the Ruhrgebiet. Here is a definition of the Regionalverband Ruhrgebiet, a union of the Ruhr-area: [[4]].--saarnie 10:56, 12 March 2006
Well, I'm from Köln and no we don't usually refer to us as Ruhrgebiet. Düsseldorf on the other hand... Signaturebrendel 06:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Technical/juridical date of foundation

The article has 1871 as the year Germany was founded. This is not wrong, of course, but according to international legal tradition, what is called Germany today was already founded five years earlier in 1866 as the North German Confederation (Norddeutscher Bund), as the Empire was not set up from scratch, but rather came into being as an extension and transformation of the NGC. This should be in the article IMHO. -- mawa 18:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the NGC was a Confederation without a common sovereign, the Empire was a Federation with the Kaiser as sovereign. IMHO this is sufficently different for 1871 to be the date. All the southern German states were not members of the NGC and they didn't simply join it (like East-Germany joined the West German Republic in 1990). Nevfennas 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

@Nevfennas: This is in my opinion not quite accurate. Altough many scholars contend that actually the "Bundesrat", i.e. the representattion of the monarchs of the member states were in a legal and technical sense the Sovereign. Even if one would not agree with that, it is to be noted that the constitutional differences between the NGC and the German Empire of 1871 were mainly a matter of naming: the Office of "Bundespräsident/Bundespräsidium", which was vested in the King of Prussia under the NGC Constitution was renamed "Deutscher Kaiser", the Legislative Bodies "Bundesrat" and "Reichstag" remained mostly the same as in the NGC, the "Bundeskanzler" was now called "Reichskanzler", the NGC Navy was renamed Imperial Navy a.s.o. In terms of international law, and of that Mawa was speaking, territorial or constitutional changes do not affect status in international law. The state (in the meaning of an entity in international law) called commonly "Germany" came into existence 1867 called "North German Confederation", changed Constitution and territory, was now called "German Empire", which after 1918/1919 again changed territory and constitution, with the Nazi dictatorship another constitutional change occured, with another territorial change in 1938. After unconditional surrender the Allies took hold of the "supreme power" in "Germany in the borders of 1937", creating different occupation resp. administrational zones. In the following years a peculiar and unique situation emerged with the inertwined existence of a continued state "Germany in the borders of 1937", with the Allied Control Council as only common governing body, a democratic state called Federal Republic of Germany, a Communist state called Democratic Republic and the eastern territories placed "under Soviet resp. Polish administration" all in factions of that territory. Eventually the Allied powers signed with the represantatives of "Germany" (they were from both the FRG and GDR) the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany, were another territorial change occurred: "Germany", that state in terms of international law, which remained in limbo since 1945 under Allied stewardship, now represented by the delegates from both East and West Germany, from then on no longer held "the borders of 1937", but from then on consisted merely of "the territories of the FRG, the GDR and all of Berlin". Thus making clear that there were no legal rights of that state in respect to the former eastern territories anymore. With that day, the Allied powers renounced all privileges they assumed in 1945 pertaining to "Germany". "Germany" was now a fully sovereign state again. Through all these changes of the last almost 150 years, she remained, in terms of international law, the same entity. Sometimes bigger, sometimes smaller, with different names and Constitutions and for over forty years without representation, but legally the same state that was founded 1867. These are the peculiar ramifications of international law :-) --217.224.231.118 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

need a map with cities?

i think a map showing major cities of germany would be useful.

Super Nintendo?

Someone please fix the main page.

Done. Thanks for pointing it out; it got hidden in the midst of a bunch of legit edits that were going on. --Angr (tɔk) 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

History ToC

the "History" section should be informed by the organization of History of Germany. Seeing that it is rather long already (about 1/3rd of the article), I see no reason to have a separate "100 BC to AD 300" section that does not even exist in the main article. Sure, there can be a discussion of pre-Carolingian times even if there was nothing like a "Germany" back then, but it should be kept short. The "The Germans and the Romans" section in the History article does a good job, linking to the relevant main articles. Avoid Wikipedia:main article fixation and try to shorten the history section here. dab (ᛏ) 13:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would propose to simply cut the "History of Germany" section completely (people should go to the main article about that) and replace it by a two-paragraph thingy explaining that it is complicated, mentioning Germany being no nation state before 1871, but the Holy Roman Empire, mentioning the Nazi era and WWII crimes in one sentence, and division and reunification in one sentence. All the details should be at "History of Germany", and the article here should be cut to below 40k. Kusma (討論) 17:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the history section is necessary. Like Dab, I think it simply needs to be condensed to refer to the main articles of each section for now. :bloodofox: 17:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
In any case, no section of the History part that has its own article should be longer than one paragraph. I would not mind cutting "too much" because the article will grow again anyway. Currently the page is 69K, which is far too long -- I would also suggest to replace the "Economy" section by just one or two paragraphs, for that reason. Kusma (討論) 17:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
That sounds very reasonable to me. :bloodofox: 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Township

For the township in Pennsylvania, see Germany Township, Pennsylvania.

This clause is totally irrelevant, it even sounds humorous. I haven't seen any other countrypage start like that. I'll delete it.

albert einstein was a jew not a german....

was already discussed (archive5), you can be both german and jewish the same way you can be american and jewish. Of course the nazi made that more than difficult in the thirties.Nevfennas 07:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


transportation

what is "design-conditioned minimum speed" supposed to mean? - it looks like a google translate of some sort. The rest of that section needs looking at. I found a couple of things that did not sound right and tried to fix it Agathoclea 17:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

News: German Wiki Notice Board

Since it is much needed, I created the Wikipedia:German_Wikipedians'_notice_board. I am not a German, and (so) it needs people of the German wikipedian community to bring it up to scratch. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) Image:UW Logo-secondary.gif 02:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Frankfurt pictures

Is there a need to have 2 pictures showing the skyline of Frankfurt? (long panaroma picture, and below there is one on the right side). I think one of these pictures should be removed, as they almost show the same building it's a repetition which is not necessary in my opinion.

