Talk:Germany

Getting down to issues

All this mass reverting etc is getting boring, and the personal insults are childish. There is too much aggression here, and it is not helping clear thinking. What irritates me mostly is that it all seems to be about style. One person likes his wordings, the other his. (Or is it really a NPOV question whether the word "including" is used in the first paragraph?) Or again, one person wants much more data in the history section, the other wants it shorter. I agree with shorter, but that's a matter of taste. The point is, this is NOT a biased article, and as far as I can see, neither Heimdal's nor Gidonb's changes make it one. But maybe I am wrong. If so, could someone please list SOBERLY AND NEUTRALLY and above all BRIEFLY what the issues are where you think political bias is motivating the two sides of the argument. Then we can talk about the issues. --Doric Loon 19:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

But that's the whole point: Heimdal shows no interest whatsoever in discussing anything at all. I think there may be moderate POV issues, but nothing major, or especially tag-meritting. Rather, they are mainly stylistic: Heimdal wants an (over-)long history section, and a 50K article; and wants his wording, which is a) generally mildly worse than what we started with, in my judgement, and b) is not subject to discussion. As to "personal insults", I don't see that we've seen much in the way of that, aside from some unhelpful edit summaries that might themselves have been better taken to talk (and ideally, put differently). I think this is going to be extremely difficult and time-consuming to resolve: nothing short of arbcom has any "teeth", and I doubt they'll take action without at least a prior RfC -- if not more, and if they'd be agreeable to looking at it at all. I'm not going to try to start the whole dispute resolution process right now as I anticipate it'll take weeks, and I'll be away and offline much of next week. But if there's no progress by the time I get back from Germany(!), then I can see nothing for it but to start said RfC, unless there's been some sudden, marvellous, unexpected resolution. Alai 20:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, and I was getting on a roll the other day too! Unfortunately, my connection is too slow right now to see what changes were made prior to protection. The loss of trust on this page is incredibly sad: rather than discuss possible bias, the first course of action is reverting. And now the page is locked again. I hope people cool down and calmer, more productive edits will come soon. If not, I'm in with Alai...this needs to be brought under more serious review. Infamouskitty 21:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I object to unprotecting this page, since Heimdal threatens to reintroduce his biased version again. gidonb 18:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Gidonb, please explain your objection. Sorry, but unless you don't explain reasonably why, in your view, the previous version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&oldid=13395561) was "extremely biased", there is no reason for keeping this page protected any further. - Heimdal 10:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel that removing protection is pointless. We have reached no consensus. If protection is removed Heimdal will revert the page, someone else will re-revert it, and it'll just end up getting protected again in 24 hours. I am aware that reaching a consensus will probably not alleviate the situation regarding the revert war, but it will at least establish the will of the collective which will serve as evidence for when the whole thing is ultimately sent for arbitration. ChristopherCaufield 22:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with Gidonb's view that the previous version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&oldid=13395561) of the page was "extremily biased"? If not, I think that we should regard Gidonb's view as a minority opinion, and move on. - Heimdal 15:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

So, you'd rather go back to an overly long article that's not well written to begin with? As far as my opinion of alleged bias goes...well, I would like to see most of the details you all are arguing about be excised in the interest of brevity. Take advantage of what this project has to offer! You want more details, click on the wikilink! The scope of the Holocaust and its intention dictate either 1) you discuss all of its victims or 2) you write a short sentence about the tremendous destruction during and incredible impact after, leaving all the details to the Holocaust article proper. And, because the History section is this morass of bloat, I favor the latter option as it would start to bring the whole article back into balance. Infamouskitty 22:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Gidonb to give some reasonable explanations as to why, in his view, the previous version was "extremely biased". If he isn't able to explain his point, I think we should indeed go back to the previous version. Infamouskitty, the article is long, but certainly not overly long? In fact, the United States page is much longer. NB I shall be absent from here over the Whitsun holiday. I'll be back on Tuesday. - Heimdal 13:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to weigh in right now on whether I think the article as a whole is too long...honestly, I have not been able to process that far along considering how long and unbalancing the History section is. I do like the variety of other sections presented and think that each individual section is probably long enough considering this whole business is a general gateway to the entity that is Germany. Infamouskitty 03:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have spent one week here now, trying to defend myself against Gidonb's allegations that the version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&oldid=13395561) which I have been editing for weeks was "extremely biased". In all this week I have not seen one single effort by Gidonb to discuss his allegations with me. I give Gidonb two more days to make his point here. If by Tuesday he has failed to do so, I'll ask an administrator to unprotect the article, and revert Gidonb's edits. If Gidonb tries to revert back, I'll ask for protection of *my* version this time. - Heimdal 15:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'm considering to start an arbitration procedure against Gidonb for intentionally vandalising the Germany page. Because if you put all his edits together - the indiscriminate deletions, the removal of images, the non-sensical changes to the structure of the article, etc - they do de facto amount to an act of vandalism. - Heimdal 19:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Gidonb. I give you time until tomorrow to begin a constructive discussion with me over your allegations that the Germany article, which I've been editing for weeks, was "extremely biased", and about all the deletions that you've made. Here is the link to the incriminated version: [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&oldid=13403771)

If you refuse to discuss, I will ask an administrator tomorrow to unprotect the page, and I will revert your edits. You are free to express your objections here. But if you try to revert me once again, I will ask for protection of *my* edits this time. I'm also ready to drag you in front of the arbitration committee if necessary, and charge you (a) with wilfully vandalising the Germany page (I intend to prove it!); (b) with badmouthing me on this talk page without good reason; and (c) with refusing to discuss your allegations with me. - Heimdal 11:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This article has been vandalized for months by anti-German POV pushers

I believe the Zionist needs to be banned from editing this page. Or what do you say, Gustav and Heimdal? Should we go to the Israel article and make it primarily an article about the Jewish ethnic cleansing, occupation and genocide of the Palestinians? Perhaps the United States should mostly deal with the genocide on native Americans, Africans and Abu Ghraib, preferably with a lot of the well-known pictures from the camp? anonymous comment by (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germany&diff=next&oldid=13661770) User:83.109.147.244

This is just silly (I just came here for wondering about the protection notice). Nobody can say WP is trying to hush up the holocaust. We have Nazi Germany, Holocaust, why, we have Category:Holocaust, containing six subcategories, and more than 100 individual articles. This, however is the article on Germany, the present-day state and its history. The Nazis dominated, what, 12 years of the 1200 years treated in the history section. that's 1%. already, the "Third Reich" section takes up about 20% of the history section, which is arguably pov, but obviously, it's not about any old 1% of German history, but a very decisive 1%, plus it's relatively recent history, so I'd say its fine to blow it out of (strictly temporal) proportion by a factor 10 or 20. And of course the Third Reich section should mention the holocaust. And guess what - that's it. The rest of the article should be allowed to treat lots of unrelated things in peace. dab (ᛏ) 11:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Dbachmann, the issue is not whether the article should mention the Holocaust. Of course it should. What angers me is that Gidonb has deleted half the page and removed every image that stood in his way before the article was protected. I think that Gidonb's deletions are totally unjustified, and I'm still waiting for Gidonb to explain his point. - Heimdal 13:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the Holocaust against the Palestinians mentioned in the Israel article! 83.109.156.2

I don't edit the Israel article. I leave it to the crowd over there to decide what should be mentioned in the Israel article and what not. This article is about Germany. Nobody in his or her right mind can deny that the Holocaust happened. It is therefore right to mention it here, for the sake of honesty and of historical accuracy. - Heimdal 10:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

unprotection

I see -- I didn't follow the discussion, and was distracted by the anonymous holocaust rant. Now correct me, but the article seems to have been protected by an admin involved in editing disputes here, and he seems to have reverted before protecting. I consider this rather bad form, admins involved in disputes should ask for protection on RfP like everyone else. I think I can take it upon myself to unprotect the article. Of course, if the edit war continues, it will have to be protected again, blindly, i.e. all parties have an interest to reach some sort of compromise rather than keeping reverting. dab (ᛏ) 15:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I propose an immediate change of the structure

Why is the subject religion a subsection of the section culture? I also disagree with the subject of military as a subsection of politics. Both religion and military deserve their own sections. I propose an immediate change of the structure. Foreign relations can be a subsection of politics Andries 16:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Andries, I regard Gidonb's edits as wilful vandalism, would you agree? Anyway, the page has been unprotected right now, and I have reverted Gidonb's edits. Gidonb is asked to discuss his objections with me on this talk page. - Heimdal 17:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have not studied all of Gidonb's edits but I strongly disagree with the structure that he introduced. Andries 17:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Gidonb's edits were for the most part deletions, as you had rightly observed yourself. I ask you to help improve the Germany page, Andries. (But without calling the deletion squad, please). - Heimdal 17:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The following sentence in italics has to be attributed, removed or clarified:

Germans continue to be concerned about a relatively high level of unemployment; however, they are generally unwilling to conceed to labour concessions such as longer working hours.

Immigrants are often viewed as contributing to the problem.

Who views the immigrants as contributing to what problem? Andries 17:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you are quoting from the "Social issues" section, right? That section was added to the article some weeks ago by User:Reboot, who also wrote the main article Social issues in Germany. The only thing I contributed to the section was the image of Kreuzberg, actually. I don't agree with everything that Reboot wrote. But I left it stay anyway, because of the effort he/she had made. Reboot told me that he/she was an American who had lived for some time in Germany. - Heimdal 17:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

We should re-write the sentence in italics immediately with something like (I dunno whether this true) "Unemployment rates are higher among first generation emigrants from Turkey" Andries 17:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Also should we make a short mentioning of the Rote Armee Fraktion in the history section? Andries 17:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Add Bundesverfassungsschutz? Andries 17:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

mass reverts

seeing that the reverting has started already, let me say that I recommend that Heimdal splits his edits into several parts, arguing each point separately, rather than just reverting to an old version. That way, his opponents in turn will have to argue each point separately. It is necessary to discuss things here on talk. Just reverting or calling vandalism is not acceptable. You need to carve out a compromise, but before you can do that, you need to establish what exaclty are the disputed points. dab (ᛏ) 17:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I believe Heimdal's umpteenth mass-reverting of our edits is against the rules at en.wikipedia and against your recommendation. I also find it very unpleasant to discuss matters with him beacuse of his rude language. I would like more people to be involved in this process. gidonb 17:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've asked User:DBachmann to unprotect, because you have not even cared to discuss your allegations with me, Gidonb. Anyway. Can we discuss now without you reverting the page once again? - Heimdal 17:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me you started mass-reverting the page. Also the fact that Dbachmann unprotected the page at your request does not mean you can mass revert it. According to his recommendations, I would say the opposite is true. gidonb 17:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Gidonb, I consider your mass revert worse than Heimdal's mass revert because of the strange structure in your version. Andries 18:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This mass-reverting is unacceptable. I have protected the page. Mackensen (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will start an arbitration procedure against Gidonb for wilfully vandalising the Germany page. See you there Gidonb. - Heimdal 18:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't do that Heimdal. Gidonb does not vandalize this article though I think that his version has serious shortcomings that should be discussed one by one. Please be patient. Andries 18:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not impressed by your threats, mass reverts and rude language. All improvements to this page - by me and others - were explained in the edit summaries, other than your mass destroying of our creative work. Also, your mass reversions of this page are not a new problem to en.wikipedia. Today it was me, and every time with another. There are pages and pages with complaints about your vandalizing conduct, repetitive facts and flushing this page with information while deluting the holocaust and deleting other genocides. I believe few will overlook them. gidonb 18:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how deleting half the page, removing images, and giving the article a structure which does not make sense to anyone should be an "improvement", Gidonb. I have enough evidence to prove that your edits were not made with goodwill. - Heimdal 18:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And what is more, Gidonb. Not one word in the Third Reich section was written by me. That's still the version by User:Luis rib, actually. I didn't delete anything there. Your accusations are totally absurd. - Heimdal 18:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You deleted the genocides against Roma and Slavs many times times, in the past and today twice. gidonb 18:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. I've never deleted anything regarding the Holocaust. Why should I? I'm not the kind of person you're trying to make of me. Do you think that because I'm German, I'm a Nazi? No, I'm German, but I'm not a Nazi. It may surprise you, Gidonb, but I didn't revert the page because of your edits to the Holocaust. I reverted the page because you have deleted far too many things, which had nothing to do with History, and which would have been too tiresome for me to restore them all. - Heimdal 19:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

So not wrong, but right. You did delete these genocides many times and for that matter bias the Germany page time and again. Also, I demand that you apologize for numerous times associating me with this ridiculous allegation. I never accused you or anyone for that matter of being a Nazi. This is a totally disgusting accusation. gidonb 19:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

can you please stop bickering about the various holocausts on this page? Your main concern should be to get some sort of compromise so that we can unprotect this page for everybody else to edit. This is a long article about a notable state, and it should not be protected longer than absolutely necessary. So please agree not to touch the holocaust stuff without prior discussion here, if necessary doing a poll about it. Just propose variant wordings of the section here, so everybody can vote about it. If necessary, create variant subpages. sheesh, assume some good faith, both of you, and some confidence that the fate of the Germany article lies not in your hands exclusively. You are not the only editors on Wikipedia you know. Gidonb, you should understand that Heimdal is frustrated because the page was protected in his face, twice. Also, as you are a "long-time contributor", you know very well that Heimdal's edits are not considered "vandalism", so please don't call them that, you'll only annoy him more. Heimdal, you should understand that you cannot just summarily revert, but have to argue your points individually. dab (ᛏ) 06:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

how about the following?

Under his leader leadership Germany started the T-4 Euthanasia Program in 1939 that secretly killed mentally disabled individuals without consent of their family. Nazi-Germany from 1941 to 1945 industrially murdered six million Jews plus additional groups like the Roma in the Holocaust. They also persecuted homosexuals, and communists. Thousands of Soviet POWs died through deliberate neglect and murder.

Note that Gidonb's version (that is the current version of the article) contains a factual accuracy mistake i.e. his version states that mentally disabled individuals were killed between 1941-1945 which is not true. See de:Aktion_T4 The program started already in 1939 and stopped earlier. Admins please give this protected article a factual accuracy warning or unprotect it so it can be improved.

Andries 07:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) (amended after reading Gidonb's commentary)

Dbachmann, I agree with you absolutely. If it's all about the right wording of the Holocaust part (an issue of particular concern for Gidonb), I'm ready to discuss it here on this talk page. What I'm *not* ready to accept, however, are the indiscriminate deletions that Gidonb has made in virtually every section of the article, the removal of images, the ridiculous structure that Gidonb has imposed upon this article (Religion a subsection of Culture, which in turn is a subsection of Population, and other such nonsense) - not to mention his totally absurd accusation that the article was "extremely biased". I'm still ready to put this case to the arbitration committee if necessary. - Heimdal 08:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Andries, the six million murdered in the holocaust do not include the other populations, BUT RATHER these are assessed at an additional 6 million, precisely as it says on the Germany page. gidonb 12:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

okay, you are right, amended. Andries 13:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, ok look: Heimdal, will you agree to make individual edits, one for each section/point you think was deleted without justification? And gidonb, will you agree to address these edits one by one, giving a reason for each one if you revert them? If you agree on this, the edit war will be contained to the "third Reich" section, which on this article is after all only a short historical summary. Will you also agree to not edit the Third Reich subsection directly (I am talking to gidonb and Heimdal)? Either let other editors follow up on your suggestions (your edits only have a chance of surviving if they get some consensus anyway), or until you can agree on a compromise version? In that case I think we could unprotect. Switching to and fro between antagonistic versions is totally unproductive, you need to find common ground step by step. Concerning the holocaust, just copy information from the specialized articles: These have been fought over in detail, and there is no point in repeating the same disputes here. dab (ᛏ) 13:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

from Holocaust:

5 – 6 million Jews, including 3.0 – 3.5 million Polish Jews [2] (http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/about_holocaust/faqs/answers/faq_3.html)
2.5 – 3.5 million Gentile Poles
200,000 – 800,000 Roma & Sinti
200,000 – 300,000 people with disabilities
10,000 – 25,000 gay men
2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses

so could we say, based on this,

Nazi-Germany between 1939 to 1945 murdered about 10 million people, including 5 – 6 million Jews, and another estimated 3 – 4 million people (Slavs, Roma and Sinti, homosexuals), see Holocaust.

we really shouldn't go into more detail than this, and these seem to be the numbers people agreed on on Holocaust. The Holocaust article treats the Jewish victims together with the 'gentile' ones. dab (ᛏ) 13:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

seems okay to me, but I oppose to mentioning that Slavs and Roman Catholics were killed industrially. There were some Slavs killed industrially (mainly because of racial reasons) i.e. Soviet POWs, but I think that most of them died through deliberate neglect. Andries 13:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Dab, I could live with most of that phrasing, except for knocking a million of the holocaust and the other genocides. Only very early research estimated the number of holocaust victims at 5 million (please follow the link in the document you refered to). The perpetrators, victims and current research estimate it at around 6 million. I also insist on the active phrasing, but will do with your compromised term. I believe a Roma person will just like me look to see if the Roma holocaust is mentioned in the Germany article, and excluding this is a disgrace for the English language Wikipedia. Hence my insistance. I believe one picture representing all genocides is appropriate. If this is indeed settled we will have to turn to the other repetitive and lengthy phrasing of German history, excessive and double pictures and the excessive amnount of first level titles, which I fixed in my recent edits. gidonb 13:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

we'll have no choice but to take over the death toll numbers people came up with on Holocaust. 6 million is the number I'm familiar with, too, but I'm not an expert. I suggest you go over to Holocaust and argue for changing the number there. If you succeed, we'll change it here. It's pointless to have a number here that is different from the one on the main article. dab (ᛏ) 09:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Attempt at shortening the article

Part I

I'm currently making a list of the major deletions and changes which Gidonb has made on May 6th. This is very tiresome, because it appears that Gidonb has made more than 50 edits in one single evening. Anyway, here is the first batch.

