Talk:Germany/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Parliament Picture

Paulskirche Parliament

Nazi parliament

I'd like to implement an interior picture of a German parliament, as the parliaments always been a crucial factor in German history since the 19th century.

So either we could go for the first German parliament at Frankfurt's Paulskirche or perhaps go for the intimidating picture of the Nazi parliament with Hitler speaking. I'd prefer this image to the Hitler picture in the article myself. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In connection to this: The comeback of double-images would be preferrable. The article looked much better with them and contained a lot more crucial visual information. Additionally, they're used in many good country articles. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the article shouldn't have more images than now. Fortunately, there are already two exterior pictures of the Reichstag building, and one of them (the second one) could be replaced by a (modern) interior one. I don't think historical parliament pictures represent present-day German politics well. —Kusma (t·c) 14:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course these historical parliament pictures are meant to illustrate German history, not modern Germany. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Though the Paulskirche Parliament is an often cited predecessor and role model for modern Germany. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The history section already has pictures from both the 1848 era (perhaps one could replace the revolutionary picture by the Paulskirche one, but I don't see the need) and the Nazi era. For the politics section, I don't think either of your suggestions are appropriate. Unfortunately none of the pictures in commons:Category:Plenary chamber in the Reichstag (building) are particularly stunning. —Kusma (t·c) 05:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok so I wasn't talking about additional pictures, but about replacement. I'll skip the Paulskirche picture. But would you guys and gals be ok with replacing the current Hitler picture with the Hitler and parliament picture to the right? I think it's more representative of the time's inflated self-esteem and the collective idea of the NS, with the central "Führer" figure. It'd also include the typical NS symbols (swastika, eagle). -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO it would be highly missleading to illustrate the nazi-area with a picture of the brown left-overs of the Reichstag (it's an insult to to call something like that a parliament). During that dictatorshit parliamentarism didn't play big role at all. So, if you what to illustrate the 3rd Reich, take a picture of Hitler, the NS-Party-Gatherings, one of the parades, but not a fake democratic construct like that. -- (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree: a picture of a (purported) parliament would be totally inappropriate for the Nazi era. And I think we need a recognizable picture of Hitler for that era. I also think we should be trying to reduce, rather than increase, the number of pictures. --Boson (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It was more about the symbolism than the parliament aspect. Anyway, some foolish marching Nazi-crowd would be fine too. It's just that Hitler looks kind of awkward and dominant there. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Current President of the Bundesrat

The section "Government" in the "general info" box at the top ought to be updated: Stephan Weil replaced Winfried Kretschmann as President of the Bundesrat on November 1st, 2013. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A4sident_des_Bundesrates_(Deutschland)#Gegenw.C3.A4rtiger_Pr.C3.A4sident_des_Bundesrates I am not sure I can update the article consistently myself, but this needed to be pointed out (German precision, you say :) ). The same holds true of the article "President of the Bundesrat" and, possibly, of other related items. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.197.229 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done --Boson (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Music of Germany: Reorganisation

The current Music of Germany article is a mess, to say the least. It's a huge patchwork without any proper systematic order. So I proposed a reorganisation. Please check and participate: Talk:Music of Germany#Reorganisation of the article -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Seems the editors of the Engl. language Germany portal are rather concerned about semantics and fights over national symbols, rather than important issues like culture. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Most likely not everybody involved in WP:GER will have this article watchlisted or think to look here for announcements involving other articles. Agathoclea (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Germany Culture subsection for Music: Small expansion

Apart from the dedicated Music of Germany article, the main article Germany's singular sentence referencing German Classical music seems too short and understated given the universally recognized significance of Germans in the development of Western Music, especially in regards to music of the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods of music history. I propose that this brief introduction to German classical music be a short paragraph of perhaps 3-5 sentences which references the aforementioned periods of classical music in the context of general time frames (in years) and their resident German composers who are widely regarded to be innovators and/or conventionally-recognized masters of these respective styles. In those terms, I propose that, rather than only naming a few prominent composers who were German, the paragraph should better express the classical music community's esteem for the roles these composers played in the development of Western music, as well as name a few more composers who are currently and historically among the most-performed and studied within classical music. In addition, a sentence might well reference the strong representation of German composers in Opera, citing the composers whose Operatic works are currently and historically among the most-performed. --spacepotatoes (forgot to sign this on 28 December. my apologies)

And user Spacepotatoes should sign his/her comments, too. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Languages map