I moved the second, non-panoramic, Frankfurt skyline picture. Both pictures, but especially the panormic picture are great and make the article a lot more appealing to visitors. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 20:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

vandalizm by User:62.153.128.73

In among the abuse was a valid statement though: "folks, there isnt even one sentence about the holocaust in the history section!!"

which I think should stay written.

Agathoclea 12:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Celts

[5] made some changes to the article I don't think are fully factual, but I don't have enaugh references to make a balanced correction. To my knowledge a stock of Celts stayed in Bavaria and mixed with everybody else who got stuck there (Fusskranke). Yes some Celts got pushed to Britain, but equally they settled in Gallicia (some Celts came at a later stage from Britain to Galicia to establish a colony but they got soaked up by the ones already there). Agathoclea 22:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

my revert to "provisional" capital

I did a bit of googling on the German expression, as I remembered it from (civil-servant) school (Staatskunde). Unless someone can find some references to Berlin as "de-jure" capital I can't let that stand. Bonn was termed "endgültig provisorisch", which at the time meant that the haggle between which city should act as capital (the other possibility was Frankfurt) was decided until the "re-unification" - the goal of the Grundgesetz (which in itself was provisional for the same reason).

Morally Berlin "should have been" but that was impossible due to its status. In fact AFAIR East-Germany having East-Berlin as capital was a bone of contention with the west.

Bonn was infact chosen due to its insignificance as a city (together with room for the facilities) to highlight the point of being "provisional". Agathoclea 12:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Error requires correction (I think)

I'm no WW2 historian, but I have serious doubts that "Sean Duncan Brophy" was an advisor to Hitler. I can find no refernce to this name except in the wikipedia page and a copy.

The source seems to be 02:48, 14 February 2006 67.68.68.92 (→Third Reich (1933–1945)


69.168.160.197 06:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

removed Agathoclea 12:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I know some about this guy, Adolf and I've never herd of Sean in reference to him before. Who is he? Enlil Ninlil 03:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Germate

just removed the following: "The word Germany is derived from the English word Germate, in reference to the many countries in Europe that have Germanic ancestors.". The poster seems genuine (WP:AGF), but I could not find any references in context. Only possible reference I found was in a language I could not read. I leave it here for someone else to have another look. Agathoclea 12:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my very bad misspell, should have been "germinate" not "germate", I dont think I should do this myself after my failed previous effort but I would love someone to find out the origins of the word "Germania" which Germany is derived from. I cannot find this info on the net but have read books that seem to indicate it comes from the latin "germinate", ie:root, seed etc, which would seem accurate as this nation is truly the ethnic heart of much of Europe(not to mention the future Germanic peoples who populated North America, Australasia, & parts of South Africa, although this is irrelevant as the term was coined long before these new worlds were discovered). As a half German myself, Ive since discovered my English & Celtic blood has its roots in Germany also. The English side is obvious, but the Celts seem to have originated in Germany also. Not to mention the Germanic blood in much of France, Northern Italy, Western Poland etc.(Khanada 13:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Only thing I found was this ""Teuton," 1530, from L. Germanus, first attested in writings of Julius Caesar, who used Germani to designate a group of tribes in northeastern Gaul, origin unknown, probably the name of an individual tribe. It is perhaps of Gaulish (Celtic) origin, perhaps originally meaning "noisy" (cf. O.Ir. garim "to shout") or "neighbor" (cf. O.Ir. gair "neighbor")." Agathoclea 17:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
There were two roman provinces named germania inferior and germania superior during the reign of Emperor Augustus. According to the German language all names of Germany roughly pronounced german (contrary to e.g. the french allemand) have their origin in the historical name of the region. So Germany is certainly derived from latin, not english. Nevfennas 19:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Or there is this as well from wikipedia under Germanic peoples;

"Latin Germani is first used by Julius Caesar, and is thought to be a loan from the Celtic name for the Germanic tribes: the word is an exonym. There is also a Latin adjective germanus (from germen, "seed" or "offshoot"), which has the sense of "related" or "kindred" and whence derives the Portuguese irmão and the Spanish hermano, "brother". If the proper name Germani derives from this word, it may refer to the Roman experience of the Germanic tribes as allies of the Celts." (Khanada 01:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

    • The Alamanni were a german tribe arround the early Roman Empire period, hence the name, so the name Germany/Germania is either Gaulish, Latin, or old German.

First it was used as the Roman provinces germania inferior and germania superior and to the people. Tacitus 56-117bce wrote a book The Agricola and The Germania the former about a Roman general in britan and the Later about the people. Enlil Ninlil 04:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

    • As the name 'Germany' is an exonym perhaps its origins chould be included as this is an English article & this is the name this nation is known as in English, perhaps mention all possibilities of its origin & mention it is not know for sure how this name originated, I dont want to do it as I did such a bad job on my first attempt, but if someone else would that would be great! (Khanada 04:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC))
    • It seems most likly that the name German/y came through Latin, as it had a strong influence, or maybe the earlier Germanic languages as they came to the UK. How about Celtic and it was still in existance in the Uk the as now. Can someone find out. Enlil Ninlil 06:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Error in potential German reunification

"Stalin also offered German reunification in 1937 borders if Germany joined the Warsaw Pact, but this was rejected by West Germany."

The date here is clearly wrongas it is pre WWII. I doubt if it was 1947, since the BRD and DDR were not formally declared yet and the Warsaw pact was not established until 1955. And It can't be 1957 (or later) as Stalin died before then. So please can someonoe correct this sentence.--Timdownie 01:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is supposed to read something like "in the borders of 1937". Lars T. 16:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Except that it's not true at all. The 1952 Stalin note never offered the prewar borders in exchange for membership in the Warsaw Pact (founded 1955) but German unification in exchange for neutrality; furthermore, most western diplomats, and Adenauer, thought he was bluffing. ProhibitOnions 17:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusing wording

"In 1530, the attempt of the Protestant Reformation of Catholicism turned out to have failed"

What is this supposed to mean? I was going to re-word it but couldn't come up with anything better, since I don't remember my European history well enough, but shouldn't it be the counter-reformation? A lot of this section reads like a Google translation, or something written by a non-native English speaker. Oogabooga 16:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The reformation (as the name implies) was not an attempt to create a new church, but to change the existing (Catholic) church. This failed, leading to a split of the Church. --Stephan Schulz 18:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Absolutley right Stephan. Martin Luther was at first actually a strong supporter of the pope and wanted to reform the catholic church, he initially never intended to form a new church. [MH]

Kreuzberg - Second largest Turkish city in Europe ?