19:49, 6 May 2005. In the "Social issues" section, Gidonb deletes the following final sentence by User:Reboot:

1. This being said, such problems are not unique to Germany and the incidence of the more severe of these problems are relatively rare in perspective.

19:51, 6 May 2005. In the "Culture" section, Gidonb deletes the following:

2. Also Dutch belongs to the Low German languages, and English was developed from Old Low German.

20:49, 6 May 2005. In the subsection on the "Holy Roman Empire", the previous version said:

3. the Germans expanded their influence successfully with the help of the Catholic Church Gidonb deletes the word "successfully" (edit summary reads:"by default").

21:50, 6 May 2005. Gidonbs starts to delete indiscriminately throughout the page.

- In the "Military" section, Gidonb deletes the following:

4. Critics of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's government have argued that Germany's defence budget of about €24 billion is too small. Nevertheless, Defence Minister Peter Struck has said the defence budget will remain roughly unchanged until 2006.

- In "Religion", Gidonb deletes the following paragraph about Jewish immigrants in Germany:

5. About half joined a settled Jewish community, of which there are now more than 100, with a total of 100,000 members—up from 30,000 before unification. Some German cities have seen a revival of Jewish culture, particularly in Berlin, where 3,000 Israelis also live.

21:56, 6 May 2005. In the "Geography" section, Gidonb deletes the following sentence/paragraph:

6. Since reunification of the two parts of the country Germany has resumed its traditional role as the major centre between Scandinavia in the north and the Mediterranean region in the south, as well as between the Atlantic west and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. (Edit summary by Gidonb reads: "exaggeration")

22:17, 6 May 2005. In the "Culture" section, Gidonb deletes the following paragraph:

7. Many historical figures, though not citizens of Germany in the modern sense, were nevertheless seen as "Germans" in the sense that they were immersed in the German culture, for example Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Franz Kafka and Stefan Zweig.

In the same "Culture" section, Gidonb also deletes the following:

8. Whilst High German was subject to the so-called consonant shift, Low German was not.

So this is the first batch of Gidonb's deletions which I've put on my list. More of the same tomorrow. - Heimdal 15:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully stand behind these and other improvements I have made to the article. I am one of many who think that this article is way to detailed for a country's main entry. I hope Heimdal will put more of my shortenings to discussion WITH THE COMPLETE EDIT SUMMARIES, as, where included, the above deletions illustrate the thorough thought, detail and effort I made in getting back to the basics one would expect to find in a country's main entry. gidonb 16:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure that the things that you removed from the article don't matter to *you*. Because the only thing that seems to bother you about Germany is the Holocaust. But perhaps the things that I mentioned above and which you deleted do matter to other people. Ever thought about it, you little "PhD student", you? - Heimdal 16:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And anyway, we don't need your "shortening" here. The Germany page is a competitive 47KB long, as compared to the 60KB of the United States page. But I really don't want to hold you back, Gidonb. You and your deletion squad can always go to the United States article and start your destruction work over there. - Heimdal 16:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal can you please stop making personal insults? They are unpleasant for everybody. I took the freedom to number the deletions by Gidonb to facilitate talking about them. I oppose to deletion 7. and I think that the wording of nr. 6 is exaggerated and can be re-added after toning it down (it is true that Germany is an important bridge between "Eastern Europe" and Western Europe.) Andries 16:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Andries, but who accused me of editing an "extremely biased" article, and who tried to badmouth me on this talk page in the first place? - Heimdal 16:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I am still waiting for Heimdal's apologies for insult after insult. Also I insist that I will not be part of the title, when we deal with the shortening in the article, because others participated. I can and will not claim all the credit. Also, I nowhere claimed that my only interest is the Holocaust. Yes, I am Jewish, but I have many interests. Also in this respect, my insistance was with including the other genocides. I think after apologies we can get down to the issues. gidonb 17:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologise for what, Gidonb. Did you ever apologise to me? Also, it's not true that "others participated" in your destruction work. I've gone through the edits, and what I can say for sure is that the destruction was done by you alone. Yes, I think you're Jewish. But certainly you're not the only Jewish person on Wikipedia. And I've never seen anyone else make such a big fuss about the wording of the Holocaust here but you alone. - Heimdal 17:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I invite everyone to read through the edit history, Heimdal's remarks above and the rest of the page, including the poll in which everyone sided to have the history section shortened. gidonb 18:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The poll is old, Gidonb. Consensus shifts. - Heimdal 18:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Your insults and the constant reverting of the title of this section makes discussion rather impossible. I was not the only one to shorten the article. gidonb 18:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Gidonb, it can't be the aim of a poll to put straightjackets upon those who actually work on the article, do we agree? But I don't want to hold you back, Gidonb. You and your deletion squad can move over to the United States page, which is much longer than this article ever was, without anyone over there making a great fuss about it. Do your patriotic duty, Gidonb! Be a man! - Heimdal 18:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I reject the way Heimdal talks. Also, I disagree that this article belongs only to Germans and those in the US should edit the US article. All Wikipedia articles belong to everyone. Also I believe that certain sections should receive more attention, for example the large moslim community in Germany which received far less attention than the "growing" Jewish population in Germany. gidonb 18:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

RIGHT, WOULD YOU PLEASE BOTH STOP IT. I have three small children who sometimes argue like this, but they can't keep it up for so long. You are each trying to show the other as unreasonable, but you are both doing the same things. You are negatively profiling each other, you are ascribing motives to each other which obviously are not correct, you are falsely presenting stylistic questions as NPOV questions in order to make your cases sound less trivial, you are not listening to each other or really trying to address where the other is coming from, and above all you have both dug your heels in so deeply that you have no way of compromising left. I would like to make a suggestion: why don't you both withdraw from editing this article for a month and let people who haven't been involved in this thing try to sort the article out. And meanwhile, there are heaps of other things on Wiki which you could usefully be doing. Vast swathes of German history, culture and political life has still barely been commented on. Go and find something to work on, and try to avoid each other until things have cooled down a bit. And if it makes you feel better to flame me for being patronising, go right ahead. --Doric Loon 18:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think I react the way I educate my children to do: with maximum self-constraint. As to your proposal, yes why not? Sorry but I do not take any joy in being insulted here time and again, here and on about everyone's talk page, with the most ridiculous claims (supposedly I am well known to hate Germany and Germans, think they are all Nazis, I am a little PhD student and so on so forth). By the way I am of German descent myself and actively promote German culture. If it would solve the major problems of the Germany page, and others will come back and contribute, I would go for it! gidonb 00:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, would someone who knows how to do it archive nine tenths of this talk page, please? It takes ages to download. --Doric Loon 18:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I would never flame at you, Doric Loon. I know that your are a good-willing person. Regarding your suggestion. I joined Wikipedia some months because I thought that I had something useful to contribute to this article. I come from Germany, and I'm greatly interested in Germany. I have worked on this page since January, trying to make a better and more interesting article of it. I'm sorry that Gidonb doesn't see it this way. I'm even more sorry to know that you don't see it this way either. - Heimdal 19:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And if I came back after a month, what then? Gidonb would be back as well, and everything would start all over again. Perhaps the best thing to do is to put this case to the arbitration committee. Although I don't like the idea very much, because I don't have any experience with arbitration. - Heimdal 19:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say you weren't trying to do your best for the article, Heimdal. I just said you have both got yourselves into a position where neither of you can win. So let's just try to lower the tension level here. --Doric Loon 19:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is already a main article on the history of Germany, and that the section given should be a much briefer summary of the contents of that article. There also seems to be a lot of consensus for that on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

hey, while it is obivous that Heimdal is annoyed at gidonb, for the reasons he stated, I don't see his remarks as particularly insulting. He's annoyed, and says so, that's not an insult per se. At least, I have been insulted much worse on WP without batting an eyelid. The deletions may be arguable, but the question is, did gidonb discuss them at the time he made them? If not, why not? Yes, the article should be shorter, and gidonb may get consensus for some of his removals, but that's beside the point if he didn't bother to discuss. dab (ᛏ) 09:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, I'll defend my edits: 1, Listing off the border countries of a nation in the introduction is tedious and long-winded. It doesn't do the article any favours, especially when the same text can be found further down. I consider that a sentence stating the country's position and the fact that it has lots of neighbours replaces the list (Which can still be found further down the page if the reader is interested enough to read on) a lot more concisely. 2, There is no need to say that Germany is a member-state of those international organisations, as their only members ARE states. 3, Likewise 'G8' on it's own says it all. i.e Germany is a member of the Group of 8- no 'nations' is needed. 4, '...what is now the EU' implies that Germany helped to found the predecessor and not the current body. Thus mentioning the EEC is superfluous. 5, Saying 'it' at the start of the third paragraph also omits unnecessary repetition of 'Germany', considering that this has been said in the first two.

"Those are my principles and if you don't like them... I have others."- Groucho Marx :op Rednaxela 20:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"In the light of a series of revolutionary movements in Europe in 1848, particularly following the revolution in France, which once more established a republic, revolution broke out in Germany." - This sentence has too many appositions. Okay, so it may be factually and gramatically exact, but it makes for horrible reading. Rednaxela 18:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"German"-Jews

Why do people in America consider people like Albert Einstein German? There is no such thing as a German-Jew, it's just a feel good term invented by Moses Mendelssohn. I propose a vote to forbid the use of the term German-Jew, one cannot be both German and Jewish.

What would you propose calling him? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the term "German-Jew" is being used by Gidonb. - Heimdal 09:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

why the hell should you not be Jewish and German at the same time? Just like you can be Polish, or USian, or Israeli, and Jewish, at the same time. You are German if you have a German passport, and you are Jewish if your Mother was Jewish. What's the problem? "German" is a nationality. "Jewish" is somewhere between an ethnicity and a religion. Arguably, you cannot be both "Germanic" or "Teutonic" and "Jewish", but even that is a possibility if your father is a convert. dab (ᛏ) 09:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The question is whether the Jewish population should be mentioned in the Demography section or in Religion. In the previous version the Jews were mentioned in Religion, before Gidonb moved them to Demography. I would question that decision. Because officially Germany does not make any distinction between Germans and Jews. If a person of Jewish faith has the German citizenship, he or she is registered as German - if otherwise, he or she is counted as "Foreigner". It's simply a matter of faith, not of ethnicity. That's why I would put them back to Religion. - Heimdal 09:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

of course, singling out "the Jews" over "the Saxons", "the Protestants", "the Armenians", "the Alamanni" etc. would be racist or religious discrimination, regardless if it is intended as "positive" or "negative" discrimination. If Einstein is a "Jewish German" scientist, Euler is an "Alamannic Protestant Swiss" mathematician. dab (ᛏ) 10:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There a lot of Jews (and not jewish people like me) living in Germany today that would object to one cannot be both German and Jewish. Nevfennas 14:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Jewish German" (like Jewish American) ? - Heimdal 14:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

OF COURSE there is such a thing as a German Jew. Just listen to the president of the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland on how he feels about the assumption that he must be an Israeli... --Doric Loon 19:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't react to this kind of trollish comment (the original comment)! Saintswithin 20:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I see, I didn't realize the original comment was just an anon troll. Never mind, then :) dab (ᛏ) 21:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposals

Since the page is protected, I would like to post some proposals for (rather minor) changes.

"The medieval empire – known for much of its existence as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation – stemmed from a division of the Carolingian Empire in 843, which was founded by Charlemagne on December 25th, 800, and existed in varying forms until 1806."

The 2nd foundation by Otto I in 962 should be mentioned.

"During these almost thousand years, the Germans expanded their influence with the help of the Catholic Church, Northern Crusades and the Hanseatic League."

Northern Crusades is awkward. There was only one "crusade" in the North, please use another term.

Also the decline of royal/imperial power since 1250 should be mentioned.

From: "In 1530, the Protestant Reformation of Catholicism failed, and a separate Protestant church was acknowledged as a new state religion in many German states." To: "After 1517 the Protestant Reformation broke out and spread through Germany.This resulted in the religious split of the country and in 1555 it was left to the princes to determine the religious affiliation of their respective territories."

From: "In 1890 Bismarck was dismissed by the new Emperor William II due to the prudent foreign policy and personal differences." Into: "In 1890 Bismarck was dismissed by the new Emperor William II due to differences about foreign and internal policies and also because of personal differences." Explanation: "due to the prudent foreign policy" is a rather awkward wording - I guess Bismarck's policy is supposed to be prudent, but certainly Wilhelm saw it differently. There were also differences about internal policy, e.g. social security, fight against the Social Democrats.

From: "in the Night of the Long Knives, ostensibly to end homosexual vices" To: "in the Night of the Long Knives, ostensibly to preempt a paramilitary coup against the government" Reason: though Röhm's homosexuality played some part and was used by Hitler for propaganda, the "real supposed reason" was that Röhm & the SA were planning a coup against the government, a 2nd revolution, to replace the regular army with the Sa paramilitary. Fears of this were widespread and Hitler shrewdly used this to portray himself as the moderate.

Also "left-wing" opposition is a bit awkward in regard to the SA. Yes, in a way, it's true, but then again, it isn't.

"German Parliament is made up of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat."

That's wrong. The two don't form one body with two chambers (as in the UK or the USA), both are distinct bodies of the legislative branch. The Bundestag is the parliament and shouldn't be called a the lower house. Contrasted with the Bundesrat, the Bundestag is actually more important. Parallels to the UK or the USA are misleading. Accordingly, the Bundesrat shouldn't be called the upper house.

In the Education section, it should be mentioned that school education is a matter of the individual states and hence there are differences in the respective school systems.

Str1977 22:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Str, your comments sound very knowledgeable and somebody who knows more about Germany than I should check them soon. Please help. Andries 10:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I read the (London-based) Economist every week, and I think to have seen the word "upper house" being used more than once with reference to the Bundesrat. - Heimdal 13:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The Bundesrat consists of members of the current goverments of the german states. Each state is allocated between 3 and 7 votes (69 total), depending on the size of the state (roughly). How these votes are cast is decided by the goverment of the state, usually formed by a coalition. If the partners of the coalition disagree on an issue, the state usually abstents (splitting the votes is explicitly forbidden by the constitution). The Bundesrat can only vote on laws that effect the states direct interests (e.g. taxes with revenues given to the states). The area of direct interest is divided into one where the Bundesrat must agree to laws and one where the Bundesrat can only object, with the Bundestag being able to overrule the objection with Chancellors Majority. AFAIK the upper houses have to agree to all laws, therefore the Bundesrat is not an upper house. Nevfennas 14:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Nevfennas, do a quick Google search (http://www.google.com), and you will see that the word "upper house" in connection with the Bundesrat is used pretty much everywhere. - Heimdal 14:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not denying that, but the Bundesrat in the hand of the opposition is far less a problem for the ruling party than e.g. the US Senate. But maybe it's better to leave that to the Bundesrat-page.Nevfennas 14:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

But compare with the UK, where the "upper house" is practically of nuisance value only, and was permanently in the hands of one party for quite literally centuries, with only moderate problems for governments of other parties with commons majorities; or other countries with vaguely similar systems such as Ireland. Seems a perfectly justifiable usage (as well as being a fairly common one, as noted by Heimdal) in this broader sense, rather than the singular comparison with the US Senate per se. Alai 22:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I know that "upper house" is used quite frequently for the Bundesrat. That is why I jumped when I read it here. Magazines may print things like this, but it doesn't make them any truer. Wiki, as an ecyclopedia, should refrain from that. I know where they are coming from. They compare the German system with the US one, where the Senate is the representative of the states and is also the upper house both in honour (senate) and in powers (confirmation of ministers, judges etc, impeachment court). Though the UK's House of Lords (--Aside: Alai, you're mistaken, the Lords have been divided along party lines since the 17th century, as long as there are parties in England---) is much less powerful than the Commons, this wasn't always so (relly only after 1910 or so) and it also has the "primacy of honour". The Bundesrat however is, despite its current nuissance value, considered a lesser institution compared to the Bundestag (the President of the Bundestag is ranking second just behind the Federal President, and above the Chancellor (3rd) and the President of the Bundesrat (4th), though the latter can fill in for the Federal President). Also, neither Bundestag nor Bundesrat are actually houses or chambers of a more comprehensive body, as it is the case in the USA and the UK. The two are distinct bodies of the legislative branch. The Bundestag is the German parliament and in it the legislative power is vested - the Bundesrat participates in that process. Again, I know, English papers are trying to give a quick explanation of the Bundesrat by calling it "upper house" (whether this works, I don't know), but Wiki explains it well enough, so it doesn't need this supposed parallel. Str1977 23:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977, I'm aware it's divided on party lines: how does that go to my point at all, much less demonstrate me mistaken? It's had a large in-built Tory/Conservative majority for the preponderance of that time, regardless of whether the commons was controlled by the Whigs, Liberals, or Labour Party. Perhaps it wasn't clear what I meant by "in the hands": that denotes "control", not "exclusive occupancy". On the substantiative issue, if we've established that British sources (with their model of a highly ineffective "upper house"), American sources (with a very different one), and Wikipedia (also see: Upper house for a fuller discussion of the proper scope of the term) all find this a useful descriptor, despite obvious inexactitudes in the implied comparisons, then I don't see how the usage is questionable here. Alai 02:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Alai, as regards the "Lords" - "mistaken" was strictly limited to your saying, that the Lords were controlled by one party for centuries. There have been preponderance this way and that way, both Whigs and Tories. You are right of course, if you say, that the Lords were and are generally more conservative (not a party, but a view) than the Commons, but I guess they are supposed to be. On the substantive issue, I'll stand by my points made above. Str1977 10:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

unprotecting again, hear ye

I am unprotecting this article again. I have discussed this with Mackensen, and he agreed we should give it a try. I am playing the "uninvolved admin" here, in spite of my couple of comments towards compromise above, since I haven't made an edit to the article yet.