On the map the Netherlands is included this is wrong, our native language is Dutch (Nederlands) and not German (Deutsch) in the Netherlands our first language is Dutch second is English and German and French are close third even the source doesn't include the Netherlands so it obviously is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.208.87 (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I interpret the map to mean that in the Netherlands at least 50% of people have a knowledge of German. I would take this to mean that they understand German sufficiently well as to hold a conversation. According to Eurobarometer, about 78% of people in the Netherlands claim such a knowledge (11, 55, and 12 percent of people as first, second, and third additional language, respectively). --Boson (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.140.152 (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Research vs. teaching in German universities

I find the following statement slightly problematic:

"Most German universities focus more on teaching than on research. Research is mostly exhibited in independent institutes that are embedded in academic clusters, such as within Max Planck, Fraunhofer, Leibniz and Helmholtz institutes. "

This could give to some people the impression that most German universities are similar to teaching colleges in the US, where the teaching load is heavy and the time and resources available for research are very restricted. However, that impression would be wide off the mark. I am a professor of physics at a German university, and I can attest that research plays a more dominant role than teaching. This can be seen in many aspects: (i) Hiring professors is done almost entirely on the basis of their research track record. (ii) The official teaching load for a professor (in Bavaria) is nine hours per week, with the rest of the time supposedly spent on research (plus the unavoidable paperwork and committees). This is significantly less than would be expected at a teaching-dominated university. (iii) Research accomplishments play a far larger role in evaluations of departments than teaching. (iv) Research funding by the German Science Foundation (DFG) and other organizations for research at universities is very impressive. Actually, German universities receive research funding at a larger percentage of GDP than US universities. At the level of individual university professors this means that their research funding is on average better than that of US university professors.

I would propose the following comes closer to a realistic picture (implement it if you like, I do not have time to enter a long editing fight here...):

German universities traditionally emphasize the combination of teaching and research. In addition, research is performed at independent non-university research institutions, such as within Max Planck, Fraunhofer, Leibniz and Helmholtz institutes. Many of these institutions have also established close connections with nearby universities.

F.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.7.38.30 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The whole paragraph also needs to be referenced. --Boson (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's indeed a more sound solution now, thanks. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

List of seaside resorts in Germany

Just created this lovely list, feel free to participate and turn some of the red into blue links! :) Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Einstein's nationality

After reading the archive 5 discussion on the subject, I noticed that some technical matters about nationality have not been adressed. In the Albert Einstein article, you can read that Einstein changed six nationalities, (half of which are for states not identified as Germany) during his lifetime and that he spent a great part of his life outside Germany. The article also mentions (with source) that he "renounced his citizenship in the German Kingdom of Württemberg to avoid military service". All of the above support the view that the identification of Einstein with some legal nationality is problematic and in particular that he didn't identify himself strongly as a German (renouncing German citizenship to avoid military duty). On the other hand, saying that Einstein is a Jew is supported by his ethnicity, by his numerous statements in which he accepts his Jewish indentity, and by the fact that he was offered the position of President of Israel. In conclusion, Einstein is a very poor example of a German scientist. Popular opinion in the US might be that he is a German but this is an encyclopedia, and a more informed perspective should be adopted for its articles. Nxavar (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In 1914, Einstein became a German citizen again - became the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics, and a professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, as well as a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1916, Einstein was appointed president of the German Physical Society. In 1917, at the height of his work on relativity, Einstein published in Physikalische Zeitschrift his Modern quantum theory. In 1921, being a German citizen, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. --77.181.80.34 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nxavar There is no doubt that Einstein changed his citizenship multiple times and voluntarily opted for a non-German citizenship when this was possible. For very understandable reasons, he had his issues with German nationality. I guess this would hold for almost all German Jews who lived or perished during this time.

However, citizenship is a fact not a feeling. Nowadays, it is quite normal to change this fact from time to time. Just look at the list of Nobel laureates, and see how many have acquired US nationality later in their lives. This doe not render their nationality problematic, it just becomes a transient aspect. So, I do not follow your argument that Einstein's nationality (I would rather say citizenship) is problematic. What 77.181.80.34 wrote is more relevant for the present article than the fact that Einstein was later offered (?) to become President of Israel (don't they elect the president there?). During his most prominent works and when receiving the Nobel price, he was citizen of Germany. This fact justifies his mentioning.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that he held (and opted for) other citizenship in his later life. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about Germany. When one uses an example of a German, this implicitely creates the impression to the reader that the national identity, not only the legal nationality, of the individual in question is German. I am not arguing that Einstein is not a German. From a legal perspective, he is a German, a Swiss, an Austrian, and an American. I am not arguing that from all these nationalities, the one that characterises him the most is the German. What I am saying is that he is a poor example of a German scientist.