Im a bit skeptical about this statement. A lot of Kreuzberg's "Turks" actually belong to Turkey's minority groups (Kurds especially , georgians, albanians, armenians...). Its similar to how ukrainians, belarusians, kazaks etc, are often dubbed russians in many parts of the world although they are distinct peoples.

There are other major cities in the European part of Turkey besides Istanbul - Edirne, Kirklareli, Tekirdag. Plus Bulgaria's biggest minority are Turks (Bulgaria was part of the Turkish Empire until around 100 years ago). Turks are an overwhelming majority in the city of Kardzali and have a large presence in Plovdiv, Burgas and Shumen. And also, Nicosia(the north part thats part of the breakaway Turkish cypriot state is almost 100% Turkish. Though not geographically in Europe, Cyprus is considered European (part of the EU). Hope ive gotten my thoughts across-Teccen 04:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not "similar to how ukrainians, belarusians, kazaks etc, are often dubbed russians"; the people counted as Turks in Berlin are those who hold Turkish citizenship, which generally includes ethnic Turks and Kurds. People of the other nationalities you mention are less likely to be taken as Turks, and generally hold citizenship of these countries, even if they might also be Turkish citizens.
The same claim is also made for Berlin as a whole, which is somewhat more credible. ProhibitOnions 10:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. I looked up the Kreuzberg article and it states that the entire population of Kreuzberg is just 146,884. According to the 2000 Turkish census, the population of Edirne is 119,298 (~120,000) and that of Tekirdag is 107,191 (~110,000). These numbers have in all probability gone up since then. It seems a bit unlikely that German Turks in Kreuzberg number over 120,000. Is it alright if I go on ahead and change Kreuzberg to Berlin:) Teccen 12:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)?
I think its is still incorrect to state that Berlin is the second largest "Turkish" city in Europe. Ankara, Turkey's capital, has over 4 million people, making it the second largest Turkish city in Europe, as many still consider it being in Europe, even though it is actually in Asia. I think stating that Berlin is the second largest "Turkish" city in Europe, while it may be technically correct, is too much of a hyperbolye for an encyclopedia article. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep, this sort of claim is quite often made (ie, "Chicago is the second-biggest Polish city"), but obviously there are plenty of cities in Turkey that have more Turks in them than Berlin does, but that 95 percent of the landmass does not count, as it is not "in Europe"; if there is another city in Europe proper with more than 200 000 Turks (many of them born in Germany, Kurds, half-German, etc.) then it's not even empirically true. However, it might be worth mentioning that the claim is often made, without commenting on how true or verifiable it is. ProhibitOnions 23:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Economy

I updated the German GDP as per the IMF 2006 list. That list can be found at: -Doug Johnson

Hi Doug! I don't think it smart to make PPP comparisons for whole economies (as opposed to per capita) as the country's GDP shows things like power, size of the market, worth and so on... Using PPP for the whole economy distorts reality here, as China for example seems much richer than it really is. With PPP money you can't buy anything on international markets, no oil, weapons, commodities, UN fees, bribes (if you like bribing foreigners), products and so on. Which also means that your economical footprint in the world is not PPP but nominal. Therefore (and about Germany in this case): Leave the PPP for the per capita (to know how rich the average German is), but take the nominal whole economy GDP to reflect the real economic footprint of Germany. (On the per capita level PPP is great, as it shows the real living standard in that country and allowes comparisons to other living standards... )

POV in Division and reunification?

Hello. There is a delicate issue here which is not unique to the case. It is the problem of regions or cities whose "true" nationality is under dispute. The paragraph noted as POV mentioned Breslau/Wraclav and others. In my opinion, most of it would be right, except for saying that the three cities in question Breslau/Wrocław, Königsberg/Kaliningrad, Memel/Klaipėda, were in German land since their existence. I assume a discussion about that would be endless (and pointless). I suggest to drop that sentence. The paragraph makes already a case with a number of facts: two million Germans died in the war, many German cities were in ruins, and the German land was reduced drastically.Miguel Andrade 02:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Although occassionally a particular government or individual self-consciously built a city such as Washington D.C., St. Petersburg (Russia), or Brasilia, many settlements evolved gradually and changed control frequently so it might be best to record changes in control without attempting to assess "true" ownership.Wikist 03:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust has been deleted again

The Holocaust has been deleted again. Sad but true. What is the informative value of this article without including the Holocaust? I will add a POV warning as clearly some editors want to make readers believe that this was not (an important) part of Germany's history. gidonb 00:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Even though the term Holocaust is not used, the article contains the following section:

<<This new regime also enacted governmental policies directly subjugating many parts of society (Jews, homosexuals, "undesirables", Roma, and the disabled amongst others) as sub-human and unworthy of participation in German life. As such, people included in these groups were discriminated against, jailed, beaten, killed, forced to move into ghettos, stripped of their jobs and possessions - all with explicit authority from the government to do so. >>