My rationale for unprotecting is:

protection is considered harmful
the edit war seems essentially confined to two editors
other users wish to make useful, uncontroversial changes

The rules for further editing are:

change disputed points one by one, no summary changes to old versions
no summary reverting, take each point as it comes, and do not revert it without reasoning on talk
gidonb and Heimdal should calm down and see what the other editors are up to to get a feel of consensus, before they jump all over the article
WP:3RR violations, including "partial" and "complex" reverts will result in 24h blocks without warning. Report 3RRvios to WP:AN/3RR.
- if only gidonb and Heimdal are reverting, that's eight reverts per day before both are blocked. That's not very bad, and if the warring is confined to these two, that'll hardly have an effect on the article
if reprotection is required, it should be requested at WP:RfP, and the request should be announced here, so that people opposed to protection can also leave a note there. You should then wait until an uninvolved admin comes over from WP:RfP, and protects the page blindly (i.e. if you request protection, you have no way of knowing if "the wrong version" will be protected)

Does that sound like a deal? I would ask admins not to re-protect after the first two or three reverts. Let's see if this will calm down. Both gidonb and Heimdal will realize that just reverting each other will yield no result, whatsoever except wasting everybody's time and make them look childish. Another rule is, if you feel very annoyed, take a break for a couple of hours, and see what the others could figure out when you return. dab (ᛏ) 09:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Concerning anything that is personal or without direct impact on Germany, in the dispute between Heimdal and gidonb, I do encourage you to open an rfc. You could even agree to open a 'joint' rfc, where you both invite outside views on your disputes, rather than have one accusing and one defending party. People will be able to look into the history of your dispute on that rfc, and it won't clog up this page so much anymore. You should not open an arbitration case before that rfc as reached a dead end, Heimdal. dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Good move. I promise that I won't revert the page. Instead, I will simply re-add all the things that Gidonb deleted, and discuss them here. Einverstanden? - Heimdal 09:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

no, no, don't add them all at once! start with the less controversial ones. see how people react. Take it slowly, there is no deadline. dab (ᛏ) 10:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Especially considering the history section is far too long even after the deletions. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree (obviously, given my repeated comments to this effect above). The main "controversy" for me is the amount of over-detailed material, so "add them back in one at a time unless there are no specific objections" isn't ideal, either: ending up with a history section that comprises half the length of the article is as undesirable by that route, as by an immediate revert. Obviously the challenge will be arriving at a section generally seen as "balanced" without resorting to "covering all bases" at stylistically undesirable length, and (im)balance of section lengths. I think dab's comments that only two editors are involved isn't really inaccurate; look back through both the talk page, and the article history, and you'll see a number of people reverting Heimdal, and complaining about his behaviour (and generally only Heimdal and some anon IPs reverting to Heimdal's version) -- including me, it must be said. I'd agree with dab's advice as being good for everyone involved, however. Note that this dispute has rumbled on for months to the exasperation of all concerned with a steady stream of < 4 reverts per day, so strict enforcement of 3RR itself seems unlikely to help resolve it as such. Alai 23:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think Jayjg has a point here. If you look at the history section on other country pages, it usually isn't longer than two paragraphs. The bulk is on the "History of <name>" page. The history section on Germany is over twice the size of that on France, whose history is equally ancient. I would also agree with Dbachmann that there's no rush, and that bringing the matter to the community's attention through an RfC would be very beneficial (especially for the article itself). Mackensen (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the history section is quite long. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, the article itself is not. The Germany page (previous version) was 47KB long, whereas the United States page has a length of 61KB. Alai should please explain why Germany should be drastically "pruned" while the United States is allowed to expand. This page has seen too many deletions already. Let the page evolve, and please refrain from putting straightjackets on those who are working on this article. - Heimdal 10:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You've repeatedly pointed this out indeed, but haven't addressed any of my equally repeated counterpoints. 47K is considerably long, putting it not merely over the "article size" warning threshold, but by about 50% too long, and larger than 99.9% of .en articles, by a rough calculation. There's nothing drastic about the pruning involved. "Heimdal should explain" why it's in any way desirable for the history section to become so disproportionately large, for it to duplicate coverage in other articles, and for the article to become so much larger than the size which "may be desirable". The US article may be excessively long too, but it doesn't have the same structural problems you've introduced here, so much as generalised bloat. I'd be happy to go and argue for trimming of that, too, but I get the distinct feeling you'd simply find other "precedents" for the previous size of the Germany article (though I'd be glad to accept your assurance that you would and will not). Your arguments here are essentially of the character of "two stylistic wrongs mean I don't have to justify anything at all here", and attempting to throw the burden of evidence for the desirability of changes you have made (which you steadfastly refused to discuss at the time) on Gidonb for having tried to undo some of them. Do you really feel that the existence of other over-long articles (like say, [[History of Germany]...) is an argument against any attempt to make this one of more normative length? Alai 11:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, there seems to be a technical problem on the History of this talk page. A post of May 10th is being dragged throughout the History page. Any idea how to avoid that? Thanks. - Heimdal 10:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If the length of the History section is brought to the RfC, I think it would be fair to put the length of the United States page to the community's attention as well. Heimdal 10:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the history section is too long but I think there are good reasons to have the section somewhat longer than the history sections of e.g. the USA, and France. The recent history of Germany is dramatic, complicated, full of ruptures and affected most of Europe. Andries 11:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The current History section is already "somewhat longer", and perhaps justifiably so for the reasons you mention. The current length is on the high end of what I'd personally be comofortable with, but is workable. I don't think it's necessary to have an RfC on the specific issue of the length (in either case), though I do still wonder if a Template:Tl tag would be a good idea, for just such cases. Previously the article was listed on the content dispute section of RfC, though. Alai 12:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the length of the History section is connected with Germany's unusual past. I'm glad that Andries has pointed this out. - Heimdal 11:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to point out to User:Alai that most of Gidonb's "trimming" had nothing to do with the History section. Gidonb has deleted indiscriminately throughout the whole article (he even removed parts of the Culture section), which was simply not necessary. I intend to put that all back. As regards the disputed History section. If that section is going to be shortened, it should be done in a way that is balanced and fair. Because I for one would never agree to a History section in which Nazi Germany and the Holocaust are the centrepiece, and everything else is only mentioned at random. - Heimdal 11:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Starting with the non-History edits may be a very good idea for just such a reason, though as dab says, please do them one at a time and relatively slowly, in any event. And yes, clearly the section should be balanced, and things given a prominence (including whether they're mentioned at all) according to notability, not randomly or with any agenda. Alai 12:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

And please recall, you did a fair bit of "lengthening" on the article which has bloated it up to its current size; rather than looking for Gidonb edits to put back in, you should be looking for more things to trim. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayig, I don't see anything wrong with the current size. However, if you disagree, I suggest that you go over to the United States page and try to convince the people to delete that article by half. Surely there is no bloating over there, or is there, Jayig? - Heimdal 10:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I, too, think the seize of the history section is now better but I fail to see why the sections shouldn't deserve two pictures each. To my mind pictures really enliven articles, which you can easily recognize when looking at the article for propaganda. In addition they (can) give a more accurate impression. To show the heyday of nazism in "Third Reich" is one thing, but to cast the fall of it, the victory in Berlin, quite another. You could say that only showing the prime is one-sided and adding the another picture would make it a complete picture, thus more unbiased. What the History-section also lacks is the right proportion. The time up to the German Empire is clearly understated, especially the time shortly before the German Empire: nationalism, liberalism, Congress of Vienna, Dutscher Bund, Restauration, Wartburg meeting, Hambacher Fest... Revolation of 1848/49, Paulskirche, the falling through of the revolution, you name it. They should without any doubt receive their own paragraph. There are reasons why the 19th century is often referred to as the "long" 19th century. The History-section could and should mirror that length. The Weimarer Republik, by contrast, is a bit overstated, just like the single actions in WW1. History books like to make only little mention of it anyway. But I guess you have problems other than the content of the 19th century right now. Oh well, sooner or later I'm going to fix the paragraph myself, but I'm afraid not anytime soon.NightBeAsT 23:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

German law

This article desperately needs a section on the German legal system. (This could cross-reference to German legal citation, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, etc., though a full article on the German legal system will eventually be a desideratum). Anyone feel up to writing it? --Doric Loon 21:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There are currently only a few words about the Federal Constitutional Court - the Bundesverfassungsgericht - in the Politics section, and that's just all we have about Germany's legal system. But you, for instance, could start to expand that paragraph by adding some words about other aspects of the judiciary. Eventually it could then be made an independent section. - Heimdal 13:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The sentence about administrative law is wrong. Administrative Law is codified nationally (VwGO,VwVfG,BVerfGG,etc).

I introduced the sentence about administrative law before getting my own account. And I am not convinced by your argument that it is codified nationally. VwGO and BVerfGG are not part of administrative law, rather they are procedural law. VwVfG is not valid either on a national level, it regulates the procedure of federal administration only (which is negligeable in size). Of course, all of the Länder have adopted legislation which copies the federal VwVfG for their own administrations, but that doesn't make this legislation any more federal than the PolizeiG, which are based on a model legislation elaborated by a cross-land working group. There is federal administrative law (BImSchG, GewO, BauGB, StVG, ...) but these laws are piecemeal and by no way a codification of administrative law in the same way that BGB is for private law. Hazzl 23:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this some more. There are two issues that have to be kept separate:

There is no unifying codification of administrative law in the same way as there is for private or criminal law. I don't really think that one can argue that any such codification exists.
The reasons for this lack of codification. The reason given in the article is probably incorrect. There exists a lot of national administrative law (just have a look at your 'Sartorius' :-) It's just that many of the important matters are in the jurisdiction of the individual federated States (VwVfG, PolG, BauO) so any attemt at a codification on a national level would necessarily have to be utterly incomplete.

I'll adjust the article accordingly Hazzl 14:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deletions

Heimdal, your mass deletion of old matter from this talk page is completely unacceptable. If you don't know how to properly archive then ask someone (like me) who does, but don't just delete comments, especially not those made by other people. Also, comments made in the last few days regarding on-going issues should not be deleted, especially not when such a deletion destroys context. I am going to restore the deleted content, and please don't do that again. Mackensen (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, especially since his deletions [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGermany&diff=13896557&oldid=13886506) were very selective, keeping some old material he liked, while removing current material that somehow displeased him. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal's brutal behavior, such as through frequent threats, cursing and deliberate vandalisms, and his easy time at getting away with it, prove that Heimdal can do whatever he likes on the Germany page and its talk page. This is made possible by the fact that users like me, with an excellent reputation around Wikipedia, do not like to be slurred through the mud time and again by Heimdal, while being assisted by an opinionated contributor to the talk page, who takes clear personal and mostly similar stands, albeit in a milder language.

This user, administrator Dbachmann, draws clear parallels between the attacker and his victims, while he totally disregards Heimdal's agressive language, as wel as Heimdal's deliberate deletions of large sections of the very same talk page he, Dbachmann, uses to insult those who would like to make a positive contribution to the Germany page ("childish behavior"). Dbachmann, who placed plea after plea to change Heimdal's 'bitter luck' on Mckensen's page and unprotected the Germany page after he was asked not to, also contributed to my talk page where he implied that I should leave Wikipedia!

While this is the state of affairs, I completely understand why so many stopped their efforts at improving the quality of the Germany page. As a "little PhD student", by Heimdal's definition, who truely cares about this page and about Wikipedia in general and the way we interact, I would like to request that we freeze the Germany page again, until we get to the bottom of the issues while talking to the many excellent contributors who left after being attacked by Heimdal, the way he attacked me the last two weeks. gidonb 03:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Gidonb wrote,

Heimdal, while being assisted by an opinionated contributor to the talk page, who takes clear personal and mostly similar stands, albeit in a milder language.

If I am the "opinionated contributor" that you are referring to then I would like to say that I do not uncritically support Heimdal's edits. I support only some of his edits. And I also protested against Heimdal's personal attacks on you. Andries 11:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No you are not. I called the user by his name and I saw you clearly protest some of Heimdal's methods, which are made possible with the support of the administrator I mentioned. gidonb 12:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

you are just sulking now, gidonb. All I did was unprotect the page. I am not endorsing any of Heimdal's edits, but I trust the users here to make informed judgements, and revert Heimdal's changes if they are inappropriate. You, on the other hand, seem to have liked to see your version of the article protected till kingdom come. I invited you to open an rfc if you think I abused admin privileges, or to have my actions reviewed on WP:AN. Instead, you prefer to make venomous comments about me. How childish. Seeing the number of edits by users other than Heimdal and you since I unprotected, I feel very justified in my action. dab (ᛏ) 07:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Please protect this page again

I demand that this page be protected again. I won't accept any further deletions by Gidonb. - Heimdal 11:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the pic of the German pope because his fucntion is mainly international and I think a pic of him is overdoing it. Andries 11:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Quantity of Jews in Germany today [4] (http://cgi.zentralratdjuden.de/cgi-bin/index.php?lang=de&topic=62) Andries 12:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Andries. This corresponds with my contribution. Best, gidonb 19:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

All my improvements to this page were thoroughly explained. If they are massreverted without proper explenations, that is vandalism. But then again, what is new. He vandalises the talk page regularly and the article even more often, and has an administrator to back him up. gidonb 12:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Andries, I added the image of Benedict XIV because I thought that the election of the first German pope since the 11th century was something to celebrate. And also because the Religion section was looking a bit too Protestant for a country that is evenly split between Catholics and Protestants. But I thank you for your piece on the Kirchensteuer. Although, I expect that User:Jayjg will jump up with indignation over this "bloating" of the page, and surely, User:Gidonb will soon delete it again. - Heimdal 12:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Here I am; the page is indeed "bloated", and you appear to have been taking ownership of this page for some time now. If you can't start working things out with other editors on this page first, rather than unilaterally forcing your changes into the article, I'm going to start taking a much more active role than just "jumping up with indignation". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

As Heimdal's vandalism to this page seems to continue at full speed, although his methods were yesterday exposed, I think that protecting this page and discussing the ongoing issues, where good contributors are discredited until they leave, is actually a good option. gidonb 12:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't touch the History section, and I demand that Gidonb does the same. I'm only readding deleted things outside History which were good and useful information, based on facts not bias. - Heimdal 12:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether they are facts is one things; whether they are "good and useful information" is another". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You are continuing to vandalize both the talk page and the article itself and no one seems to care. gidonb 13:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Lenght of the article and its history section