What I am suggesting is to remove the empasis given to Einstein as German scientist. I am not suggesting that he shouldn't be mentioned at all. The grounds of my proposal is that it creates a wrong picture. It might be a favourable picture for Germany, and an acceptable picture in the U.S.A., but wikipedia is not about promoting or perpetuating some particular image (see WP:NPOV). Wikipedia's content should be neutral and reliable. Nxavar (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. I don't know what you're getting at exactly. The Einstein photo is perfectly neutral where it is. Just as any other picture of the article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Btw, we're not implying that Hitler was born in Germany by showing his picture here. Just in case you were curious... :/ -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hitler was a leader of Germany. Both in times of peace and times of war. It is a completely different case. You don't know where I'm getting at? I suggest that we replace Einstein's picture with Max Plank's picture. That's what "emphasis" was about. Nxavar (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's a matter of being identified as German, perhaps the results of a 1996 survey in England would be of interest. When asked to write down the ten most famous Germans, living or dead and not including the chancellor, those most frequently mentioned were:

1. Adolf Hitler
2. Jürgen Klinsmann
3. Boris Becker
4. Steffi Graf
5. Michael Schumacher
6. Ludwig van Beethoven
7. Lothar Matthäus
8. Albert Einstein,
9. Michael Stich
10. Joseph Goebbels
11. Hermann Göring

The contemporary sports people are more ephemeral, so might be best ignored in an encyclopaedia. --Boson (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2014

fuuug zu supertoll und aber natürlich!!!!

145.108.140.41 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done --Boson (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014

41.98.62.236 (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2014

Neipietraa (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC) ola como abrir um conta.

Clique no link que diz "Create account" no canto superior direito. Se você fala melhor Português além do Inglês, você pode querer editar a Wikipedia Português em pt.wikipedia.org em vez de um presente, no entanto. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Deutsch first use

Hello, does any one knows when the word deutsch was first used in reference to the german people? Pfzin (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

see here: Theodiscus. It became unique, when the Dutch began to name their language "nederlands" after becoming independent in the 17th century. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thx for the answer, but the article just attest the first use of the word referring to the language, not the people. Pfzin (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Afaik the original term Þeodisk was used in a Frankish document in the 8th century meaning the Frankish language.--MacX85 (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Politics Section – Which parties should be classified as major?

I, German, stumbled across "Minor parties such as The Left, Free Voters and the Pirate Party are represented in some state parliaments". The Left Party is in fact the largest opposition party and the third-largest overall by Bundestag seats. In many state parliaments it doesn't have any seats which may justify the "minor" classification, but from a federal point of view this isn't a neutral assignment.

If anyone were to explore this subject in detail I'd say there are four levels of party size: 1.) The "Volksparteien" CDU and SPD, 2.) other parties in the Bundestag, 3.) other parties in some Landtagen, the state parliaments, and 4.) the rest. 1.) and 2.) shouldn't be designated "minor" in my opinion due to the high vote threshold in Germany, at least not currently where there are no parties in the Bundestag significantly below 10%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.27.244 (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 POPULATION ESTIMATE According to the statistics of Germany, the population already reached 80,716,000, and last October it increased by another 45,000 more. The "2014 estimate" refers to the population in 2011. The estimation has been done in 2014 but it refers to population in 2011. So, the 2014 population estimate should say 80,716,000.-- It would be easier if there was a link to the "List of coutnries by population" to know the population estimate83.63.225.149 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Einstein's nationality

After reading the archive 5 discussion on the subject, I noticed that some technical matters about nationality have not been adressed. In the Albert Einstein article, you can read that Einstein changed six nationalities, (half of which are for states not identified as Germany) during his lifetime and that he spent a great part of his life outside Germany. The article also mentions (with source) that he "renounced his citizenship in the German Kingdom of Württemberg to avoid military service". All of the above support the view that the identification of Einstein with some legal nationality is problematic and in particular that he didn't identify himself strongly as a German (renouncing German citizenship to avoid military duty). On the other hand, saying that Einstein is a Jew is supported by his ethnicity, by his numerous statements in which he accepts his Jewish indentity, and by the fact that he was offered the position of President of Israel. In conclusion, Einstein is a very poor example of a German scientist. Popular opinion in the US might be that he is a German but this is an encyclopedia, and a more informed perspective should be adopted for its articles. Nxavar (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In 1914, Einstein became a German citizen again - became the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics, and a professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, as well as a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1916, Einstein was appointed president of the German Physical Society. In 1917, at the height of his work on relativity, Einstein published in Physikalische Zeitschrift his Modern quantum theory. In 1921, being a German citizen, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. --77.181.80.34 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nxavar There is no doubt that Einstein changed his citizenship multiple times and voluntarily opted for a non-German citizenship when this was possible. For very understandable reasons, he had his issues with German nationality. I guess this would hold for almost all German Jews who lived or perished during this time.