Perhaps a few additional sentences should be added briefly describing the Holocaust, however you have to understand that the main country pages are meant to only present an overview of the nations, and you can find more information by going to the subsection of interest, for example in this case you could go to Nazi Germany where as the article instructs you: <<See further discussion of Nazi Germany and the concentration camps created to enslave, jail and murder the people considered undesirable by the Nazi Government.>> In my view the article is sufficiently balanced. TSO1D 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the history of Germany in this article is extremely detailed, only the Holocaust has recently been deleted. This is a disgrace. gidonb 02:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that the level of detail is too great, a point easily illustrated when comparing the overview with the full text of the subjections. The Holocaust is accorded one paragraph in the Nazi-rule section and I believe that that is adequate for the main page. Adding a few more sentances to complement some of the infromation might be proper if crucial broad concepts have been missed, however adding extra paragraphs is not necessary. The basic distribtion of information in the article, proportion-wise conforms to the standard employed in other sources on European and German history. TSO1D 03:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


I find it POV to insist on mentioning it out of proportion on this article. It is sufficiantly mentioned and the relevant subarticles go into far greater detail then any other period of German history. Agathoclea 07:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added a link to the Holocaust in the "see further" part of the section. Given it's influence on modern Germany and the overall level of detail of that section the term should be mentioned Nevfennas 08:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I am off for a day or so but I am sure no-one will object if you propose to re-write the sentence to include the term if it does not turn out to be an essay. Agathoclea 11:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No I insist to mention it in proportion. Some editors insist to take it out of proportion by eliminating it. The smallest detail of German history and society may be mentioned in this article, only the Holocaust gets eroded every time. gidonb 12:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The section quoted as referring to the Holocaust does not, in fact, mention the Holocaust at all. It only gets up to random killings and moving Jews into ghettoes, rather than the actual gas chambers. Given the extent to which the Holocaust looms in the background of pretty much any German self-assessment in the post-45 era, there ought to be some specific mention of the Holocaust. I would think this would be true even if the history section were much, much shorter than it is now. Given the length of the history section, a sentence or two is the very least we could do. john k 14:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I also object to Gidonb flooding the article with details on the holocaust. The history section covers more than 2,000 years of history, of which the 12 years during the "Third Reich" constitutes less than 0,6 percent. The section on the "Third Reich" is already way too long (approximately 15 %). Even if we need more stuff on modern history than early history, the section should be shorter than the section of, say, "Division and Reunification" which is covering much more history (45 years). A section covering only 12 years can only be a short section, details on the period are discussed in separate articles. The current version addresses persecution of various groups and has link to the holocaust article. No more is needed here, because this is not the holocaust article, but the Germany article.

I see no massive sections on genocides across the globe in, say, the United Kingdom article, or any other country articles.

Unfortunately, germanophobia is alive and well in some groups, and this article needs protection from such POV pushers.

Anyway, it is completely untrue that "the smallest detail of German history and society may be mentioned in this article". Look at the culture section, it does only list a very few names and there is no detailed dealing with German culture at all. Alixus 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a wild personal allegation that is totally untrue. I have not enlarged the section on the holocaust, I protected it from others deleting or diminishing it. Anyone can check this in the edit history. We have a policy against personal attacks. gidonb 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You are the one adding to the section, it was not there before you started flooding it. Please stop flooding the section. It needs to be shorter, not longer. Alixus 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Please stop this un-Wikipedian behavior. gidonb 19:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, get lost already. The holocaust has been appropriately detailed in the relevant article and it is, considering the 2000 year history of the region now known as Germany, a very minor part. I do not see a seperate section on race segregation and slavery in the USA article, or on the murder of countless Japanese civilians by dropping nuclear bombs on them, or the systematic genocide of the Native American people. In fact there are only TWO mentions of the word "slave" at all, so go bugger off and clean out your own house! The States got enough history of their own to be ashamed of and you do not object to politely dropping THAT to the REAL articles on the subject. --TheOtherStephan 01:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Why does the Infobox include these lines in edit mode, but they don't show in the main article? They should either be deleted or translated - they have some untranslated and semi-translated German.


|
establishment of the Weimarer Republik = 9. November 1918 |
establishment of the Bundesrepublik with GDR = 3. October 1990 |

Art LaPella 01:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the lines produce no visible effect and should be removed. TSO1D 02:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

German music influence

Rammstein and such techno/trance/industrial music has never influenced Germany's music. Music like Bach did. Those other groups like Rammstein border on neo-nazi influence and most of Rammstein's songs are on the sick side. --Scott Grayban 14:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

True, as I German, I do not like the association made between Rammstein and Germany myself. While I am not an expert on the subject of music, I can tell you that electronic music did originate in Germany. Kraftwerk in the early 1980s is most often credited with being the first electronic music band and until today much of the electronic music around the world does come from Germany and the Benelux. I know this since there was an exhebition in the Germany History Museum in Bonn in 1999 which showed how electronic music had its roots in Germany. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I know that techno started someplace in the EU. Some claim it was Belgium others say Germany but the point that I was making is that techno and all those other forms of music did not influence Germany's music at the start which is what the article is about. --Scott Grayban 08:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No quite obviously not the start as they developed in the late 20th century; thus they could not have influenced early German music. Regards, Signaturebrendel 08:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Equating Rammstein with neo-Nazis? Wow. Do you think that Germans still hail the Fuehrer too? The Frederick 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag & Bohemia

I removed the tag, as no alternative wordings were even tried. Also it was most unfortunate that all mention on the talk-page was a) unsigned (and messy) b) placed in a total wrong section iE at the top so that no-one would think a new topic was started.

Anyway some valid points to look at I think. I found for example that in that time settlement by Germans was activly encouraged by the Bohemian ruler. What I have in the back of my mind - applying to a later period in time - is that those areas were never technically part of the German empire dispite the fact, that its rulers also had lands in the empire and they were Lehenspflichtig ( is that a "fief"?) to the German emperor. Agathoclea 22:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess. Actually, the Bohemian kingdom WAS a part of the empire from the 9th century. Your information that they were Lehenspflichtig to the German emperor is correct, but I think that you didn't get the fact that Bohemian kings also could become German emperors (as it happened with Charles_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor for instance). However the fact that this (non-german) state belonged to the HRE serves some nationalists as an argument that the land was actually german before 1918 (and was stolen from the german people by the evil slavic hordes). Because of this, please do consider any inaccuracy in historical information about this sensitive. ackoz 18:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I found a graphic in a book just a couple of days ago with Bohemia part of the empire. Nationalistic views are always worrying, especially when trying to apply modern nationalistic views on ancient events. There was no German "nation" as such until much later - Luther and his bibletranslation standardized the languages and thereby layed the foundation for bringing the various states together. You will find a few things here: a) people don't know much about the time/area in question so they favour the status quo b) people have a slight bias and will need a little convincing that something that sounds "wrong" is actually right c) the rest can't be bothered about "details". I'd suggest you change the worst sentences to something more correct - without making it sound biased the other way and then if someone reverts you make them discuss why here (WP:BRD) but don't get into any revert wars. -- Agathoclea 23:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do we call it Germany?