Jayjg, the information may not be useful to *you*, but perhaps it may be useful to others? Also, regarding the alleged "bloating". I kindly ask you to go over to the United States page and convince the people over there to delete half the article. Surely, an article of the size of 61KB must be full of "bloat", or not? - Heimdal 16:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the information may be useful to others, perhaps not; work it out with the other editors here. As for the United States page, it has already been explained to you that two wrongs don't make a right. If you feel the United States page needs to be shortened, go work on that, but that has nothing to do with the length of this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjig, I demand fairness. It seems like the hysteria about the article's length seems to be particular to this page. Nobody is making a big deal about the 61KB on the US talk page. It looks like Germany and the United States are being treated differently on Wikipedia. Besides, your accusation of "page ownership" is absolutely ridiculous. I'm only asking that this page be treated in the same way as the United States article: That this page be left to develop freely, without someone deleting the page every few weeks. - Heimdal 16:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia recommends that articles stay under 32K; that is "fair"; please do not bring up irrelevant pages again, as I won't respond. Regarding "taking ownership", it might be "ridiculous" had the history of your edits not been clear, and had not several other editors made this exact same charge (e.g. Luis Rib, Clem McGann). It would indeed be nice if this page could "be left to develop freely", but apparently you will not allow that to happen. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I object to the Heimdal's patronizing summary edit: "Who asked you to move edits to other articles anyway. Just stop it." Who is going to stop his brutal behavior? Also, how can one demand fairness, if one treats everyone who wants to contribute to this page utterly unfair, decieves, patronizes, vandalizes, curses and what have you? gidonb 17:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to the protection of this page. There are serious issues with the conducts around this page, which ought to be discussed in a serious manner. gidonb 17:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop it Gidonb, will you. Look after your own behaviour first, before criticizing others. I really do have the impression that Germany and the United States are being treated differently on en.wikipedia.org. If this is the case, Jayjg should say it openly. - Heimdal 17:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, but why Germany and not the United States. Please explain why the US article should be allowed to be twice the size of this page. I can't see any fairness in that. - Heimdal 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I said I wouldn't respond, but I'll try again. I've never looked at the United States article, and don't know what is in there. Perhaps because it is the world's only superpower, the world's largest economy, and is vastly larger than Germany in both population and sheer physical size, people felt it needed a longer article. Whatever the reason, as I told you already, if you have a problem with the United States article, go fix it, or bring it up on the relevant talk page (Talk:United States). Two wrongs don't make a right. Meanwhile, Wikipedia policy recommends articles be closer to 32K, and the Germany article looks too big to me. Please do not try to side-track the issue by bringing up the extraneous issue of the United States article again; I am only discussing this article, and will not respond to further attempts to bring up the United States article. Discuss the content of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayg, where is the guideline that says that Wikipedia articles should be at most 32k? I think this guideline is obsoleted. I never read anything about it anymore on theWikipedia:Featured_article_candidates, Wikipedia:The_perfect_article, Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article. For example, the Polish September Campaign is a Featured Article Candidate of 59k but nobody complains about the size. Andries 18:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Article size. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

If nobody makes any remarks about Featured article candidates that are almost twice the recommended size then I can no longer take this recommendation seriously. Andries 18:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Why do all the discussions in this section seem to revolve around other articles, and not this one? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The main issue of the Germany page is the fact that contributors get attacked and contributions to the article and its talk page are almost daily vandalized. The Untied States has 4.5 times the population of Germany and about 28 times its territory. It may have some faults too, but this is hardly the place to discuss them. I think you are side-tracking the problem. gidonb 17:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, if 32KB is fair for Germany it should be fair for any country. I demand equal treatment of all country-related articles. Certainly, we don't want to give readers the impression that the United States is granted privileged status on Wikipedia, do we? - Heimdal 18:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

See previous comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I sent an email to the mailing list of the English Wikipedia about the size lenght. It is not just the article about the USA but many articles exceed the recommended size limit lately and nobody seems to care anymore. Only some contributors here. Andries 19:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I restored the version of Academic Challanger after unsummarized edits by an anonymous user. After the change we have had two images of the Brandenburger Gate, but none of the Berlin Wall, so this was probably a bad idea. This was the reason the Brandenburger Gate, rather than the Wall, was removed to begin with when reducing the excessive picture material on this page. gidonb 20:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Article about a country, especially a major one like Germany, should have 320kb :) I would object to this being FA if it had less the 32kb anyway, I think a good FA should have at least 32kb. Btw, this talk page needs archiving fast, it is enormous. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have just gone through all the edits of the last 24 hours, which took me a half an hour which I really could have put to better use. It is quite clear that Heimdal and Gidonb are still not listening to each other, and in my view they have both lost track of the cooperative spirit of this project. But of the two, it is Gidonb who is really out of order. The word "vandal" is an insult, it is a deliberate provocation which can only exacerbate problems, and it only shows Gidonb in a very bad light. Please avoid inflamatory language. Besides, it is slightly absurd: if you think about it logically, deleting text is destroying someone's work, and it is deleting, not restoring, which is closer to vandalism. Some material of mine was deleted by Gidonb yesterday. Well, maybe it was of no great importance, but consultation would have been nice. Apart from the history section, this article needs to be fuller, not shorter. So please do not delete substantive material unless there is agreement here first. --Doric Loon 20:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think either editor should be making unilateral edits, and 9 reverts by one editor in 12 hours is excessive by any standard. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello Doric, as mentioned it was not deleted but moved to the in-depth article. This was very helpful since the topic was totally omitted there. I understand and regret your personal discomfort, but I thought the edit was necessary for the overall balance of this article and not because the text was wrong. The text was moved "as is" and enriches the other article. Jayjg: I intend to move on if the order is truely restored at this article and some balance will be kept. I never mean to dictate as my opinions are as good as these of anyone else. I understand that some of the users who already gave up on this page will soon be back. I do think I have a very modest hand in this change, if indeed it happens. We'll wait and see. gidonb 21:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, whether it's helpful is a matter of opinion. After you told me you had "only moved" it, I went looking for it, and even though I knew what strings to search for, it took me ages. The only Jewish link on the page is to Jews, but it wasn't there. So I guessed you might have put it in History of the Jews in Germany and just forgotten to link, but no, it wasn't there. Only when I went to the ZJD page and tried "what links here" did I find that you had put it into Demographics of Germany. I doubt if readers looking for this information will find it. Again, the point of the main country article is to give easy access to other articles, so links to major institutions and other relevant articles should be here, up front. Why is there no reference to the Bundesbank? This article should be a hub linking directly to all these things. And I for one don't particularly care if that means some information is in two places. --Doric Loon 21:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

PS. Don't worry about my personal discomfort - I'm not that emotionally involved. I just meant this as an example of why you shouldn't delete lightly, and in the present atmosphere probably shouldn't do it at all. --Doric Loon 21:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I never have or will delete anything lightly. I always approach the creative work of others with utmost respect. I wish everyone would behave that way. Things then would work better, especially at this page. gidonb 03:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with moving detail from a general article like this to to an article that is supposed to cover a sub topic in more detail like geography of Germany. However I let articles grow larger than this one before I bother doing that. For example Polish September Campaign was getting really big, so I summarized the ==Opposing forces== section and moved the detail to Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign. More work is needed in other parts of that article, but the more compact treatment will be useful to a larger audience (most people lack the time or interest to read really long articles). See Wikipedia:Summary style. --mav 03:42, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Mav, could you do this for the history chapter? It again needs a lot of reduction. A blocked user here was encouraged by an administrator to increase its size. He was even given some suggestions how to better get away with it. gidonb 11:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Legal system

OK, I have inserted a brief description of the legal system and cross-referenced. I also changed the title of this section from "politics" to "constitution". Politics is all about political parties, in most people's usage. Maybe we should have a short section here on politics, but this ain't it.--Doric Loon 13:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The section does not discuss politics. However, it does not discuss constitution either. It discusses government in Germany, including the branches of government, the head of state and the regulations. I changed the title accordingly. gidonb 15:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Subsections

I do not agree with the many sub sections that Gidonb introduces. Military is financed by the government but can not be a subsection of the government. After all the Germans are not governed by the military. Compare e.g. France and United States. Besides, Wikipedia guidelines say that many subsections are to be avoided. I will revert. Andries 15:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The military is not only financed by the government but also part of the executive branch and subordinate to it. Unless, of course, one would make the rediculous suggestion that the German military operates on its own. That may even contradict your correct - though somewhat trivial - statement that "Germans are not governed by the military".
Wikipedia suggests to ascertain that subsections nest properly. This is precisely what I did, when correcting a title. gidonb 15:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The military is typically subordinate to the government. In Germany it certainly is. I will change it once more, because this may not look good. If someone objects to the notion that the the military, just like foreign affairs, is part of the executive branch of government, please explain why. Thank you. gidonb 16:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Germans are not governed by the military so it logically follows that the military is not part of the government. Andries 17:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This statement does not make sense to me. Are you sure you stand behind it yourself? gidonb 18:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the military is controlled by the Ministry of Defence. The Minister of Defence is part of the government. The military itself is part of the administrative burocracy - just like the BaFin (the body that controls banks and financial institutions) is part of the administrative burocracy of the Ministry of Finance. Luis rib 18:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I checked several other country articles i.e. USA, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and none of them had the military as sub section the government. Besides following the same reason as Luis we could also argue that education should fall under government which, I think, would be very strange. Andries 18:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a discussion which may also be held in other articles. While we are editing this article, I believe we should ascertain that the subsections of this article are nested properly, at least that is what Wikipedia suggests.

For some countries (but not the ones you mentioned), the military (still a government agency or government agencies) operates somewhat independently from the government. In this case, while formally part of the executive branch of government structure, it may be correct to see this reflected also in the subsection structure. These countries however are by definition undemocratic. I hope nobody wants to suggest that Germany is not a democracy, as is the case with such countries. Perhaps the suggestion that the military is not part of the government stems from a sometimes narrower use of government in German and Dutch, as compared to English.

The case with education is different. Some private provision of education is common in most countries (and such provision does not directly affect a country's status as a democracy). Furthermore, with education in the context of a country article, we also refer to various levels of education obtained by the population, such as in the proportion of high school graduates or literacy rate, which may be a result of many policies and circumstances, among them education policies, location, immgration, but even colonial background and natural resources may have some (indirect) impact. gidonb 19:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Will change the subsectioning once more, because this look unflattering for Germany in English. See reasons above. Feel free to change with some explanation, refering to these reasons. gidonb 00:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

As a federation, German has two level sovereign governments, each level exercising powers as defined in the German Constitution. Below these are governments without sovereign powers (local government or local state). All these are forms of German government. Thus, to ensure proper nesting, we should ascertain that the states are being correctly defined as part of government. Feel free revert if you disagree, but do explain why you believe that the German states (länder) are not German government. gidonb 11:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I admit that the Länder have quite a lot of govermental function but I continue to oppose to making political divisions and the military that are quite permament and will not change with each government making a sub section of government. Compare e.g. the article of the USA. Try to do there what you do here and I think that you will get a lot of opponents. Andries 11:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Andries, it's probably beacuse of me, but I do not understand you. If you agree that both the states and the military are part of German government, why care about the US article? Why not look at the issue and what can be improved? After all this is the Germany article and its talk page. On the other hand, if you care more about the US article than about what makes what substantive sense, why don't you make the changes there? Just some food for thought. I will be glad to hear any substantive objections. Best, gidonb 11:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

WHAT A MESS you are making of things, Gidonb! Changing "constitution" to "government" was a mistake. "Government" refers only to the legislature. This section includes judicial functions (and indeed it did so long before I expanded the material on the courts). "Constitution" is a better term for the workings of both legislative and judicial powers. (I take it you do know that the primary meaning of the word "constitution" is abstract, describing the workings of the state, and that it doesn't only mean the text of the Grundgesetz? How can you say this section does not focus on constitutional issues?)

Of course, the military does not belong under this section. Yes, government is responsible for the military, but it is also responsible for the economy, the schools, social issues, and in German thinking even for culture (Kultusministerien). That doesn't mean that a section on constitution (even less one on "government") is the place to include all those things.

Gidonb, you need to listen more. A whole series of people have expressed contrary views to you, and you have just slapped them down and gone on and done your own thing. You do not always know best.

You are also wrong, BTW, to dismiss all comparisons with other articles. While we are not bound to follow precedents on parallel pages, it is very useful to see what choices are made by people working on pages on other countries. You need to be willing to learn from them. --Doric Loon 12:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Doric Loon when s/he says that it is good to compare this article with other articles. I estimate that there are hundreds of pairs eyeballs on the USA article but only a dozen here. It is crazy not to take these hundreds of eyeballs seriously and to suggest implicitly that they make serious mistakes. Andries 14:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Doric Loon, I dislike the general tone of your latest piece. I am concerned that this might brings us back to place we started from, a bad place, with an unpleasant exchange of opinions. Perhaps you can restate your objections in a less personal manner. If you cannot, I will try to do with what we have. gidonb 12:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it wasn't meant to be personal, but I do find you heavy-handed. You need to listen more. --Doric Loon 13:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is what I meant with the personal tone. Calling a person you disagree with heavy-handed does not advance any discussions or better listening. The latter, by the way, is precisely what this page lacks. gidonb 13:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, just read over the comments in this section. The question was raised about whether "military" should come under "goverment/constitution" or not. You thought yes. Andries thinks no. Luis rib thinks no. I think no. That means it's 3:1. But you keep reverting to what you prefer, despite the consensus which seems to be forming. This is bloody-minded confrontationalism. And what's more, you entitled your last revert "unexplained movement reverted", despite the fact that all three of us had explained our thinking in detail here. Ergo, you are not listening, you are being heavy-handed. Think about it!

Quite frankly, after the weeks in which your personal feud with Heimdal made work on this page impossible, I would have thought you would have wanted to keep a low profile for a while. Incidentally, I have also noted the tone in which you wrote to Dbachmann on your own talkpage. You seem to gravitate unerringly towards conflict instead of working with people. Now I am sorry if you think this is unacceptably personal of me, but I have to say it in all good will: you think of yourself as a constructive and co-operative participant on this page, but you do not always come across as that way. You need to think about that. --Doric Loon 13:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, your last revert was only partial, and I am not unhappy with it. All I am saying is, seek consensus. But I expect you think that is what you have been doing all along. --Doric Loon 13:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

No no no, I moved a section back to the place where it makes more sense to have it, after explaining this movement. Please review your line of unpleasant conclusions accordingly. Lets keep this civilized. gidonb 14:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Bismarck

Though I don't deny the influence of this statesman on German history, his section in the history section seems way out of proportion if we compare it with other important German historic figures. Also, Bismark is given a glowing description, even though he's considered to be the father of Realpolitik (i.e. amoral politics). If there's no opposition, I shall reduce it a bit. Luis rib 15:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Luis, I believe this is also in line with the consensus on the excessive length of the history section. gidonb 15:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Like I stated before, the 19th century and the time before are clearly understated while WW1 and Weimar are overstated. Keep in mind about how many years you want to summarize and how few you want to foreground. Look at the proportions of history books, that is, which focus on Germany.NightBeAsT 16:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, other sections can also be trimmed somewhat more. gidonb 16:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Bismarck is perhaps the most important figure in the history of Germany ever, as he founded the modern German state. This needs to be stated adequetely. And there is way too much details about less important aspects of Germany history, WWII things etc.

Bismarck is certainly not the most important figure in German history. My guess would be that Luther, or several HRE Emperors would claim top spots. Hitler, of course, has also a claim to be one of the most important (bad) figures of German history. Your fascination with Bismarck is most mysterious to me. True, Bismarck was important, but, I guess, could be compared to Cavour in the Italian case. And Cavour was certainly not the most important Italian... Luis rib 15:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"Through an extremely complicated system of treaties a situation in Europe was established which made a war involving a great nation practically impossible because it would have involved whole Europe. Bismarck's main target was thereby fulfilled to the extent that France was completely isolated and surrounded at that time so that on no account could it begin a war against the German Empire." (pages 259-160, " 'An honest intermediary' - Bismarck's system of alliances") (from: Grundstock des Wissens Geschichte, Serges Medien GmbH, ISBN Cannot-find-it-:)

"To Bismarck, securing restfulness and peace in Europe was the only way for the German Empire to survive. The preservation of what was accomplished in conformity with the great powers was the most important goal of his foreign policy."(page 214) (from: Kursbuch Geschichte - Rheinland-Pfalz Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Cornelsen, ISBN 3-464-64294-1)

"Bismarck pursued the political aim of solidifying the situation of the German Empire through numerous alliances. The Krimkrieg (1853-1856) between Russia, Great Britain and Turkey was followed by a period of peace." (page 273, summary: Europe (1850-1900))(from: Das Ravensburger Lexikon der Weltgeschichte, ISBN 3-473-35457-0)

"During that, [Prussia] met with the most notable politician of the time, the prussian Prime Minister Otto von Bismarck." (page 119, summary: Constitution conflicts and foundations of nation-states)

"Undisputed are [Bismarck's] successes concerning the establishment of the German Empire and the foreign policy after that, which served the preservation of what had been accomplished in Germany and the peace in Europe. On his domestic policy are significant achievements (social policy) next to actions which were not flawless and partly had serious consequences (Constitution conflict, Kulturkampf, Sozialistengesetze)." (page 140, "Profile: Bismarck", the only profile except for Hitler in the book)

"The German Empire has just lasted well nigh 50 years, from 1871 to 1918. But it embossed the consciousness of Germans, in part until today. Otto von Bismarck, the "founder of the Empire" and first Chancellor of the Empire, is one of the most famous Germans."(page 172, summary of German Empire)(from: Geschichtsbuch 3, Cornelsen, ISBN 3-464-64203-8)

"In terms of foreign policy, Bismarck ensured his creation via numerous alliances. Bismarck shaped the German Empire, whose chancellor he was until 1890, as well as European politics extremely." (page 78, chapter "Weltgeschichte") (from: Das Lexikon der Allgemeinbildung, Duden, ISBN 3-411-05623-1)

"Like no other politician of his time Bismarck stamped Europe's foreign policy in the second half of the 19th century. Bismarck established a complicated system of alliances that saved Europe's peace in the decades to come while ensuring Germany's position as great nation."(Page 79)

"Bismarck's foreign policy certainly meant a climax in European diplomacy. The conservative politician, who wasn't scared off leading three wars, proved as a stable peacekeeper who kept the sensitive order being able to modify it." (Page 82)(from: Abi Geschichte Pocket Teacher, Cornelsen, ISBN 3-589-21342-6)NightBeAsT 15:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Source? Luis rib 17:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Voilà. Blame me for linguistic mistakes.NightBeAsT 15:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking it was all from a single book. It makes more sense now. Luis rib 20:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

I propose that everything on this page before the sub-heading "this remains a very biased page" be archived. If no-one objects I shall do so around this time tomorrow. Mackensen (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Thanks in advance.NightBeAsT 16:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. gidonb 16:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Maveric's post

Why, after reading the post of Maveric149 on Friday May 20th, I have the feeling that I've been tricked. I have been told here that this article should be no longer than the recommended size of 32KB. But now I'm reading in Maveric's post that - hear and behold - it is allowed to "let articles grow larger than this one". Besides, it appears that the recommended size is an outdated issue, which was once adopted because the old browsers could not handle articles longer than 32KB. Then I've been told that the length of the History section is incompatible with Wikipedia policy. But now again, here's what Maveric's post says:

"Nothing wrong with moving detail from a general article like this to an article that is supposed to cover a sub topic in more detail like Geography of Germany. However I let articles grow larger than this one before I bother doing that. For example Polish September Campaign was getting really big, so I summarized the ==Opposing forces== section and moved the detail to Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign."