However, citizenship is a fact not a feeling. Nowadays, it is quite normal to change this fact from time to time. Just look at the list of Nobel laureates, and see how many have acquired US nationality later in their lives. This doe not render their nationality problematic, it just becomes a transient aspect. So, I do not follow your argument that Einstein's nationality (I would rather say citizenship) is problematic. What 77.181.80.34 wrote is more relevant for the present article than the fact that Einstein was later offered (?) to become President of Israel (don't they elect the president there?). During his most prominent works and when receiving the Nobel price, he was citizen of Germany. This fact justifies his mentioning.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that he held (and opted for) other citizenship in his later life. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about Germany. When one uses an example of a German, this implicitely creates the impression to the reader that the national identity, not only the legal nationality, of the individual in question is German. I am not arguing that Einstein is not a German. From a legal perspective, he is a German, a Swiss, an Austrian, and an American. I am not arguing that from all these nationalities, the one that characterises him the most is the German. What I am saying is that he is a poor example of a German scientist.

What I am suggesting is to remove the empasis given to Einstein as German scientist. I am not suggesting that he shouldn't be mentioned at all. The grounds of my proposal is that it creates a wrong picture. It might be a favourable picture for Germany, and an acceptable picture in the U.S.A., but wikipedia is not about promoting or perpetuating some particular image (see WP:NPOV). Wikipedia's content should be neutral and reliable. Nxavar (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. I don't know what you're getting at exactly. The Einstein photo is perfectly neutral where it is. Just as any other picture of the article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Btw, we're not implying that Hitler was born in Germany by showing his picture here. Just in case you were curious... :/ -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hitler was a leader of Germany. Both in times of peace and times of war. It is a completely different case. You don't know where I'm getting at? I suggest that we replace Einstein's picture with Max Plank's picture. That's what "emphasis" was about. Nxavar (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's a matter of being identified as German, perhaps the results of a 1996 survey in England would be of interest. When asked to write down the ten most famous Germans, living or dead and not including the chancellor, those most frequently mentioned were:

1. Adolf Hitler
2. Jürgen Klinsmann
3. Boris Becker
4. Steffi Graf
5. Michael Schumacher
6. Ludwig van Beethoven
7. Lothar Matthäus
8. Albert Einstein,
9. Michael Stich
10. Joseph Goebbels
11. Hermann Göring

The contemporary sports people are more ephemeral, so might be best ignored in an encyclopaedia. --Boson (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, Wikipedia is about facts and neutrality, not popular impressions. Also, you cannot remove a discussion because you consider it "done", Horst-schlaemma. That's not a valid reson to delete content from Wikipedia. Was any of the previous discussions about Einstein removed after being considered done? Returning to the original issue, what's the big deal with replacing Einstein's picture with Max Plank's? Does anyone here think that it takes away value from the article? Nxavar (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove but archive it and it was indeed done as this is leading nowhere. Hardly anyone will agree with you here. We're not replacing Beethoven with Haydn either. We're putting the ref people in this article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is your opinion that this is leading nowhere. Also, if there is no particular reason to replace something, you don't replace it. This is correct. However, I have presented many reasons why we should replace Einstein's picture. If there is a reason for replacement then the obvious thing to do is to replace. In anycase, there is automatic archival after a thread is inactive for 3 months, according to the policy of this page. Nxavar (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's rather obvious you're on a mission here. Dunno what it's aimed at, but it obviously is a mission impossible and non-constructive. Cheerio Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not an answer. It is a personal attack. The worst form of unconstructive criticism (see WP:PERSONAL). Nxavar (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we just leave this discussion here for a while and see if anyone agrees with the proposal? Even if there is obviously no consensus for change at present, it is a valid point, and selection of images is a matter of editorial judgement. If no-one agrees, it will die a natural death, or someone uninvolved can formally close the discussion, using {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} (sometimes called "archiving"). --Boson (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