When its name is really Deutschland. Sorry if I overlooked this in the article. Buzda 22:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? Because we're on the English Wikipedia and usually use English names for articles. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
See German_language#Names_of_the_German_language_in_other_languages. I would agree that some mention of this issue should be in this article. -lethe talk + 22:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, those are the names of the language. This article is about the country. The native word Deutschland is mentioned on the very first line of the article text. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I meant my comment to be a reply to the original post, not to you. I gave the link trying to help him understand the reason why we have a different name for the country of Germany than the Germans themselves do. If you don't think that knowing the different names for the German language is relevant to knowing the reasons for the different names of the German country, then please forgive my presumption.
I do still think this article would benefit from some mention of the etymology of the different names, and the reasons for the differences. -lethe talk + 23:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Lethe, yes, you're right, it would be useful to write about the origin of the words Germany and Deutschland. Something like the section Name of the article about Dublin. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there definately needs to be an origins of the name "Germany" section in this article. Buzda 01:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
see Talk:Germany#Germate -- Agathoclea 23:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
List_of_country_name_etymologies also explains the names for Germany. There was also a longer discussion last year or so on a talk page; I think it may have been this talk page, if someone wants to search the archives. Perhaps it's worth a page of its own. Saint|swithin 06:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Found it myself! Talk:Germany/archive7#Naming Saint|swithin 06:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of information about this. I'm going to create a Names for Germany article; I'm starting work here. But there should be a little paragraph at Germany too. Saint|swithin 08:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Expand tag

I have removed an expansion tag from the Third Reich section. I don't think a single byte should be added to this article as long as its size is above 40k. Currently, it is 85k, MUCH TOO LONG. Only the subarticles should be expanded, this article here is an overview and already goes into far too much deatil in the history sections. (The economy section is also far too long, but the history section is the worst offender). The article should be written in Wikipedia:Summary style, not be comprehensive, that is impossible. Kusma (討論) 20:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the old text on the holocaust and is proportionate to rest of the indeed lengthy history of Germany. I only improved the last sentence of the paragraph. The new diminished holocaust is totally disproportionate and very unflattering for Germany and the Germans if you compare it to the courageous country article on the United States and others. I am partially of German descent and a proponent of courage so I should care. Diminishing the holocaust is really a slap in the face for Germany and Wikipedia. Regards, gidonb 00:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
So would it be reasonable to first shorten the rest of the history section (for example, by cutting most of the ridiculously long section on the early history of the Germanic tribes and stuff like that) and then adapt the length of the holocaust section accordingly? Kusma (討論) 02:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well the holocaust section has just been shortened. The Herero genocide has just been deleted. Only the rest keeps expanding really. But yes, I am in favor of conciser and clearer language. gidonb 02:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the whole colonial history of Germany could be deleted from this article. The section on the German Empire shouldn't be longer than two paragraphs. My hope is, if all the sections here are really short and have no details, maybe that will entice people to actually read the subarticles and add the details there. The current article is ridiculously long and far too much focused on history. Kusma (討論) 14:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the history section should be much shorter, though I am against deleting entire parts of the history. I have shortened this chapter quite radically and some other chapters more lightly in the past. They all grew back very rapidly. The amount of detail went as far as to discuss for example the exact whereabouts of Alfred Einstein long after he denounced his German citizenship. One very active user wrote in the past that the purpose of the extremely long history section and as diminished as possible inclusion of the holocaust is to drown that part of German history away in a sea of details. This statement came after the recognition that a complete deletion was not possible anymore, although the erosion is continuous without a clear bottom. You can imagine that I was shocked by that statement and several others. I refer to it shortly on my user page. gidonb 15:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You mention "the courageous country article on the United States and others". What others are you talking about? Lars T. 22:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I think Chile is another example of good practice. Its criminal regime murdered thousands, not over 10 million people, but it is in there with specificity. Cambodia with a very large murder campaign does not hide anything either. Sorry for the late answer. gidonb 22:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Now compare this to France, United Kingdom, Spain, South Africa etc. They do mention some of the dark spots, but nothing about any victims. Lars T. 19:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you tell me for all four countries and the etcetera part what particular genocides you were looking for? Where they in the 20th-21th century or earlier? Grossly speaking, how many people were murdered in each genocide that you were looking for? Was it around ten thousand, hundred thousand, one million or ten million for each genocide? gidonb 01:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You insist on genocides? Find any mention of the Armenian Genocide in the Turkey article. The Spanish Conquistadors actually eliminated whole people. The history of French and esp. British colonialism is full of massacres.Lars T. 22:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions. I did answer yours. gidonb 11:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You completely ignored why I asked those questions. Evasion tactic noted. Lars T. 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It is obviously not an evasion tactic as I answered your first questions. I will answer your new question after you have answered mine. Although I am always happy to begin the work, there should be some degree of equality in discussions. My time is not less valuable than yours. gidonb 21:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You are much too literal. Do you know what a "rhetoric question" is? Lars T. 20:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Sometimes it is a relieve to hear that people do not mean what they say. This is one of such cases ;-) Regards, gidonb 16:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The region was known as Germania in the old days. This is where the English word comes from. I'm not sure how the French came up with Allemagne though...