For the record, the article Polish September Campaign was 59KB long before Maveric149 intervened to move parts of it to other articles. The Germany page on its part has never been longer than 47KB, far away from the dimensions of the Polish article, let alone of the United States page. That's why Maveric149 has never intervened on this article to cut the size of the History section: Because the length of the Germany page did not justify such an intervention. Based on what Maveric149 has said in his post, starting tomorrow on Monday, I for my part intend to gradually restore all the parts that have been removed from the Germany article in the last couple of weeks if not months. If the restored parts are removed again, I will revert the page. I'm ready to make full use of my right to revert as much as 3 times per day if necessary. I intend to continue reverting the page until the cancellations stop. In the case that the page should be protected again, I'm ready to put the case to the arbitration committee, as I regard the deletions that have been made, and all the various attempts to put curbs on the article and on those who work on the page as illegal. In the future I will respect interventions that are aimed at reducing the size of the article and of single sections only by Maveric149 himself. However, I don't think that such an intervention will happen, because there is no reason for it. In fact, there never has been any. - Heimdal 16:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, this position that you're taking is contrary to everything for which Wikipedia stands. What you seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, is that no one can shorten the article without your express permission. In effect, you claim to "own" the article. No one owns articles on Wikipedia. If there is consensus to shorten the history section on this article, then you must stand aside. You are not in a position to "authorize" one user or another to make various changes. If you respect the manner in which Wikipedia operates, then you would find a way to ascertain consensus, not simply attempt to impose your will upon others. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, can you just shut up about the United States article for five minutes? Scanning through this page, you are saying the same thing about a dozen times. If you don't like the US page, go complain over there. If you don't want to shorten this page, just say so, and other people will know that's your opinion. Sheesh. Deletion of your edits is not "illegal", as long as they are explained on talk, and there is some sort of consensus among other editors. If you continue to just stubbornly revert to your version, it will be you who is blocked, eventually, rather than this article. Have you ever heard of Wikipedia:Summary style? You are suffering from "main article fixation". There's nothing wrong with material being exported to specialized articles, this is supposed to be an overview article about Germany, and it is up to the community to decide which facts are notable enough to be featured here. dab (ᛏ) 08:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition to what Dbachmann wrote, I want to state that there is a lot of work to be done on the "digression" article e.g. Geography of Germany, and Religion in Germany. I could use some help there. Andries 08:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

btw, I've been wanting to write a metapage on Wikipedia:Main article fixation for a while now. Anybody want to help? It's a very common phenomenon, I've seen it on lots of articles (e.g. Human). It's very natural, people want their contributions to be as visible as possible. It can be a real problem, though, and we might compile a list of hints how to overcome it. I.e. once this article settles down, the experience made in the process may be compiled as a help for future similar disputes. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

excellent example, Andries. While people are at each other's throats here, Geography of Germany is in a rather pitiful state. It will be much more rewarding to put work into that, than to be reverted and called names over every factoid here. dab (ᛏ) 10:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

But I've never agreed that my edits be removed by Gidonb! Where does Gidonb take the right to cancel them? Also, this article has never been longer than 47KB, as compared to the 61KB of the US article. Trying to put curbs on this article but not on the United States page cannot be fair, and I'm ready to raise this issue to the arbitration committee if necessary. Also, if I understand Maveric's post well, there's nothing wrong with having a longer History section here, as long as the Germany page itself does not become too long. So just stop fussing about the size of History. - Heimdal 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

let's just forget about gidonb, at the moment. Andries and others seem to think that the history section is too long, and I can't blame them. You can take people to the arbcom for censoring your facts altogether, but hardly for saying they should be on History of Germany. Personally, I don't care if you add a fact or two. But why? And which ones, most importantly? Give us a list of points that absolutely need to be here, as well as on History of Germany, I am not really sure which points you are arguing about. Propose a subsection here, and have people vote on it. If your version gets a majority, you'll have a much stronger case. dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Dbachmann, just let me start putting back - *slowly* - all the things that Gidonb has deleted, and then you can judge yourself whether it's justified to keep them here or not, OK? Regarding the History section. It's not that I'm against shortening the section altogether. But if History is to be shortened, I insist that it be done in a way that is balanced and fair. And for what I can say, previous attempts to shorten History have been neither fair nor balanced. The subsections "Holy Roman Empire", "German Empire" and "Division and Reunification" have all been savagely cut. What has *not* been cut, however, was the "Third Reich" subsection, which has even been expanded further. But I for my part don't want to end up with a History section where the Third Reich and the Holocaust are the centrepiece, and everything else is only mentioned at random. Then I'd say, let us keep the longer version, because at least there was some balance in it. - Heimdal 11:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

well, I guess we're still waiting for a list of the points you absolutely want to include. dab (ᛏ) 12:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Dbachmann, I really don't feel like putting up an entire list of all the things that have been removed here in the past couple of weeks, sorry for that. Just let me restore - *slowly* - the removed parts, and you can judge yourself whether it's justified to keep them here or not, OK? - Heimdal 13:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Article size

Is there some general agreement that we should try to conform to Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style? Clearly not all of us do, but if there's a considerable majority, then good enough. We've been dancing around this for an age, and I'd really like to try and get some resolution. Alai 00:53, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

from my experience, the article will continue to dance around for a while before consolidating, so it is premature to try and aim for a "final" format. First and foremost, some standard of "notability threshold" must be established, i.e. a feeling for stuff that should be here, and for stuff that shouldn't. It would be easy to write a 1000kb article about Germany, and clearly we don't want that. The spectrum goes from 32kb to 70kb maybe, and it will be Summary Style anyway, even with 70kb. dab (ᛏ) 08:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't want a Germany page of 1000KB either. On the other hand, 32KB is clearly too short for a country which is, after all, the biggest country in western Europe by size of population and the third-largest economy in the world. I for my part think that a size limit around 60KB would be OK, but we're still far away from that. - Heimdal 11:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I would also suggest that we stop fussing about the length of the History section unless this article has not reached the 55KB. - Heimdal 12:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, I continue to think that the history section is too long. We should mention there only the absolutely essential. Yes, Germany's history is complicated, dramatic, full of ruptures and shaped Europe so it can be somewhat longer than the corresponding sections of e.g. France or India. Please help to weed out the non-essential. Andries 12:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

India is the second-most populous country in the world, one of the oldest and one with the most complicated story. Why should it deserve less "history space" than Germany? Luis rib 17:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Good question. Not to mention the incredibly rich and complex mix of languages, ethnic groups, competing religions, even geographies of a country that is vastly larger than Germany both physically and by population. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've never said that India should deserve less "history space" than Germany. Perhaps the people who edit India are not much interested in history, who knows. I don't edit that page. - Heimdal 19:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the non-essentials in the "Weimar Republic", the "Third Reich" and the "Division and Reunification", please note that these were written by User:Luis rib and User:Gidonb, not by me. The "Holy Roman Empire" was partly, and the "German Empire" almost completely written by me, before Gidonb and Luis rib have started to make their deletions and changes. Gidonb has also removed 3 images that I posted in History. I'm not so much against summarizing History, but I would like it to be done by a person who has shown to be neutral and to have a good knowledge of Germany. In my opinion this person can only be User:Doric Loon. - Heimdal 13:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem suggestion that Doric Loon should do it and I hope s/he is willing to do so. Btw, I do not think that you need to know have a good knowledge of the history of Germany of Germany to write the history section because you only have to summarize other Wikipedia articles. (I do not have good knowledge of German history btw). So I will not edit the section anymore for the time being. Andries 18:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

What? The non-essentials were certainly not written by me!!! May I remind you, Heimdal, that all I did FROM THE VERY START was reduce your bloated version? When I added stuff, it was because your version was unbalanced. Luis rib 17:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether "my version" was unbalanced is a matter of POV. I for my part don't think that your version is any more balanced. What you did was basically to cut down the "Holy Roman Empire" and the "German Empire", but to bloat up the "Weimar Republic" and the "Third Reich". So much for your "balanced" version. - Heimdal 17:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Andries, don't take me wrong. I didn't say that you should stop editing History. Please continue to do so. - Heimdal 18:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

An Luis rib: Ich habe Fotokopien von "meiner Version" gemacht, und bei Gelegenheit können wir das mal gemeinsam auf dieser Seite durchgehen, und mit Deiner/Ihrer Version vergleichen. Dann werde ich auch gleich sagen was mir an Deiner/Ihrer Version nicht paßt. Aber jetzt muß ich wirklich gehen. Bis morgen. - Heimdal 18:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss this issue here or on my Talk page, if you prefer. Also, I don't remember bloating up the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, on the contrary. You kept including Admiral Tirpitz - a relatively minor figure on the global historical German scale. Luis rib 16:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The History section of the Japan article is also quite long.

This is starting to get ridiculous. Are we going to list all the countries? Well, let me start then: the history section of Ethiopia (a country of > 70 million, with a >2000 year history (more if we think abour pre-history), and the only African country never colonised (with a brief exception by Mussolini)) only has a very short history paragraph. Certainly, a point could be made that Germany's history should be shortened to Ethiopia-standard. Luis rib 16:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Admiral Tirpitz was not a minor figure. He was responsible for the German programme of warship construction, which led negotiations for an alliance between Germany and Britain to break down. Also, wasn't it you who added the detail about Ernst Röhm's "homosexual vices"? Just how relevant is that, I don't know. - Heimdal 16:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it was certainly not me who added that insignificant detail. I didn't even know about Röhm's "homosexual vices" before reading it on this page. Also, Tirpitz's warship program was irrelevant since in WWI there was only a single naval battle, and it had no importance on the general war. Germany never managed to equal Britain's naval superiority. In particular, why is Tirpitz more important than, say, Barbarossa? If we are going to list every single admiral or general of the German Empire, we'll never finish. Luis rib 16:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the detail about Röhm's sexual preferences was certainly not added by me. Also, Germany's navy may have been irrelevant in WWI. But Tirpitz' programme of warship construction increased the rivalry between Germany and Britain, and the rivalry between these two European powers was one of the main causes for the outbreak of WWI. - Heimdal 17:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't care who added Röhm's homosexuality but it was surely not me either. I remind you that there were other people contributing to this article apart from the both of us. Also, Tirpitz is still irrelevant because this history section is only supposed to give a brief overview about German history. Digressing about the reasons for German-British rivalry is besides the point here. Especially, I don't think that naval superiority was ever a major cause for WWI. Luis rib 17:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, wir setzen das Gespräch ein andermal fort, einverstanden? Ich habe jetzt wirklich keine Zeit mehr. Bis morgen. - Heimdal 17:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

PMA

Can i make as my last contribution for a while a firm request that 83.109.xxx.xx be banned from editing any Germany related articles - Although i had once mistaken 83.109.xxx.xx for User:Heimdal i now know that i was wrong and apologise to Heimdal. A check through this talk pages archives shows 83.109.xxx.xx bias and POV pushing - i have just had to fix the Infobox on the Karl Doenitz page that he had vandalised - he/she had removed both Adolf Hitler and Johannes Dieckmann to fit his/her bizzare POV. PMA 07:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've got it at last that 83.109.xxx.xx is not me! Holding a strong opinion does not seem reason enough for me to ban a person. However, I do think that if 83.109.xxx.xx wants to continue editing this page, he or she should at least log in, so that it would be easier to identify him or her, and to contact him or her on his or her talk page. It would also avoid future identity confusions, by the way.- Heimdal 09:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

PMA is constantly vandalizing Germany-related articles, pushing his bizzare POV and it is obvious that he has zero knowledge of German history and politics. I request he is banned if he do not stop vandalizing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an asylum. The list of German presidents should include the presidents and just them. Hitler was never President. And as for the succesor of Dönitz, the Federal Republic of Germany claims to be identical with the state Dönitz was president of, which the GDR never claimed to be. So it is correct according to German law (ruling by the German Constitutional Court) and NPOV that Karl Arnold was the sole and only successor of Dönitz. --83

strawpoll on points to be included

I don't know why I have to do this, but Heimdal seems to refuse, so here is a list of the points he apparently wants to include, and which have met opposition.

Jewish demographics (fastest growing Jewish population etc.), Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland

include

do not include

linguistic relationship of West Germanic languages (German, Dutch and English)

include

do not include

is this it? I mean, we went through all that fuss because of these two points? I do hope I am missing something here, because that would be too lame. dab (ᛏ) 12:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI: The reference to the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland was originally posted by User:Doric Loon, before Gidonb deleted it, for whatever reason. I think it's good to have a reference to the ZJD on this page, why not. And there are *lots* of other things which Gidonb deleted and which I would like to restore here, apart from what you mentioned above. No, I don't know why you have to do this either. - Heimdal 12:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind including either issue, as long as it is kept short. The Jewish issue in particular could be interesting, as it would show the evolution of the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in Germany since the Holocaust. The fact that Germany has the fastest-growing Jewish population is particularly interesting and should dispell beliefs that Germans are still Nazis. Luis rib 15:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

NB the History section of the Japan article is also quite long. I'd be glad if we could manage to have something similar here. - Heimdal 15:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop bringing up unrelated articles; focus on this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Missing references

We are still missing references for the detailed articles. Please provide them in the detailed articles, preferrably English but German is okay too. Andries 17:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Constitution picture

I don't know whether that should be a problem, but in the box of the constitution picture, the text in the picture (German) and the text given beneath (English) are not the same. Str1977 23:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I know they are not the same. But I found the text of article 1, paragraph 1 more relevant than the preamble. - Heimdal 09:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

PS The full text of the Basic Law in English can be found here (http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm). This is also the source that I've quoted from. - Heimdal 09:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, Heimdall. I just wanted to point it out - I have no problem with it either. Str1977 09:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The Grundgesetz has been removed, and while I agree with the thought to remove ONE picture from the article, I don't think it should be that one (although a photo of the original should be found). I think the Bundeswehr or Kreuznach should go, and if this were a vote, I would cut the soldiers. To be honest, I don't think random Bundeswehr soldiers are that important, and I don't think it's POV to erase it. Perhaps a better photo of Kreuznach would be needed to validate (it looks just like every other German city street I've seen, although maybe this is the point of the photo). Stratton 00:44, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

FYI: it's Kreuzberg, not Kreuznach. I absolutely don't see the point of removing images. Pictures make an article much more entertaining. I also don't agree with cutting down the size of the article. The page is not really as long, yet, as to justify that. I for my part will put back into place everything which has been deleted. And if that means reverting the page once a day, so be it. One revert per day doesn't make an edit war. - Heimdal 10:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since I disagree with the removal of images and the deletions (see my post above), I've reverted the page. I'm quite sure that someone else will revert again, but I for my part won't turn the page back once more today. To User:Directorstratton: Actually, the CDU is not the only critic of Schröder's defence and foreign policy in Germany. This is why I didn't save your edit. Have to leave now. Keep discussing. Bis morgen. - Heimdal 11:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about Kreuznach, I can be absent-minded about names, especially when I write on the talk page. I know the CDU isn't the only critic, however the sentence currently implies that all critics of the government are in favor of increased spending, although there are groups who (at least a few years ago) argued for decreased spending, like the Greens and PDS, which is why I added a distinction. I will make a better change by just adding "many", which is more correct. DirectorStratton 22:36, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a picture of the original Grundgesetz? That would at least be a historical document. The current picture, apparently scanned from some book, is not particularly relevant. Luis rib 17:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to the second-last edit by User:Rednaxela, and continued to restore deleted parts. But I've saved all edits by User:Bluemask and 199.85.228.1. I've also created a new section entitled "Society", with "Demographics", "Religion", "Education", "Social issues" and "Culture" as subsections (an idea which I've copied from the Japan article). Someone else may revert my edits if they want to. I for my part am off until Monday. Tschüß. - Heimdal 12:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Structure