We really don't need such a discussion again - not only people from other countries strongly "identify" Einstein as being German, but also German people themselves; e.g. → see: Unsere Besten --IIIraute (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The question is not about whether Einstein is a German or not. It is about emphasising the fact that he is a German. Such emphasis is problematic since Einstein has held many nationalities and he didn't appear to identify strongly with Germany (see above). Nxavar (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your point has been made and understood. That does not mean that others must agree with your conclusions. That he is strongly identified as German by others is also relevant. This is not a matter of gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation, where self-identification may be given more weight. If you feel that others would support your position, you are free to start an RfC. --Boson (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is not "emphasising the fact that he is a German" per se. The article section "Science and technology" puts emphasis on the fact, that "Germany's achievements in the sciences have been significant, and research and development efforts form an integral part of the economy.The Nobel Prize has been awarded to 104 German laureates. For most of the 20th century, German laureates had more awards than those of any other nation, especially in the sciences (physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine)" and that "The work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck was crucial to the foundation of modern physics ..." This article is not about Germans, but about "Germany's" achievements in the sciences, to which Einstein contributed an integral part: Einstein was "the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics, and a professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, as well as a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1916, Einstein was appointed president of the German Physical Society. In 1917, at the height of his work on relativity, Einstein published in Physikalische Zeitschrift his Modern quantum theory. In 1921, being a German citizen, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics." --IIIraute (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nxavar Your point is emphasis, as I understand it. Placing a picture of a person in this article, I agree, does emphasize. Where I do not follow you is that it emphasizes that Einstein had a strong German National identiy. I find this point a bit constructed. The emphasis I see is that Einstein's contributions to science may have been the most notable of all German scientists - and not that he was the most German-feeling scientists of all. Honestly, I am also not very concerned that most readers will be mislead in this direction.

The following analogy may illustrate what I find wrong about your point. Consider the article on Jews. It may very well be possible (currently it isn't) to show a picture of Hitler, Himmler, or Eichmann there. This would put emphasis, but not on the fact that they identified as Jews, rather that they played a crucial role in the history of Jews. Pictures of individuals emphasize their relevance to the subject, not their identification or agreement with it.

@Horst-Sch. Don't even try to defend it. A discussion that is ongoing should not be archived. Obviously, this is perceived as aggressive - certainly when done by somebody who is a partisan in the discussion. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, not everybody with a picture on some country's article is a national of that country. The pictures are always understood in the context of the acticle's nearby content. What happens in the case of Einstein's picture is that the article goes into the topic of German scientists, with the picture giving a representative example of a German scientist. If the picture was in a hypothetical section about German-Jews, this discussion would not be happening. If the description of the image mentioned that he is a German-Jew, that would still be acceptable. However, in the current state of the article, the use of Einstein's picture is problematic. Nxavar (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I would not have a problem stating that Einstein was a Jew, but is it really necessary? Two aspects: If you look at German Nobel laureates before WWII, this was quite common. Moreover, (I know this is a complex topic) Jewism is arguably a religion. For what I know, in a religious sense, Einstein's beliefs were not very Jewish. Why would we mention the religion anyway. On the other hand, Jewism is considered by many, probably Einstein himself, as more than a religion. I do not know this, but I can well imagine that he felt as part of the Jewish people in an ethical sense. What I am trying to say: putting such kind of labels on a person can be problematic as they mean different things to different people and again to the person itself. Also, not everything that is true must be stated explicitly. Some things are so ordinary that they need no mention. Having said all this, I am not completely against mentioning this here. I am sure there are sufficient sources to back it up, however it is meant. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is not about his religion. I mentioned his identification with Jews from a nationality standpoint. As of 1948, this is indeed a nationality. Also, this was one of the points I raised, not the only one. Nxavar (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014

Sorbian and Romani should be added as official languages (acknowledged minority langugages) in Germany

2003:4D:2E48:9B01:38D2:A3C6:13F3:9497 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the problem is that as far as I know not even German is per law the official language of Germany. It is the language of courts and so forth and that is about it. Please note the difference between official and acknowledged language. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Scientists preceeding the introduction of quantum mechanics