That comes from the alemannian tribe, see German language.Nevfennas 05:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Warning

This article now creates the impression that the Holocaust is a marginal detail in the German history and fails to mention that people were murdered in the holocaust. gidonb 18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I put in a concise, but, I think, adequate text now, and have removed the POV tag as a consequence.--Stephan Schulz 19:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Herero

I regret to have to address this issue again but apparently Gidonb wasn't convinced by the previous discussion. Hence I've moved the sentence here for further discussion (but not for speeches such as this one)

In the years 1904-1907 German troops killed most of the Herero population of German South-West Africa in the Herero Genocide after a rebellion."

As I said before, it is uncommon for texts about the history of Germany to include it and the Genocide of the Herero as wikipedia and Gidonb call it is, though I do not deny that it was a genocide, is usually known in them as "Aufstand der Herero" (Uprising of the Herero). Just because Gidonb and some historians see a connection to the Holocaust, doesn't mean it should be stated like there was a connection or like it mattered in the context of the German Empire. Article's on the net usually reflect this mainstream view:

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Just when I thought there was a source supporting Gidonbs's vision, (because that source included colonialism) it still didn't.[12]

And some more [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Let's just focus on the more famous sources:
[18](KMLA)
[19][20](Columbia dictionary/Bartleby/encyclopedia.com)
[21][22](Britannica)
[23](Catholic Encyclopedia)
[24][25](MSN Encarta)

Zero inclusion. Not even in the gigantic history section of Encarta. I shouldn't have tried to make a compromise with the wording ([26]) but simply remove it as element of bias in the text, which it certainly is. The German Empire section is a good example of the size that the other sections should be reduced to (in summary style) as well, an idea that Gidonb, too, seemed to share last summer. Sciurinæ 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of reducing all the history texts of Germany in size. I am against the very "selective" reductions that are going on. It creates distortion. See also my comments on my talk page. gidonb 02:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore the KMLA encyclopedia states explicitly:

C.) German Colonial Administration

In it's colonies, Germany established an infrastructure - an administrative centre, roads, railways, hospitals, schools. A plantation economy was created, suiting the needs of the mother country, rebellions brutally crushed. When the HERERO rebelled in German South West Africa in 1906, they were driven into the Kalahari desert, where most of them died of dehydration. Germany's colonial administration overall was deficitary, the expenses outnumbering the revenue. [27]

I have not checked the other sources. gidonb 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I quickly looked through a few: the refence to http://www.germanytours.biz/german_empire.html is a circular claim becuase it is Wikipedia's own article included in a mirroring site. gidonb 02:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Allegations by User:haham hanuka of PoV Pushing by User:Gidonb and User:Noon

They have a long history of spinning this article ([28]), I really don't know how to deal with them... --Haham hanuka 13:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Accusing your colleagues of POV pushing is a very serious personal allegation. We have many policies against such rude language. It is clear that there are differences of opinions on the desirable content for the article between many users, but that is no reason why I should suffer personal and daily attacks from you including false allegations on administrator noticeboards and in the edit history you linked yourself. Please stop your un-Wikipedian behavior immediately. gidonb 14:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Could we please stop talking about user behaviour and address the issue of how to improve the article instead? Thank you, Kusma (討論) 14:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Please go ahead, if possible under a different header. I did respond to your last comment. gidonb 14:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Again user User:Gidonb and User:Noon expanding this section (see:Page history) way too much.

I have changed it to:

The regime enacted governmental policies directly subjugating many parts of society: Jews, homosexuals, Roma, the disabled as well as political opponents. This eventually lead to a systematic policy of extermination carried out on an industrial scale. According to the best current estimates, Nazi Germany killed between 9 and 11 million people in the Holocaust.

--Haham hanuka 15:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep I think the number should be included. Anyway can anyone make suggestions how to trim the other sections? Agathoclea 16:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again leaving the entire article extremely wordy, the history section way too long and reducing only the holocaust in size. It is the same story almost every day. gidonb 16:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if you would not be constantly fighting about the subject people would have time to make the complete article compacter. Agathoclea 17:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
After the entire history is drastically reduced in size, the holocaust would be reduced to Stephan's text. The problem is that the rest of the text never gets reduced, it only grows, and about the only part here which is always candidate for erosion is the holocaust. I challenge you to cut some 40-50% of the history section - and to keep it down - and I will change the holocaust text myself. gidonb 17:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I think everything from The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (843–1806) is bloated. As far as the Holocaust goes - the key is to get the inpact right - short but merciless to the point. Agathoclea 18:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll try and get a history section down every day from tomorow - off to work now Agathoclea 18:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK I understand that you are taking up the challenge. You can trust me that my word is real: after the drastic reduction I am going to change the holocaust myself to Stephan's version. BTW I have made such a reduction in the past myself - I had cut about 40% of the history and 20% of the rest - but it was reverted every time. It was a good cut and some were happy with it, yet this problem lingers on gets worse. After the "warrior" was told that it was very illegal to revert me because I also wrote and others wrote as well in the process, he put each and every sentence, half-sentence and word manually back (and did put in more). I wish you better luck. I am sure he is around under some identity, because he lived on this article, but is worth a shot. gidonb 19:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I think that after the history section the following needs attention:

  • Federal States (Bundesländer) has listings of cities - which has nothing to do with the heading, but should be under demograhics - whre it already is in the subarticle.
  • Federal States (Bundesländer) The list of states is overbearing in size - It could be reduced to an indroduction about the statesystem (own parlament, laws under a federal umbrealla, and then just list them in a parapgraph.
  • Climate most of the section is too detailed and needs to be moved to a more dedicated article
  • Demographics maybe just mention the 2 largest foreign groups - a detailed breakdown is in the subarticle - where you might also find the source for the disputed 9% (actually 8.5 but who counts beans) infact that sentence is in essence just a duplicate of the sentence giving the total number of foreigners.