I have no problem with religion being its own section; religion is a rather major topic in Germany, and it has a powerful history there. However, I don't understand why Foreign Relations was made its own section. It (and Legal System but this is specifically on foreign relatons) is a short section and, well, without politics, there are no foreign relations, so why revert that? --Golbez 12:34, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why Foreign relations should not have an independent section. If you add Foreign relations to Politics, you should also add Education and the Military, because these are controlled by the German government as well. - Heimdal 13:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Education can occur independent of politics; foreign policy is irrevocably intertwined with it. And if Religion is an important enough topic to be separate, so is military, and military sections, based on what I've seen in other articles, have traditionally been separate. Again, however - this question is solely on Foreign Relations, not Military. --Golbez 13:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The military is not really so important in today's Germany, Golbez. Unlike the US, Germany has a relatively small defence budget. This is a pacifist country. Regarding the Politics section. I really would like it to be about the German political system and nothing else, so please keep the other issues away from it - Heimdal 14:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Please indent your comments for readability reasons. Okay, though in that case foreign relations belongs lower, with the military. (And perhaps military should be a subhed of foreign relations? Eh, probably not.) Internal divisions are more important than foreign relations, aren't they? Either way, I won't make these changes at the moment, they're minor quibbles. --Golbez 14:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, good edits Golbez. You've cut out a lot of peripheral material and made the rest of the material clearer. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Just for a change, Jayjg, could you please contribute anything to this article, apart from making comments about its size? - Heimdal 16:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I have contributed a great deal, actually. The most critical contribution has been to get you to finally work collaboratively on the article, rather than (as you have been doing for the past few months) insisting on ownership of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes Jayjg, I'm quite sure that it's much easier to delete or to applaud the deletion of edits made by others rather than to contribute anything yourself. - Heimdal 16:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, you've just used a strawman argument. Read my words and try again. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Mozart

Mozart was added though somebody had removed him and explained that this was because he was generally considered Austrian. I request that people who re-add motivated deletions write down their reason here befor re-adding. Otherwise the article will never become in good shape. Thanks. Andries 13:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It was me. Let me explain. Mozart is often considered to be Austrian, for two reasons:

1) he was born in Salzburg, which now belongs to Austria

2) he had his greatest success at the Imperial court in Vienna, captital of Austria, and also died there

Objections:

1) Salzburg did not belong to Austria in Mozart's lifetime - he died 1791, Salzburg fell to Austria only in 1814/15 - in Mozart's day it was an independent state under the Prince-Archsbishop, within the framework of the Holy Roman Empire.

2) Vienna was always part of Austria, but it also was part of the Holy Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Emperor had his court there.

The Holy Roman Empire, though no national state, was the political home of the German nation. However, I am not arguing against Mozart being called Austrian - he is validly called Austrian, because of his career in the Austrian capital.

My point is that he is both Austrian and German.

His native tongue and culture was German and he lived both in German and Austrian political entities. To distinguish between Austrian and German is not really feasible before 1866 - and even after that there are people crossing the border.

It must be possible to grant him this double recognition. Otherwise Goethe, Schiller, Heine, Bach too are not German but rather Frankfortian/Weimarian, Württembergian/Weimarian, Westphalian/Prussian, Saxonian, respectively.

Ah yes, I forgot: the Archbishop of Salzburg actually holds the honorary title of "Primas Germaniae".

Str1977 17:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason why the Holy Roman Emperor lived in Vienna was because he was from the Habsburg family, a family so much associated with Austria that both's histories are totally intertwined. Salzburg, though an independent archbishopric, was certainly under the influence of the Habsburg family as it was surrounded by Habsburg lands (indeed, you say yourself that Salzburg fell to Austria soon after Mozart's death). The language issue is irrelevant, since Switzerland also speaks Germans (and was part, long time ago, of the HRE) yet no-one thinks of famous Swiss as being German too. Also, the notion of Germanhood only surfaced after Mozart's death, so Mozart very probably did NOT feel like a German, but rather as a Salzburgian and Viennese. All this would encourage me to consider him only an Austrian, and not a German. A further reason is that Germany has so many excellent composers - Bach and Beethoven, Wagner, etc.... - that it doesn't need Mozart in its list. Luis rib 18:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes Habsburg and Austria are intertwined. In fact, in Mozart's time (and the greater part of the family's history) the family was called "House of Austria", not "House of Habsburg" (see Don Juan d'Austria).

Salzburg was not under the Emperor's influence any more than Bavaria was, the later annexation is due to the unpheavel of the Napoleonic wars.

The language is relevant, especially in connection with the "political entity" he lived in. Switzerland however had left the HRE already in 1648 (at the latest), culture had parted with the "mainland" Germany for a long time - that's not the case with either Salzburg or Austria. There was some German identity in Mozart's time ("Reichspatriotismus"), though it had not yet moved into the age of nationalism or became ethnic

This also is the reason why there's no need to put Mozart either in this or in that box (It's the same pointless debate as whether Copernicus was German or Polish (or Russian)). He belongs to both nation's history, as much as the Emperors do.

And sorry, I cannot accept your offer: Bach - great!, Beethoven - well, had his moments! - Wagner - the John Williams of his day! But why should I deny myself the greatest? And it's not taking Mozart away from Austria, on the Austria entry I'd argue the other way around: that he is also Austrian and not just German.

Ah yes, and Bach: is he allowed to be considered German, despite all points brought forward against Mozart being German, which also hit Bach, only because no one else has claimed him. Str1977 19:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but will leave the decision-making to other contributors to this page. Also, personally, I don't like the Baroque classical music very much. I don't have a favourite composer, but like works by Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Dvorak, among ohers. Luis rib 19:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't take my "the greatest" in a too absolute way. I was never good in saying what my most favourtie XYZ was, at least as far as arts, music, books, paintings and the like are concerned. Str1977 20:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977: If you consider Mozart a German you have to consider ALL, and I mean every Austrian before 1806 a German. That is certainly not how it works with nationalities. If there was a some kind of federation of a couple of states in the past (for instance UK and USA) and those two countries fall apart, nationals in both countries should be considered apart as well. Besides: the Holy Roman Empire was NOT Germany and is by historians not considered to be the legal predessor of Germany. Therefore in fact nationals of Germany born before 1871 can only be considered Germans as far as they are born within the borders of the Germany of 1871. The same thing applies for Austria-Hungary, Austria cannot claim people to be Austrians just because they were born within Austrian-Hungarian borders if they do not have a connection with the Austria of today. Themanwithoutapast 22:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but this a completely unhistorical approach. Mozart is part of the cultural history of Germany as well as of Austria. Str1977 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"Cultural history" is no argument for nationality. Otherwise nearly ever historical person would be claimed by several countries. Besides I go with the general understanding in society and the common use of nationality of a person. For instance Maria Theresia, empress of Austria would be considered German by nobody. What's the difference between her and Mozart? I do not see any in terms of nationality. Both lived during the same time frame and within in a member state of a "loose federation of countries" called Holy Roman Empire. Why should one of them considered German and the other one not? Themanwithoutapast 22:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree; Mozart is typically thought of as Austrian. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Some brief thoughts about the Holy Roman Empire:

The entry gives the year 800 as its beginning, i.e. Charlemagne crowned Emperor.

Then the Frankish kingdom was divided - one of the kingdoms that developed was the Eastern Frankish kingdom, whose main feature was that the inhabitant spoke Germanic dialects >> Early German (vs. the Western which spoke a Romanized language >> Early French).

In the early years the name of that Eastern kingdom is not entirely clear, but later it was considered the "regnum teutonicum" (11th century). Since the Salian kings/Emperors the Empire was considered to be a monarchy consisting of three kingdoms: 1) regnum teutonicum, 2) regnum burgundiae, 3) regnum italicum. (And note Germania bringing presents to Otto III in the famous images)

A fourth kingdom, within the regnum teutonicum was the kingdom of Bohemia - the only King in the Empire apart from the Emperor.

Though the Holy Roman Empire was not a national state, "of the German Nation" has been added to the name since the 15th century, when the HRE had lost most of its non-German territories. Though not a national state, the HRE was the home of the German nation back then - and in a way the predecessor of Germany.

After 1648 the HRE de facto was a "loose federation", but not de jure.

As for all Austrians prior to 1806 being considered Germans?

- Yes, of course they should be (Austria in the sense of the Austrian 'Erblande'), including Maria Theresia - do you really think nobody considers her German?

And Empress of Austria she most definetely was not. She was Empress of the Romans, Queen of Hungary (though the Hungarians insisted on her being King), Queen of Bohemia, Archduchess of Austria etc.

No difference to Mozart. If famous rulers of Germany would be a category, she and her relatives would belong in there. The same for Mozart in regard to Culture, Music etc.

Again, I am not taking him away from Austria - he belongs there too.

And that doesn't stop in 1806 (only the HRE was declared defunct then) - Germany as a cultural nation also included Austria and Austria was part of the German Confederation and of the National Assembly of 1848. Only after 1866, when a German national state was founded based on Prussian hegemony and the exclusion of Austria, can you really clearly distinguish the two.

George Washington is a bad example. He never was part of the UK, was he? He was a citizen of a British colony, but that's not quite the same thing as being a Briton.

Str1977 23:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Maria Theresia certainly was German. Before 1866/1871, the word "German" referred to all German-speaking people. It is anachronistic to say Mozart was not German. He would certainly had considered himself German, as much as he was Salzburgian. --83

Interesting. Well, in the English world he's considered an Austrian composer. That how Encarta describes him:[5] (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554446/Mozart_Wolfgang_Amadeus.html), as does Britannica:[6] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9108745&query=mozart&ct=), and just about everyone else. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, in fact that's my point: he is an Austrian composer (though not born in what was then Austria), but he is also a German composer.

Unfortunately there are some historical figures that are subject to such disputes, e.g.

Copernicus - between Germany and Poland

Charlemagne - between Germany and France

(Hadrian VI - between Germany and the Netherlands, at least here on Wiki, some weeks back)

Both sides have their merit and a fair view would be to

either restrict German and Austrian to the current entities, but that would really be ahistorical, as it would result in starting Germany with 1871 (or 1867) and Austria with 1918. (Stupid as this approach may seem, but some consider this to be the right thing to do.)

or admit that some historical figures transcend the lines of (current) nationality. That's my approach.

Str1977 23:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Austrian doesn't exclude German. Culturally it is rather a subset, just like Bavarian or Prussian. --83

Dear 83,

before someone complains. Nowadays Austria is considered a distinct nation from Germany with a distinct nationality.

But granted, that's a development which started only after 1866 and until 1945 was not universally accepted in Austria itself.

But now, it is. Str1977 23:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Politically today a separate state (although the same people), yes, but this makes no sense at all when we are discussing Mozart, who died in 1791. --83

Of course, I was just trying to preempt any "outcries". Str1977 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The official name of Austria 1919-1920 was even Republic of German Austria (Republik Deutschösterreich). -83

I see. Well, it sounds like you're doing some original research. Authoritative English language sources consider him to be Austrian; can you bring any authoritative sources which consider him to be a German composer? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not original research. It isn't research at all. It is just plain common sense. Does that need to be referenced?

Anyway, Mozart was in the running for the "Greatest German" competition last year and made number 20.

from the zdf tv channel: http://www.zdf-jahrbuch.de/2003/programmarbeit/arens.htm

or from the German wiki: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsere_Besten

or the German wiki entry on Mozart http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

(relevant section: Herkunft)

I know, these are all in German. Str1977 23:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

(Mozart's nationality has frequently been in dispute in the German-speaking version of Wikipedia as well. [7] (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart) Arguments mentioned there might help this discussion)NightBeAsT 23:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Str1977: Just to sum up the position of nearly everyone in this world once again: If we would consider everyone that had lived during their lifetime within the borders of the Holy Roman Empire as German we would get a hell of a lot people in the list of Germans who are not regarded German by anyone including: all Austrians until 1806 (I mean really all of them without exceptions), all Swiss who were born within the borders when parts of Switzerland belonged to the Holy Roman Empire, Italy for its time under the Holy Roman Empiie, France etc. etc. In the same line of thinking we would need to have all Austrians living between 1938 and 1945 to be considered German and be listed as Germans (what they are obviously not or do you want to start to claim Schrödinger or Pauli or Schönberg Germans?).

The following points should be regarded in the case of Mozart:

1. Where was he born, where did he live and what country is the legal succesor to this territory?

Mozart was born in Salzburg and predominatly lived in Vienna. Salzburg seized to exist as an independent nation at the beginning of the 19th century, its direct legal successor was Austria and not Germany. As of now Salzburg is not part of Germany but Austria.

2. Does the fact that a country was member of the Holy Roman Empire make all its citizens Germans?

This is the ultimate question, isn't it? And the answer is clearly no. There is a big number of examples, just two additional ones to those I gave before: Wilhelm Tell (regardless of him being just a legend or a real person), Metternich (born 1773) listet as an Austrian statesman and politician in every encyclopedia. The wiki-article on the Holy Roman Empire states It was never a nation state. Despite the German ethnicity of most of its rulers and subjects, from the very beginning many ethnicities constituted the Holy Roman Empire - and that is right, the Holy Roman Empire WAS NEVER a nation state and it has NO successor. Thus Germany cannot claim any person to be a German that has not a specific relationship to it (lived predominantly within the borders of 1871-Germany or was born within these borders).

Another thing: you always are saying it is "historically correct" to speak of Mozart as a German. In fact you are entirely wrong here - the only historically correct thing to call Mozart would be a citizen of Salzburg and a citizen of the Holy Roman Empire, so therefore neither an Austrian nor a German. However nations today (and this article is about the Germany THAT EXISTS TODAY) are proud of people that are associated with their country and therefore want to call them Austrians, Germans, British etc. And with this regard Mozart can only be considered Austrian.

Until you come up with some serious authority (the German wikipedia is not a reliable source and it is nowhere stated there that Mozart was German, nor is it stated that he was Austrian-German) I will keep on deleting Mozart from the article here. Themanwithoutapast 00:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

and another thing, I don't like this sentence either: Many historical figures, though not citizens of Germany in the modern sense, were nevertheless seen as "Germans" in the sense that they were immersed in the German culture, for example Franz Kafka and Stefan Zweig. This implies that there is no such thing as an Austrian culture or that Austrian culture is some kind of a subordinate thing and German culture should be the umbrella term - I seriously doubt that. Themanwithoutapast 01:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

May be I am mistaken but I learnt at school that Kafka could be considered German. Andries 05:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Austrian is a subset of German. Prior to 1871 "German" is only an umbrella term covering the entire German Nation, which includes Austrians, Prussians, Bavarians etc. There was no "Austrian culture" which was different from "German". The Austrian culture may have been different from, say, East Prussian or Schleswigian, but they were all equally German. There were much greater differences between Bavarian culture and Prussian culture, than it was between Bavarian and Austrian culture (which was and is pretty much the same). --83

Also note that many parts of the modern state of Germany have been for periods part of the Austrian state.

To view "Austrian" as somehow distinct and mutually exclusive from "German" before 1866 is simply wrong - up until that point every German-speaking Austrian can most certainly be described as a German, just as much as any Bavarian or any Württemberger or any Hessian, and more so than German-speaking inhabitants of East Prussia, which was never part of the Germanic Confederation or the Holy Roman Empire. As to other points - yes, Alsatians before 1648 would be (and generally are) considered to be Germans. So are Swiss Germans before the 14th century or so, and so forth. The Czechs are obviously a special case, because not only were they not German-speaking, but the Kingdom of Bohemia was in some sense a specifically Czech political unit within a larger German political unit. So things get complicated there. A place like the Duchy of Lorraine would also be complicated. It is not complicated at all for Italian lands in the Holy Roman Empire, or the Kingdom of Arles, because these areas were never considered part of Germany. The Holy Roman Empire had three parts - the Kingdom of Germany, the Kingdom of Italy, and the Kingdom of Arles/Burgundy. The latter two would never have been considered German. At any rate, of course Mozart was German, although he was Austrian too (although I, too, would hesitate to call him Austrian based on his birth in Salzburg, not then a Habsburg possession). Let me add that many figures originally from areas not in modern Austria made their lives in Vienna prior to 1866. Among others, Metternich was a Rhineland prince. Beethoven was from Bonn. The Habsburgs themselves came originally from Switzerland. But, so, yes, anyone from the modern country of Austria (except the Burgenland, which was part of Hungary) who lived before 1866 can most definitely be called a German, and in many contexts probably should. To act as though "Austria" was a distinct nation before 1866, or that the boundaries of the modern Republic of Austria mean anything before 1918, is a complete anachronism. john k 05:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Let us also remember that as late as 1848 the Frankfurt Parliament, considered to be the beginning of German democracy, included representatives from those parts of Austria which were in the German Confederation, and that it elected as Vicar of the new German Reich Archduke John of Austria, the Emperor's uncle. (Later, of course, it took a Kleindeutsch position, but, again, we cannot simply assume the Kleindeutsch position as inevitable). Mozart was certainly German, and Metternich was even more German. The Habsburgs were not only German, they were the monarchs of Germany until 1806. Again, Czechs are a special case, and groups like Lorrainers and Sorbs and Belgians are somewhat special cases, but German-speakers living within the Holy Roman Empire simply have to be considered as Germans. john k 05:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we can do without the Austrians and the Swiss here. Anyway it wasn't me who added Mozart. Germany has produced its own great composers, such as Bach and Beethoven. - Heimdal 09:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

83.109.xxx.xx writes above: "Austrian is a subset of German." Perhaps. But this article is about Germany, and I think we can do without the subsets.