In the subsection "Science and Technology" a number of scientists are presented as preceeding Albert Einstein and Max Plank in the introduction of quantum mechanics. In the lead of History of quantum mechanics the ones that are mentioned to begin the history of quantum mechanics are Michael Faraday, Gustav Kircchoff, Ludwig Bolztman, and Heinrich Hertz. Kircchoff and Hertz are Germans. However they are not included in the list that this article gives. I seriously doubt the factual accuracy of this list and I placed a "citation needed" next to it. An alternate solution is to mention just Kircchoff and Hertz and ommit the rest, until references are provided. Nxavar (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not necessary, if you choose to revert your recent changes The long-standing paragraph (how it was) perfectly made sense:

"The work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck was crucial to the foundation of modern physics, which Werner Heisenberg and Max Born developed further. They were preceded by such key physicists as Hermann von Helmholtz, Joseph von Fraunhofer and Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit, among others. Wilhelm Röntgen discovered X-rays and was the first winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901." here

Another textbook example of WP:AINT. --IIIraute (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a problem of making sense. It is a problem about whether the list contains verifiable information. In both cases the list is the same. Also, you can suggest a better wording if you find mine confusing. Nxavar (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

First you narrow the scope from "modern physics" to "quantum mechanics" in your edit, leaving the list of names unaltered, and now you use that as a reason to "doubt the factual accuracy" of this list? Is this a joke? 93.209.108.232 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If what was meant is chronological order we can do something like this:

In the 19th century, scientists as such Hermann von Helmholtz, Joseph von Fraunhofer, and Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit made key contributions to physics. Wilhelm Röntgen discovered X-rays and was the first winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901. In the 20th century, Albert Einstein introduced the relativity theories for light and gravity in 1905 and 1915 respectively, which remain mainstream theories in physics to this day. Along with Max Planck, he was instrumental in the introduction of quantum mechanics, in which Werner Heisenberg and Max Born later made major contributions.

I think this makes things clear. Nxavar (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Weimar Republic and the Third Reich

I re-wrote the last paragraph in this section and it was reverted by IIIraute. There were several problems with the paragraph that related to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

1- It gave only the numbers of German soldiers and civilians killed and not the far higher numbers for the millions of other people who were killed by the Germans during the world's largest genocide in modern history (specifically it stated, "several million Jews, Romani people, Slavic people, Soviet POWs, people with mental and/or physical disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and members of the political and religious opposition.... war casualties for Germany are estimated at 5.3 million German soldiers, millions of German civilians"). I re-wrote this to include numbers for all of the peoples killed, not just German soldiers.

2- The figure given for German soldiers was ONLY the highest estimate ever made, provided by a German academic, like the person who reverted my edits (IIIraute). The West German Government's estimate was only 4 million (See German casualties in World War II) so I corrected this by including the lower estimates while still including the higher 5.3 million figure in order to keep a NPOV.

3-Other problems included a clear bias toward Germany sympathies, citing what it termed the "mass rape of German Woman" and the "destruction of German cities" by allied bombing. While this did happen, and I did not remove this information, the major historical event of the Third Reich Era (topic of the section) is not the rape or bombing that occurred from 1940-1945 but the world's largest genocide. And since most of the paragraph is about that genocide I included a picture of that and not a picture of a building destroyed in a German city.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There does appear to be a certain David Irving-esque bias to that section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record: The previous version did not include any specific civilian casualties numbers - also not for German civilians.

  Also, the specific figure for German soldiers provided in the text, is not by a German academic, but by the German military historian Rüdiger Overmans, who is regarded as the expert on this subject. The Overmans study put the total German military war dead at 5.3 million. Overmans found that the wartime casualty figures compiled by German High Command were incomplete because the reporting system broke down during the chaos of the war.

  Please note that the new, lower figure Monopoly31121993 has added, is not 4 million (the figure of the West German military search service Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt)), but 3,25 million here - a 1946 estimate provided by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. - an American insurance company - definitely a huge authority on this subject. --IIIraute (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • IIIraute, the text previously gave one number and it was for the number of German soliders killed in the war. I stated in 5.3 million soldiers killed, nothing more, nothing less as if Overmans study were pure truth. Like I said, I kept that number and added the lowest estimate for balance, the German government's estimate was around 4 million and I just read that there are estimates in the 4.5 million range as well. so I think saying 3.25 as a low estimate and 5.3 as a high is fair almost perfectly splits the difference and provides balance which in this article is badly needed.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Civilian Service

The times have changed a lot. While I was serving the Red Cross in 1998/99 it was 10 month for the guys in the army and 13 (!) for the conscientious objectors like me. Only during the very final stages of compulsory service the time you had to serve either the army or any civilian institution was the same (from 9 month down to 6).

I can't remember there was a 6 months service. I was one of the last who had to do the compulsory service and it was definitly 9 months!