I think that will give us some work for the next week :-)

there is far more that needs doing, but I am running out of time fust looking through the article. Agathoclea 18:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Russian crimes during WWII

I removed the following from the article:

In the east the advancing Red Army had left a massive trail of raped women and girls of all ages behind them. As a result of this trauma East German women's attitude towards sex was affected for many years and it caused huge social problems between men and women.

It was unsourced, and linked to a page under the NPOV dispute tag. It seems rather inflammatory to me, and would rather there were some concrete basis to both claims before it is restored, hopefully with a rewrite. The demiurge 14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute tag is mainly about the other two subjects, the expulsion of germans and the sinking of refugee ships. In addition, it seems that two contributers (presumably) from the former soviet union have contested the number of rapes. No source has been given supporting their contestion. The article itself lists a large number of sources for the rape part. I don't see how you could write about this without it being inflamatory. But fine, I'll reference Beevor when I reinsert the text. Meanwhile, why don't you check out this article, or do some factfinding of your own before you remove this important and obviously suppressed event. German rape victims find a voice at last After 50 years a UK author has enabled countless women to admit their ordeal at the hands of Soviet troops. Kate Connolly reports from Berlin. By Guardian Newspapers, 6/23/2002 Stor stark7 15:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed it again, this topic belongs to a more WWII related article, but not in the historic overview given in this one. It's simply to specific without having an overall relevance on German history big enough to be mentioned here. Nevfennas 16:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree. The consequences on Germany were considerable:

Beevor details the horrific consequences of events that resonated for years, affecting women's attitude towards sex and causing huge social problems between men and women.

By the late 1940s - the rapes went on for three years or more - the Soviet troops had left behind them a broken people. According to some reports, 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected with venereal diseases, while Beevor cites one doctor who said that, of the 100,000 women estimated to have been raped in Berlin, a tenth of them died, mostly from suicide. The mortality figures for the approximately 1.4 million raped in East Prussia, Pomerania and Silesia, he says, are believed to have been much higher.

Of those who became pregnant, an estimated 90 per cent had abortions. Those who did give birth often gave their children up for adoption because of the shame. In 1946, 3.7 per cent of children born in Berlin had Russian fathers. Even now, says Helke Sander, a German left-wing activist and author of The Liberator and the Relieved, an extensive 1992 study of women who were raped, the consequences are still felt.

'There are women who have never been able to talk about it and whose husbands forbade it. There are their children, who are finding out for the first time that they are the product of rape, and there are those who attempt to look in vain for their fathers.'

Stor stark7 20:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Womens Rights Thing

I think it uses biased using "QUEST" and other bias words.

Reverting

User:Gidonb is reverting the article over and over again [29], I really don't know what to do with him. Wikipedia NPOV policy is to avoid using "murder" in here (see the Holocaust). --Haham hanuka 20:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this wikistalking immediately. [30] There are rules against such behavior! gidonb 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
what's wrong with that? and what is wikistalking? --Haham hanuka 20:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Back to the topic. The Holocaust uses both "kill" and "murder". Scientific publications also use both. "Holocaust murder" wins a Googlewhack vs. "Holocaust killing" (by a small margin). There is no doubt that it was murder, even by the German laws of the time. So why would "murder" violate NPOV? I think especially in a rather short text we should use the more specific word to more clearly transport the nature of the event. --Stephan Schulz 07:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
100% correct, murder is a legal term with an exact definition (see Murder). That the Holocaust fits that definition, most importantly that of the German law at the time, is a fact. To declare this POV one would have to argue that what happened could also have been manslaughter or self-defense, which no serious person (and noone on this page) is doing. Nevfennas 08:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Mozart in German Music

The section on German Music lists Mozart as a German composer, even though he was born, raised and lived most of his live in Austria. I know that Germany and Austria have much shared history and culture, but since this article is on the current German nation, which doesn't include Austria, and didn't include it in the late 1700s when Mozart was alive, either, I think it might be appropriate to remove Mozart's name.

Reverted. Mozart did never live in Austria, he lived in Germany, or more precisely in the archbishopric of Salzburg, part of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The state now known as Germany came into existence only in 1871. Mozart was as German as Kant or other German figures. Semifriend 04:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
But it looks like that he got moved to the not German in modern sense section. Agathoclea 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Kopernik

He lived all his life in Poland, gave an oath to Polish king, dedicated his works for Polish king, fought for Poland, and Frederick the Great called him the son of Poland. While origins of his family are disputed, he never was part of German culture during his life. --Molobo 22:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you could read and think, you would have noticed that Kopernikus is listed separately, under "Many historical figures, though not citizens of Germany in the modern sense, were important and influential figures in German culture", and spotted the difference to your claims. --Matthead 23:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I again ask what role in his life did Kopernik played in German culture. Furthermore the sentence reads as if in other times he was considered a citizen of Germany which obviously isn't true. --Molobo 23:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kopernikus was undisputedly in close contact with fellow Germans and has undisputedly chosen to publish in Nürnberg, so I've removed the dispute tag. You've caused enough disturbance, and learnt nothing in the weeks when blocked from editing. Go elsewhere to grind your axe. You are not going to play your usual (t)role in this article about Germany. EOD, don't feed the troll. --Matthead 23:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What isn't true? That he was a citizen of Germany (something that makes no sense, as at his time there was no single German state), that he was considered a citizen in a German state, or that he was considered ethnically German? The last is definitely correct (and one can even make a good argument for the fact itself, although I don't know if that is useful for a person living at a time when the modern idea of a nation-state was not yet fully developed). Maybe the sentence should be rephrased as follows: "Many historical figures, though not citizens of any German state in the modern sense, were important and influential figures in German culture..."--Stephan Schulz 19:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

1-Kopernik didn't live in German state. 2-Kopernik was considered citizen of Poland. 3-Kopernik's father was Polish so he wasn't ethnic German(and having some genes doesn't give you culture) I again ask what role in his life did Kopernik played in German culture --Molobo 22:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Copernicus' father was a citizen of Poland, we don't know his exact ethnicity. All we know is he was probably a Germanized Slav. However, I wouldn't mind removing Copernicus from the list here, since the issues surrounding his nationality are too complicated to be explained in two words (and we don't have space for anything more than two words in this overview article, which is already far too long). Kusma (討論) 22:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is probably a futile debate. It's also repetitive. But let's try. As far as I know, Copernicus mother was ethnic German, is father ethnicity is unclear. In the worst case, that makes him 50% ethnic German. We know that Copernicus spoke and wrote German and Latin (he may also have spoken Polish, but as far as I know this is not documented). He lived in a region were a significant part of the population was German. But, moreover, he lived in a time before the concept of the nation-state was well-developed. Copernicus had a profound influence on the development of science in all Europe, including Germany. There is a reasonable discussion in his article. --Stephan Schulz 22:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Copernicus mother was ethnic German, is father ethnicity is unclear. In the worst case, that makes him 50% ethnic German You believe genes determine to what culture somebody belongs ?