No, actually we cannot do without the subsets. Every element of a set is part of some subsets... With regard to the concrete case, Mozart is very much part of the German culture. One of his major accomplishments is writing Italian-style operas to German language librettos. I agree that before 1866, it makes no sense to separate German and Austrian. Arguably, the split only occured in 1945. --Stephan Schulz 12:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, 83.109.xxx.xx. - I think you should log in if you want to continue editing this page. Creating an account doesn't cost you a cent. Should you refuse to log in, I for my part intend to remove your edits without further notice. I hope you understand. - Heimdal 09:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That would be vandalism, and I hope you understand that I would have to revert. I have worked on this page a lot longer than you, and don't feel any need for an account just because you say so. If you have something to tell me, you may do so right here. --83

Don't be an asshole. Yes, it is more convenient if a regular contributor logs in. But an anonymous edit still requires a reasonable amount of scrutiny.--Stephan Schulz 12:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

What I demand is only fair. 83.109.xxx.xx. uses a wide range of IP addresses, which makes it very difficult to identify or even to contact this person on his or her talk page. If 83.109.xxx.xx wants to continue editing this page, he or she should log in. That's not asked too much, I think. - Heimdal 12:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that logging in, especially when editing a somewhat controversial article, would be good. But summary revert/deletion is not the answer. One of the core ideas of Wikipedia is than anybody can contribute. --Stephan Schulz 13:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm still not convinced that Mozart should belong here at all. To me Mozart is as Austrian as a Sachertorte. - Heimdal 14:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody denies that Mozart is Austrian as well. It's not an either-or, its a both. --Stephan Schulz 18:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a few remarks from the one who caused this: Please don't just exclude 83, just because he isn't logged in. (Though it'd be more convenient.) No one is denying that Mozart is Austrian, Heimdalll and if I really had to make a choice, he'd rather be Austrian than anything else (with the exception of Salzburgian), but we don't have to make that choice. To impose that choice would be wrong. In fact he's both Austrian and German (and Salzburgian). But we're not actually writing: "Mozart, German composer", but only including one single name into the culture paragraph here. Why all this fuss about one single word. Str1977 16:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Again this comes down to a matter of definition, and scope. This article isn't about Germany culture in the broad, or about the German (proto-)state as it was constituted, but about the modern German state and matters that historically directly pertain to that. Given that definition, it's not at all unreasonable to exclude persons on grounds that would have been anachronistic, had the focus of the article been "the Germany of Mozart's day". Alai 01:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Alai, where's the damage in including one single word into this entry? And yes, this is about Germany today and Mozart certainly belongs to the cultural heritage of Germany today (taking nothin away from Austria). Str1977 17:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The damage is that once you let this one in, the floodgates open to appropriating all sorts of other stuff to the modern State of Germany, which is not only historically incorrect, but then forces the article to again balloon up to an unmanageable size. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is not "historically incorrect" in Mozart's case and the potential for balooning is quite limited. We don't want to included any composer, painter etc, but only the most important. And Mozart is up in that rank along with Bach and Beehoven. Str1977 19:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It is historically incorrect to claim Mozart was a German. He was a citizen of the HRE. If we look at the successor states to the parts he mostly lived in - Salzburg and Vienna - both are in today's Austria. If we look at Bach, he was born in Eisenach and lived in Mühlhausen, Leipzig and Weimar, among othe places (according to the Bach wikipage). Except Mühlhausen, all are locted in today's Germany. Beethoven was born in Bonn and lived in Vienna for a long time. Admittedly, only he could claim double citizenship. Luis rib 19:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not historically incorrect. Read the above posts. If you read German, please read the German wikipedia, where Mozart is quoted referring to himself as a 'Teutscher'. But anyway, this is not about whether Mozart was German or not (and certainly not about "double citzenships"), but about whether to include him into the "culture section" of Germany. He certainly belongs there. Str1977 19:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC) Str1977 19:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Why does he "certainly" belong there? I've still not seen any convincing argument for that. Again, as Heimdall was saying (I'm mystified that I'm agreeing with him for once) there are a lot of less controversial (in the geographic sense) German composers that could be added. German classical music is monumental even without Mozart. Adding Austrians but not mentioning Carl Orff is ridiculous. Totally unrelated to this, the list of literary works is really short. German literature didn't start with Goethe, but rather with the Nibelungenlied, Walter von der Vogelweide, Wolfram von Eschenbach, etc. Before adding Austrians to the musicians list, we should at least complete the literary list. Luis rib 19:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you add other German composers and writers, then? The absence of other things is never an argument against including something else. As to why he was German - because before 1866 Austria simply cannot be reasonably separated from the rest of Germany. This only partially has to do with the Holy Roman Empire. Czechs, Lorrainers, Sorbs, Belgians, and so forth, in the Holy Roman Empire would not be considered Germans. But German-speaking Austrians most certainly would be. To exclude them is to backdate Kleindeutsch ideology into the 18th century. By the way, would we consider someone born in Freiburg im Breisgau or Konstanz in the same year as Mozart to be a German? Those cities are in modern Germany, but were then Habsburg territories. Mozart, on the other hand, was not even born in a Habsburg territory, and Salzburg was not part of the Austrian Circle of the HRE - it was in the Bavarian circle. I agree that Mozart's years in Vienna make him an Austrian, but a) he was originally from an area which was not at the time considered to be part of "Austria," and b) at the time of his birth, Austria was definitely considered to be equivalent to Bavaria or Saxony, not to Germany or France - that is, as a part of Germany, not as a separate country. On two counts, then, it is anachronistic to say that Mozart was "an Austrian" and not a German.

As to slipper slope arguments, I am dubious. I don't think anybody here has said that anybody from the Holy Roman Empire should be called a German. This is, obviously, absurd - the Holy Roman Empire was never equivalent to Germany, and there were always many non-Germans within it. That said, throughout its history, a German-speaker from within the Holy Roman Empire would have been considered a German, and it does not open any floodgates for us to acknowledge this. john k 20:03, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it does. By your logic, Austrian geography, politics, etc all needs to be discussed here, because it's a German-speaking former part of the HRE, and thus within the scope of the article as you're implicitly (or indeed pretty much explicitly) defining it in order to include Mozart. But that's not the intended scope of this article, which is the modern FRG. Maybe we should reverse the redirect and the article name just to make this that bit clearer... Alai 05:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

No, that is nonsense. Austrian stuff only should be discucssed in historical contexts, not in contemporary ones. As to this article being only about the FRG, that seems wrong. Obviously it is mostly about that, but it is absurd to decide that Germany consists only of the current territory of the FRG in historical contexts. By this argument, Kant was a Russian philosopher. As to reversing the redirect, that is absurd - Germany is more than the Federal Republic, which has only existed since 1949. The history section shows pretty clearly that this article is not just about the Federal Republic. I'd be interested to see an argument which explains why it's okay to call Kant a German, but not Mozart. Both spoke German; Both were from areas outside present-day Germany; neither was from an area ruled at the time by the Habsburgs; Mozart was from inside the Holy Roman Empire, Kant from outside it. It is simply Prussian/Kleindeutsch bigotry and anachronism that would make Mozart somehow not a German. john k 16:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Either that, John, or it's an Austrian fear of losing one of their greatest to the "Piefkes". But I stated time and again, it's not about denying Austria the heritage of Mozart. It's only including him one both sides of the border, since he belongs on both sides of the border.

Str1977 16:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, those can hardly be the only "PoVs" for not including Mozart as FRGish, since I'm neither an Austrian nor a Prussian. John, your argument above is certainly consistent: given that definition of "Germany" (i.e. a Grossdeutschland/pan-German one), I'd be insisting that Mozart be included too. However, this is not that article, as the first six words are: The Federal Republic of Germany is...; why else do you think Federal Republic of Germany does redirect here? If you want to change this, I'm pretty open to doing so, but let's be explicit that's what we're doing, and not just let it drift, piecemeal.

The history section discusses a) more than it should for any reasonable brevity, but necessarily b) the FRG's predecessor states (or meta-states) as that's the only possible way to say anything about the modern state's history. That does not mean that everything in the history of those is within the scope of this article by some sort of runaway transitive closure operation. Kant's case is completely different: East Prussia has no successor states in any meaningful sense (just other powers occupying its former territory), the HRE has two (for our purposes, obviously actually many more), of which it's pretty clear that Mozart falls on the "Austrian" side, not the "FRG" side. Alai 18:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The history is quite all right in its scope (though not necessary in giving details)

For the purpose of the paragraph in question, Mozart falls on both sides.

Str1977 17:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I assumed you were not Austrian, which is why I did not suggest that as a possibility. But I think that considering Austria as a separate country in the 18th century is clearly a product of the fact that what we got was Kleindeutschland, and that there's a strong tendency on the part of just about everybody, not just "Prussians," to read back Kleindeutschland into a period when the distinction doesn't make any sense. As to what this article is about - obviously, it is about the Federal Republic, but it is also about Germany as a larger entity. Since the two are, at present, generally considered identical, it makes sense to have Federal Republic of Germany redirect here. Beyond that, I'm not certain - it is a bit tricky. It might make sense to have separate articles for Germany and Federal Republic of Germany, as we already do for, say, Ireland and Republic of Ireland, and China and People's Republic of China (and Republic of China). This would also be useful because of the FRG/GDR issues between 1949 and 1990, and allow us to redirect West Germany to Federal Republic of Germany. john k 13:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Well surely "we're all Kleindeutschlanders now" in that sense, as we're indeed writing with the hindsight that that's how things panned out, and of course I agree that the contempoary perspective would have been very, very different. I think the current article is not in fact about both things, it's only about the FRG, but that's not a situation I'm indelibly wedded to: a "split", or "rescoping" would be feasible, and if there's a consensus for it, then fair enough. In the short term, this would pretty much amount to, move this article to FRG, and write a stubby/disambiguatory new one at "Germany" over the redirect, pointing people at the FRG article, vs. the broader historical articles, with some text around this. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? (It'd be overkill just to address Mozart, but there may be something to be said for it more generally. Or not, as the case may be.) Alai 17:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think such a split feasible - it would result in mostly identical pages, maybe on the FRG page with more focus on politico-socio-economical issues. Or your "stubby" example.

However, even if this page is about the FRG, Mozart is a part of the culture of the FRG - today. (Not as much as of the culture of Salzburg of course, but nonetheless a part.)

Str1977 17:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be feasible enough. I'd advise looking at how we deal with the China and Ireland articles before making a determination. The Germany article could focus on changing definitions of Germany and on the whole course of its history (and also on cultural subjects), while the Federal Republic of Germany article could focus more specifically on the Federal Republic, and only discuss the history of the Federal Republic (to the exclusion not only of earlier history, but of that of the GDR) in the History section. It would be the only one to discuss political issues, except that the Germany article would obviously mention that Germany is now considered equivalent to the Federal Republic, and link to that. (I wrote a longer response before, which I accidentally lost due to stupidity, but I do remember noting that there are some significant differences between the other examples and that of Germany, most notably that today Germany is considered to be equivalent to the Federal Republic, which is not the case of China or Ireland, but I think that this is only something which we must take into account, not something which damns the whole project. Let me also add that, yes, there would obviously be a fair amount of overlap, but that this is not necessarily harmful - there is frequent overlap among wikipedia articles. So long as we are clear on why there is overlap, this is fine. There are obviously some instances when overlap is a result of two different people working on basically the same subject under different titles - for a while, and possibly still, this was true of Prussia and Kingdom of Prussia, for instance - but that would not be the case here.) john k 01:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I may well be wrong, but wasn't the Holy Roman Empire called "Holy Roman Empire of German nations" at that time?NightBeAsT 20:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right Nightnbeast, from approx. the 15th century onwards the HRE received the tag "of the German nation" (no plural s), since it had lost most of its Italian and Burgundian territories. May I add again that the Archbishop of Salzburg bears the honorary title of "Primas Germaniae"?

Luis, Mozart certainly belongs there, because all of the above, because he's (one of the) greatest and because of his influence on subsequent German classical music (Beethoven, "reform" of the opera, German-language libretto) Str1977 20:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

As I stated above, this issue is that much disputed that I am only willing to accept Mozart here, if somebody offers a serious authority for him being German or Austrian-German. The point is that every lexikon, encyclopedia or other serious source (like MSN encarta, ...) cites him as Austrian and not German nor Austrian-German. Themanwithoutapast 19:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Again this is not the Mozart entry, so we don't have to solve that problem as you suggest. This is the Germany entry, with a culture section and into that he belongs.

Unfortunately, he didn't give any sources, but someone at the German wiki talk page on Mozart said the called himself "teutsch".

Str1977 19:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't get your argument. This is an article on Germany, why should we include everyone without needing to prove that he or she is German? And besides, it does not matter what Mozart called himself. If he called himself British or Rumanian it would not matter as long as he really should be considered British or Rumanian. And you have not cited any encyclopedia or other source that cites him as German -> however I and others HAVE cited sources that he can only be considered Austrian. And once again by including Austrians in an article on Germany you are insulting Austrians, I hope you know that (like you would insult an American if you count George Washington (who was a member of the British Army) as British or Wilhelm Tell a German instead of a Swiss) Themanwithoutapast 19:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

So I'll try again.

You seem to suggest that we have to put M either in the German box or in the Austrian box or into some mish-mash box. But we don't have to. We might have to in a M entry, but not in the Germany entry or in the Austria entry.

Now you claim it doesn't matter what he thought himself to be?

Well, if he claimed to be Chinese while being from Salzburg, he'd be wrong and no one would argue about it. But in reality, his self-perception and the facts do match.

Sorry I can't cite a source (for a thing that IMHO is really so obvious), but you did not cite sources "that he can only be considered Austrian", only that he can be considered Austrian, that it is common to consider him Austrian, that it is right to consider him Austrian. And no one disputes this. But now you claim that he only can be considered Austrian - but your sources don't provide that.

So now we have come down to the real issue. You, and I suppose your from Austria, consider it an insult when M is included on the Germany page? It is neither an insult (and if it were facts are still facts) nor is anyone here trying to take him away from Austrians.

Again, the Washington example does not hold the parallel (Virginia never was part of Britain), and yes, if Tell is a real historical person, he should be considered both German and Swiss - that he is the national hero of Switzerland and not of Germany is clear.

BTW, is Rudolf I a German, an Austrian, or Swiss?

Str1977 19:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

And I'll try again too. There are 3 different countries today that share a common past but are now distinct from each other. These countries are Switzerland, Germany and Austria. Neither of these countries is the successor of the "country" we are now imprecicly calling "Germany" that existed up to the 19th century, all 3 are just sub-sets of this conglomerate country. The fact that the Germany of today kept the name "Germany" does not change this reality - I think this discussion would not be necessary if in 1871 Prussia would have pressed for the name "Prussion federation" or some other name, but apparently it did not - however it was clear that the German Empire of 1871 was not the successor of the HRE. The point remains, after one huge conglomerate falls apart, national heros or other national figures should be divided among the now separate countries - the same goes for situations in the aftermath of Austria-Hungary or the Soviet Union.