Protected edit request on 14 June 2014

The GDP value is given in trillion, nut it should be in billion as per source. See also - List of countries by GDP (PPP) I withdraw the edit request. Anton^Talk 02:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Replacement of images of "Weimar Republic and the Third Reich"

Weimar Republic and the Third Reich

Main articles: Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany

Communist Party of Germany's paramilitary RFB meeting in Berlin, May 1928. The young Weimar Republic was dominated by political unrest.

At the beginning of the German Revolution in November 1918, Germany was declared a republic. However, the struggle for power continued, with radical-left Communists seizing power in Bavaria. The revolution came to an end on 11 August 1919, when the democratic Weimar Constitution was signed by President Friedrich Ebert. An era of increasing national confidence, a very liberal cultural life and decade of economic prosperity followed - known as the Golden Twenties. Suffering from the Great Depression of 1929, the peace conditions dictated by the Treaty of Versailles, and a long succession of unstable governments, Germans increasingly lacked identification with the government in the early 1930s. This was exacerbated by a widespread right-wing [Dolchstoßlegende] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), or stab-in-the-back legend, which argued that Germany had lost World War I because of those who wanted to overthrow the government. The Weimar government was accused of betraying Germany by signing the Versailles Treaty.

By 1932, the German Communist Party and the Nazi Party controlled the majority of Parliament, fuelled by discontent with the Weimar government. After a series of unsuccessful cabinets, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933. On 27 February 1933 the Reichstag building went up in flames, and a consequent emergency decree abrogated basic citizens' rights. An enabling act passed in parliament gave Hitler unrestricted legislative power. Only the Social Democratic Party voted against it, while Communist MPs had already been imprisoned. Using his powers to crush any actual or potential resistance, Hitler established a centralised totalitarian state within months. Industry was revitalised with a focus on military rearmament.

In 1935, Germany reacquired control of the Saar and in 1936 military control of the Rhineland, both of which had been lost in the Treaty of Versailles. In 1938, Austria was annexed, and in 1939, Czechoslovakia was brought under German control. The invasion of Poland was prepared through the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and Operation Himmler. On 1 September 1939 the German Wehrmacht launched a blitzkrieg on Poland, which was swiftly occupied by Germany and by the Soviet Red Army. The UK and France declared war on Germany, marking the beginning of World War II. As the war progressed, Germany and its allies quickly gained control of most of continental Europe and North Africa, though plans to force the United Kingdom to an armistice or surrender failed. On 22 June 1941, Germany broke the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and invaded the Soviet Union. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor led Germany to declare war on the United States. The Battle of Stalingrad forced the German army to retreat on the Eastern front.

Survivors of Hitler's Buchenwald concentration camp following their liberation.

In September 1943, Germany's ally Italy surrendered, and German troops were forced to defend an additional front in Italy. D-Day opened a Western front, as Allied forces advanced towards German territory. On 8 May 1945, the German armed forces surrendered after the Red Army occupied Berlin.

A film shot by the US Air Force in July 1945 at the end of World War II, showing the destruction in central Berlin

In what later became known as The Holocaust, the Nazi regime enacted policies which directly persecuted many dissidents and minorities. Over 10 million civilians were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, including six million Jews, between 220,000 and 1,500,000 Romani people, 275,000 persons with mental and/or physical disabilities, thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses, thousands of homosexuals, and hundreds of thousands of members of the political and religious opposition. 6 million Ukrainians and Poles and an estimated 2.8 million Soviet war prisoners were also killed by the Nazi regime and in total World War II was responsible for around 40 million deaths in Europe.

German army war casualties were between 3.25 million and 5.3 million soldiers, and between 1 and 3 million German civilians were killed. Losing the war resulted in large territorial losses for Germany, the expulsion of about 15 million ethnic Germans from the former eastern territories of Germany and other formerly occupied countries. Germany suffered mass rape of German women and the destruction of numerous major cities due to allied bombing during the war. After World War II, Nazis, former Nazis and others were tried for war crimes, including crimes related to the Holocaust, at the Nuremberg trials.