Nope. But they do contribute to someones ethnicity. And he was raised by his maternal uncle, who was ethnic German (or do you dispute that as well)?. --Stephan Schulz 23:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

is father ethnicity is unclear It's clear, he is mentioned as a Pole. But he could be from Pakistan and still it doesn't matter.

Where is it mentioned? --Stephan Schulz 23:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We know that Copernicus spoke and wrote German and Latin As most Poles with intelectual pursuits in his age did since it were the common languages one used in Central Europe.

And by using this language, they became contributors to and part of German culture. This is not an exclusive thing. --Stephan Schulz 23:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He lived in a region were a significant part of the population was German. May I see this population's declarations that they view themselfs as "Germans". Also still that doesn't speak anything about his culture. He made an oath to Polish king, fought for Poland, dedicated his works to Polish king, and Prussian king called him son of Poland. I ask again what role in German culture he had during his life ? Maybe you are refering to his fight against Teutonic Knights ? --Molobo 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: Do you think Christopher Columbus was exclusively Spanish? He made an oath to the Spanish king and fought for Spain. His discoveries became part of the Spanish kingdom... --Stephan Schulz 23:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is about Kopernik not Columbus. Please stick to the topic. --Molobo 23:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I think we are not progressing. I think you suffer from selective perception on this issue. You're welcome to your opinion, but I do not share it. --Stephan Schulz 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the Copernicus article the controversy on wether he was polish or german has been going for some time and we won't be able to settle it here. The question we should focus on is wether there is sufficent reason to mention him in this article. He appears to be out of place directly under Culture, his field was Science and technology, though the wordings used there, is homeland of and were born in Germany, do not match him. As Science is universal it makes no sense to ask on his impact on German culture, as the impact his work had was global (being the same in Germany, Poland, Italy, France etc.) and not limited to German Culture like the works of Zweig and Kafka. If we keep him he should have his own sentence, something like Nicolaus Copernicus is also often attributed to Germany. If we simply take him out we will probably have many attempts to put him back in by people who think he is missing, as there are many people who consider him german. Nevfennas 23:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Since there aren't any arguments that he in any way lived and worked in Germany and contributed especially to German culture, I am going to delete this. --Molobo 14:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Syndicalism

It's surprising that there is no mention (that I could find, at any rate), of German syndicalism, one of its distinguishing points and a major strength of its highly qualified and organised workforce.

Geography

The map shown in the Geography section shows big parts of eastern Europe and just a little part of Germany, I strongly doubt any sense in that map except the one to delete it from the article or replace it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.135.172.69 (talk • contribs) .

If you are talking about the one on the left (Hist_central_europe.JPG), I agree. The other ones all seem to be useful. --Stephan Schulz 19:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Kulturkampf is absent

I believe that the Kulturkampf should be mentioned. Xx236 08:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No. To properly understand the "Kulturkampf" one would have to explain the three polish divisions during the late 18th century and the the resulting polish-german relations. This would get to big for the history sections in this article. Stuff for the German History-Article. -- Nevfennas 10:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Kulturkampf was anti-RC and influenced the RC Church in Germany. It isn't exactly about three polish divisions. Xx236 11:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

German Empire gives three goals of Bismarc: Kulturkampf, Social reform and national unification. Xx236 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct, Bismarck tried to split the mostly catholic center party by using the issue of the doctrin the pope never being wrong when speaking ex cathedra. The Kulturkampf was especially extreme in the polish areas. The poles were staunch catholics and took this as an attack against their identity, which is why I mentally filed it away to narrowly in the german-polish category. -- Nevfennas 16:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

German women -- PLEASE have more babies!

If ethnic German women don't start having A LOT more babies VERY soon (with ethnic German men), there won't be much of a Germany left in a few more generations. Germans are some of the most intelligent, polite, and idealistic people on the planet -- so don't let your population falter any longer! Sex is fun...so breed now! The world needs a strong and densely populated Germany to continue leading Europe both politically and economically. In short, Germany is the heart of Europe -- so don't let that important muscle, THE most important muscle, atrophy any longer. --152.163.101.11 03:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The EU -- A 'German Ploy'?

One more thing: this might be worth mentioning in this article -- many people in Eastern Europe (and elsewhere [i.e. France, Russia, those Europeans countries that refuse to join, many others]) believe that the European Union is nothing more than a 'German ploy' to 'control' Europe both politically and economically (given that Germany is the most economically powerful and populous member of the EU). They say that the success of the EU obliquely fulfills the Third Reich's burning desire for Germany to become "The Undisputed Masters of Europe." Should this hypothesis be included in the article or simply written off as a deluded conspiracy theory? --152.163.101.11 03:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As this is about the EU it belongs to an EU-Article, probably History of the European Union. Nevfennas 05:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

New Etymology

What's the source of the word "Germany". Neither the Germans nor any other Europeans use related words to refer to Germany.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.82.90.100 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See Names for Germany. Kusma (討論) 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did English derive it from the latin Germania when it is a part of the germanic languages; also, none of the major Romance languages derived it from Germania.134.82.90.100 00:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true, in Romanian and Italian the name for Germany is Germania.TSO1D 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)