---

Above is my compromise attempt. It has a picture for the Weimar Republic, one for the Holocaust and one for World War 2 and architecture/infrastructure changes. I propose the replacement of the section with this one. The remaining text is the same.--walkee^talkee 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

• --walkee^talkee 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• support- it would certainly be better than what we currently have but my remarks about using pictures that relate to things already in the text stands. Any editor would be correct to remove the first image since it addresses nothing that is currently in the text and the video of bombed out Berlin is also addressed only marginally.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Not "voting" yet, but shouldn't the section have a picture of Adolf in there? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What I thought was that there might be too many pictures in there and not a single one of the longer Weimar era. But perhaps one of him at the right-hand side? --walkee^talkee 18:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Also, not really sure if a picture of destroyed Berlin is really appropriate, for two reasons. First, there is the usual concern over apologetics. But even putting that aside, Berlin was actually one of major German cities which experienced relatively (note the underlining) little destruction, with maybe a third of it destroyed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your Nazi apologetics perspective. Cities got bombed during WW2 - all sides employed strategic bombing. The Nazis more or less ruined central London. If the Nazis hadn't bombed cities themselves, then I could understand the point you're making, but the Nazis bombed just as much to smitherines as did the Allies, so it's not like the image is saying "look at what the evil Allies did to Germany", since the Germans did the same to the Allies. Second point: agreed, Berlin wasn't the worst hit German city - why the image has to be Berlin, I don't know. I propose the following image as an alternative:

Aerial photograph of Hamburg after the 1943 Allied bombing

I'm assuming the above comment is from Surlyduff50. I think you're sort of making the point for me. Lots of cities got bombed, or worse - systematically destroyed. The Nazis did do much worse. But without that context (and since we're not about to include photos of bombed out London or completely destroyed Warsaw in this article it's going to be missing) the inclusion of Berlin, or Hamburg photos actually DOES look a lot like "look at what the evil Allies did to Germany". Especially when it's being used in place of images of Adolf Hitler or Buchenwald concentration camp victims. That's sort of what a number editors have been trying to get through.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that, despite this being a supposedly neutral article, only photos that clearly depict the Nazis as evil are acceptable? A photo of a bombed out Hamburg could only really be alright if there's an accompanying "context" image of a bombed out London? Surlyduff50 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. And what, are we supposed to "balance" the article with photos which depict Nazis as the good guys? Do such photos even exist?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Before I !vote, a comment: I don't mind the changes but I think the images should be placed so that they accompany the text they illustrate. Therefore the Buchenwald picture belongs where the ruins video is currently located and the ruins pic/video, if one is included, belongs with the last paragraph rather than the paragraph on the Holocaust. --Ca2james (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I second Ca2james point about the location of the images. Also the photo of Buchenwald should have the word "Hitler's" removed (since he was not the owner). I still don't think the half-sentence of text describing allied bombing of Germany supports having a picture of a bombed out German city but I think the same argument can be made for the proposed image of Weimar (whose content is not mentioned at all in the current text). That said I think this is at least a compromise which moves us in the right direction. I will vote in the next couple of days after more discussion.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think there should be an image with the Nazi symbol, because it stands for the actions outlined in the content related to the Third Reich. (Also see below discussion regarding the split up of sections.) The image is banned in Germany though. prokaryotes (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't banned for educational purposes - only if it is being used to glorify the era. Have a look at this (German) page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Reich_1933_bis_1945 Surlyduff50 (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think a picture of Hitler is needed, though perhaps not as big as in the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• RfC comment For the Hitler picture, I'd suggest one from the end of the Weimar republic before the take over, perhaps one where he was using an aircraft to travel across Germany in the 1932 election campaign? For the third reich part, I think a picture of Hamburg (because of the fire-storm) or Cologne some other Ruhr city which were both extensively bombed and saw intense street-fighting would be most appropriate, because this an article on Germany and the images should illustrate the impact of WWII/3rdR on Germany in the broadest possible sense. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on the purpose of country articles: While the Holocaust was horrid and devastating, as well as the Gulag and other politically driven crimes of the USSR or Mao China, or nuclear and napalm bombing etc. of the US army - these cruelties should still not be pictured in their respective country's articles. They're undeniably part of a country's history, though you have to keep in mind the force of such things pictured. What the war really meant to Germans and the whole country, the totally devastating destruction especially of its cities caused by the Nazi regime's and many people's unlimited will to dominate, that's what's called Zero Hour for a reason. It was the time of casualties and guilt on all sites, but of course especially on the German, thus its near total destruction. I know that's exactly what you want to depict, the guilt and cruelty of war. And it was also the time of a new beginning. In that way a picture of destroyed Germany is perfectly leading over to the post-war era described in the text. And that's what the FA consensus of several Wiki authors with some reputation was based on. That's what encyclopedic illustration should deliver, contextual bridges joining the passages together and adding a visual information. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)