Some sources that state him solely as Austrian:

MSN encarta (http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761554446/Mozart_Wolfgang_Amadeus.html)
the literacy encyclopedia (http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=5157)
Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10623a.htm)
Encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/M/Mozart-W1.asp)
Encyclopedia Britannica (http://concise.britannica.com/search?query=Mozart&x=9&y=2) citing him as "Austrian composer"

P.S.: yes Virginia was part of the GB, it was a colony of the UK when Washington was born there in 1732. He had british citizenship and served in the British army. Nevertheless he is not cited as American-British freedom fighter or British freedom fighter. P.S.S.:If Mozart should be labeled "German" solely because he was part and had influence on German culture, should we include Bach, Kant, Goethe and Schiller as "Austrians" because they had a large influence on Austrian culture? So, once again, I demand to see some serious authority that Mozart can be labelled a "German". Themanwithoutapast 20:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

No, Man. None of your sources claim (if they did, they'd be wrong, but they don't) that M can only be called Austrian. Most of them just call him an "Austrian composer" and I have no objection. But this is not the M entry, it is the Germany entry. We don't have to pigeonhole him exclusively on either side. As for Washington: Virginia was not part of Britain, it was a British colony. And even if Washington were British by these circumstances, his participation in the rebellion would have "removed the Britishness from him". He could not be labelled a "British freedom-fighter", but from the Brit POV only a "British traitor". But, if you want to draw that parallel, when did M rebel against Germany. And in his time, Austria was part of Germany, hence your proposal on Bach etc doesn't work. But bach was both Saxon and German, Kant both Prussian and German, Goethe both Frankfortian (and Weimarian) and German, Schiller both Württembergian (and Weimarian) and German. And M was both Salzburgian, and Austrian, and German. Str1977 20:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

They need not state that he was only an Austrian composer, because in all those articles it is not even mentioned that he could be labelled a "German". Once again I demand that you come up with a serious source that labelles Mozart a German OR that all Austrians during the time of the HRE should be labelled Germans (this is what you in fact suggest). And once more the Germany of the past is not Germany of the present (Why do you never respond to this - it is true by the way...). And even more, have you even read the sentence you are inserting "Mozart" all the time: it reads: "Germany was the birthplace of... Mozart" - that even you should realize to be wrong, his birthplace would have to be either HRE or Salzburg, but definitely not "Germany". Themanwithoutapast 20:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

http://www.artsjournal.com/letters/20030808-7143.shtml http://douweosinga.com/blog/0308/2003Aug09_1

They need not do this, because they are not interested in this "possession" game. But neither do they support your claim that M is only Austrian.

No, I don't advocate calling them all German, I'm not advocating calling M German on his page. But all these Austrian (of that period in question) you talk about are by implication Germans as well, just like all Bavarians of that period, or all Saxons of that period, or (for a shorter time) all Swiss.

No I haven't noticed someone changed the opening sentence. It wasn't there when this all started and should be changed back. But in M's time Salzburg was in fact in Germany, despite your ahistorical protestations, and definitely not in Austria.

If you can demand, I can do that too: What about Rudolf I?

Str1977 20:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add a compromise, although it will probably please no one. Stratton 21:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)--

Made a minute change on Stratton's version. If it stays that way and opposition ceases, I am content. Str1977 21:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I accept the compromise, can live with that. However one last remark about your two "serious authorities" Str1977, you were just joking, were you? Themanwithoutapast 23:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I mean you don't think this "joke" has some validity? The Austrians have no right to complain about the Germans claiming Mozart as one of their own. I'm in Austria right now. Two days ago I heard a prominent Austrian claim that Hitler was German and Beethoven was Austrian. Whatever makes you sleep well at night, right? Your first "serious source" (http://www.artsjournal.com/letters/20030808-7143.shtml)

Should we really start to discuss if Beethoven, who lived nearly all his "creative life" in Austria, is an Austrian-German (that noone asserts in contrast to the "Austrian-German Mozart"-allegations) or that Hitler was not Austrian (what noone asserts either), although he gave up his Austrian citizenship in 1925 and lived nearly all his "creative life" (<- this is meant ironically) in Germany? Well as I said, I can live with the compromise, but I am starting to think whether I should add Beethoven to the article on Austria, what do you think? Themanwithoutapast 23:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be perfectly appropriate to mention Beethoven in the articles on Austria and Vienna, just as it would be appropriate to mention Goethe and Schiller in the articles about Saxe-Weimar, Thuringia, and the city of Weimar. john k 01:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anon edits, and History (again)

I've reverted the recent edits by our resident anon, as they seem to be entirely concerned with (re-)establishing a POV. I also gave serious consideration to removing the somewhat-less-recent addition of a whole new subsection in the ever-expanding History section, "Restoration and liberal opposing forces". This strikes me as vastly over-detailed for a general overview of history (we're back up to over 2200 words), but I'm open to other views on this. Alai 16:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Please could you stop with your obsession with the length of the History section? This discussion is getting really boring, and it is disrupting the article to boot. The History section is quite long, yes, but the article itself is not. As long as this page does not reach the 55KB, I would stop fussing about History. The section "Restoration and liberal opposing forces" (which was *not* added by me, btw) may be too detailed for your personal obsession, but it's a very good piece, well written and well informed. I wish you would make similar contributions, Alai, instead of just discussing about what to delete next. - Heimdal 16:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you apply your words to yourself, and stop fussing about the History section; let others have a chance to keep it at a reasonable length. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, I'm perfectly well aware of who added that section -- why do you assume I'm making any accusations about you? In fact until this point, I thought you were due some credit for your restraint in not reverting to the yet-longer-still version of the History section. I'm sorry you find my attempts to get this article to a reasonable length and stylistic conformance "obsessive", "tedious" and "boring", but aside from your personal preferences I've seen no arguments against their validity. For my part, I'd be very glad if you'd desist with the incivility, and threats to resume your revert-warring. Alai 19:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If this tedious discussion about shortening History/the article/whatever continues, I'm ready to do my piece of civil disobedience here, and to revert the page once a day. Don't say you haven't been warned. - Heimdal 17:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning; others, of course, may be forced to adopt the same tactic, so I suggest simply working things out in Talk: instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The "Restoration and liberal opposing forces" covers a large part of the history of Germany in the 19th century which is very important to understand German history. It is really not a good idea to jump from the HRR to the German Empire of 1871. Why does Alai insist on deleting relevant material? What is his aims? Why does he edit this article? He seems only obsessed with deleting things and destroying other people's work. --83

It is very disturbing that Alai again removes the reference to the at least 7 million Germans killed in the war, including at least 3 million civilians murdered by the Allies. This article is about Germany, and should thus concentrate on Germany and the Germans. It is outrageous to delete this information while keeping a lot of information (completely out of proportions when compared to the US, UK, Belgium, France or Israel) of alleged wrongdoings by the Germans which really doesn't have much with Germany of today or the political-cultural history of Germany which the history section concentrates on to do. I am so tired of the constant vandalism of this page and have reverted to my version, and I will continue to do so until the vandalism stop. --83

I also repeat for the 5th time or something that state politics of Saxony belongs in the Saxony article. When the NPD are elected at national level they may be included in the national article. And the election results of the NPD does not belong under "social issues" in any case, that is POV. --83

It seems pointless leaving messages for 83.109.* on his ever-changing anon talk page, so I'll comment here: his characterisation of my edits as "vandalism" is extremely obnoxious and uncalled-for (and likewise the description of others' as such). Note for one thing that I wasn't the first to try to remove those particular POV-insertions (it'd be pleasant to imagine I'd be the last to have to do it).

On the content: the issue isn't the information about number of deaths, it's about the shamelessly POV tone and context they're being put in. Alai 05:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, can someone at least fix the spelling errors that "83" keeps adding, and reverting back in? Alai

I currently don't have the time to edit Wikipedia (I've got guests). But on Wednesday I intend to continue with my work of restoring deleted parts. My piece of civil disobedience would amount to a max of 1 revert/24 hours, if necessary, which would hardly qualify as an edit war. Also when reverting I'd make sure to save other edits. But since I'm not autistic I will continue to discuss here regardless of what happens.

Heimdal, I have no idea what your current beef is. My comments in this section were directed to 83.109.*, and to Nightbeast. Are you now declaring that you're going to revert to their versions now, as well as/instead of your own? Please note that I did not edit the latter's text (tempted though I was), and you've made more complaints about the former than anyone else, so it's extremely unclear what you're objecting to. Alai 15:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

PS to 83.109.xxx.xx.: but you have to admit that your stubborn refusal to log in is a bit odd. Do you have something to hide, 83.109.xxx.xx.? - Heimdal 09:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

As 83.109 continues to revert to his own version of the article without consideration for other's inputs or even proper spelling, it might be time to move for an IP ban, as this is essentially vandalism. Stratton 10:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)--

I have repaired the article while considering other's inputs between vandalism and my edits 40-50 times over the last years. I'm tired of the vandalism and I'm tired of putting exactly the same things in again and again, and have no obligation to continue to spend my time on this when other people continue to vandalize. People should not edit a vandalized version in the first place. Anyway, it's rather time to ban you I believe. --83

I'm aware that it's frustrating to have to incorporate other's edits rather than a blanket revert. However, because of the continuing edit wars on this article, it looks like scheiß. Therefore, I ask you to only edit the sentences and sections you have a problem with, so this article can make some progress in terms of grammar and style. I don't completely disagree with some of your content, but I very much disagree with your method. If we talk about agitators, we should probably also mention the Red Army Faction. The significant increase in neo-Nazi related crimes is important to mention, for, at the very least, every reader of the page is going to wonder about it. It may be worth mentioning that the current government considers the NDP to be a serious threat to the country. I'm divided on the question of including expulsion casualties (although your numbers are too high, see the actual article), however Poland's and the Soviet Union's annexations were not unilateral, it was agreed upon by the Allies, and the Germans had agreed to unconditional surrender. Stratton 20:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)--

Just to clarify: Annexing occupied territory is against the international laws of war, specifically the Hague conventions. The annexations were clearly unilateral as they were not accepted by Germany. The military surrender of the German army has nothing to do with this, the final peace treaty was first signed after the end of the cold war. And my numbers are absolutely correct. Between 2 and 3 million civilians died during the expulsion (the Federation of Expellees may offer some detailed casualities) and additionally did some hundreds of thousands die because of Allied bombing, especially in Dresden and Hamburg.

Also, the NPD is not officially a nazi party, and we should be careful about labelling them as such. Comparable parties, some even of much greater importance, exists in Austria, France, Britain and most other European countries. I also find it inappropriate to only mention right-wing extremism and not left-wing extremism. In Germany, left-wing extremism and violence has been a much larger problem for the last 60 years. --83

I have made some changes to the social issues section to give a more balanced view of political turmoil. The writing could defnitiely use some work. I don't know much about the expulsions in particular. It looks like the numbers on casualties are highly debated on the specific article page, which probably means we should keep the discussion of those numbers on that page, or use some vague word like "many". Stratton 22:16, May 31, 2005 (UTC)--

I certainly agree they were "not accepted by Germany" (until much later, well after the fact), but that doesn't make them "unilateral", especially as it it was done in the broad context of the Allies "carving up Europe", as DS says, giving it at least a degree of multilateralism (which isn't to say, legitimacy as such). My main objection is to these edits is the insistence that the expulsions be characterised as "brutal", etc, which seems dsistinctly POV an excessive, in the context of WW2. I don't disagree that the Red Army Faction etc should be mentioned, I just thinking that parallel formulae mentioning "right-wing and left-wing extremism" and such like are misleading in that they give an undue impression of some sort of equivalence or symmetry. Alai 17:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

Though the expulsions certainly were brutal, I agree that "brutal" shouldn't be included in a encyclopedia (except if one wanted to contrast with the words of the Potsdam conference with the facts, but that certainly exceeds the focus of this entry)

I agree that the carving up was "mulilateral" is correct (as well as your doubts about legitimacy)

As for the symmetry question: I don't think it's wrong to use "right-wing and left-wing extremism", depending on the context and subject of course. Right-wing extremism is more than just Nazis or Neo-Nazis. However, as regards the NPD specifically, Neo-Nazi is in place.

Str1977 17:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The point is that there were two legal subjects here: the occupied country and the occupiers. The occupiers annexed occupied territory which was not recognized by the occupied country. Thus the annexations were unilateral, because only recognized by one of the parties. The opinion of the occupiers allies etc. has no relevance. --83

If your edits keep being reverted again and again, perhaps you should consider that there is a problem with them. Why was it again that you continue to refuse to get yourself a userid? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

If we consider the legitimacy of the post-war border changes, then we should also mention and define the unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945. Halibu tt 18:32, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The military (not political) surrender has nothing to do with this, and does not justify illegal and criminal actions like annexation of occupied territory. --83

Nope. It was an unconditional surrender of the German state, not only the Wehrmacht. And it was clear to all people involved, especially that the surrender of state of Germany was one of the aims of the war, frequently expressed by all Allied leaders during most of the wartime conferences. Halibu tt 06:26, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

To my German friends

Dear German friends. Please see what do polish nazis on Talk:Disputed territories of Baltic States, Talk:Eastern Vilnius region, Talk:Vilnius region, Talk:Vilnius, Talk:Pomerania, Talk:Gdansk, Talk:Goldap, Podlasie -> history of the article, Talk:Podlasie Voivodship, Sarmatism -> history of the article. Friend of Germany from Lithuania. Zivinbudas 09:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Zivinbudas and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Zivinbudas and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zivinbudas. Halibu tt 10:04, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Please see his user page (Halibutt) and you will see who is polish nazi. Once this immature polish nazi wrote: "I hate German names of polish cities". I think nothing to add. The best wishes to German people from Vilnius, Lithuania. Zivinbudas 11:16, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

WHAT?! Sources please. And apology for calling me a Nazi. Now. Halibu tt 11:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

See User Talk:DeirYassin -> Sandomierz and other similar issues, you immature polish nazi. Zivinbudas 11:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice you've quoted the context as well.. As I see you're not willing to apologise. Your business, not mine. BTW, you have been unblocked, so you might as well finally log in and take part in the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Zivinbudas. Unless of course you want to be permanently blocked by the "polish nazi administrators". Halibu tt 12:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Go better to eat flaki, you polish joker. 85.206.192.187 12:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

can we have this idiot blocked, soon, please? dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sharap slavic monkey. Go better to read Semerenyi (1957) - the only book which you read in your life (and which you use as manual for your "administration"). 85.206.194.158 11:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now take your Prozac and cool down, OK? - Heimdal 13:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you exclusive distributor of that in Monkeyland, sorry poland? 85.206.192.221 13:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restoration ... section

Dear Nightbeast, some thoughts:

"the princes ..." - they are all princes, even the Kings, even the Emperor - monarchs is usually considered to be equivalent, thoug historically very few of the princes were monarchs.Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

To me a prince is usually the son of a royal family but NOT king. If I'm wrong here, and monarch really doesn't fit (better), revert the term please.NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Since I see from below that you are German, I can give you the German term: "Prince" in English means "Fürst", not just "Prinz" as in German. Princes are generally all rulers with a claim of their own (below are counts and barons). Of course Kings are higher than mere princes, but in the end they are princes too. Orginally, the King was the prince, before he delegated princely power to others.

Monarch in the early modern period orignally meant one ruler governing several countries, e.g. the Habsburg monarchy. But of course it can be used like you did as well. I only think "prince" is more common.

Str1977 23:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"... the liberals' demands ..." - I thougt that was enough (consider concise wording and brevity), also the princes yielding only to the liberals, not to more radical views.Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The general view was that of the liberals, which is not necessarily the case with revolutions. Without saying that the general demands were equal to the demands of the liberals allows the assumption that the revolutionaries had wanted different demands in general and the governments only supported liberal reforms to have the liberals, who might not have been involved in the revolution at all, back them so the governm would have a great percentage of the population side with it. What needs to be added for clarification is just one word ...NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"demise of the parliament and the revolution in general" - again, I think this is enough for this entry page, also "sanguinary" is quite odd.Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think mentioning the violent outcome of the revolution in one word is worth it under all circumstances. What should it be? "Violent", "bloody", "murderous"?NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Your "Yet the liberals' ideas were to remain rooted in people's consciousness." is not really true, given the course German history took after this. I'm just stating facts, not passing judgements. Your phrase would be true for the French people during that time, but not for the German people.Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The following conflict with the parliament was due to the parliament. It had mainly liberal views. Also, like I mentioned, the flag, anthem and motto of Germany in the Weimarer Republic and today are those of the liberals at that time. How you wrote it, it almost sounded as if the revolution hadn't changed anything.

"The revolution was despite its failure of great siginificance for the history of Germany.

Along with the draft for the fundamental right and constitution, a parliamentary tradition in Germany was founded, to which was always relied on in 1871, 1918/19 and after 1945.
A basis for a political spectrum of parties was founded, which was to develop in the following periods.
Through the failure of the revolution revolutionary forces broke through in Prussia and Austria, which were to determine the politics in the following decades.
The national foundation of the Empire came "from above" (<-on the part of the state, not common people)
The bourgeoisie retreated from political participation and developed economical interests, yet the liberal product of the mind remained alive "

Poorly translated, I know. From "Abi Geschichte pocket teacher".NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't just revert the changes on Bismarck. The previous text was not completely accurate.Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

So was the other but it made mention of the fact that Germany was a great nation at that time, which is almost an understatement. It was a (if not the?) leading economic power and Bismarck needed to assure very often that Germany didn't want any more annexions. The country's power destroyed the balance of powers in Europe. The wealth in the period was one reason why the people wanted a leader back, not the weimarer republic's poverty. You also removed "decades". I think it needs to be added, especially because a lot of other actions in this and particularly in the following sections only covered one or two years. I wouldn't say Germany's actions were unexpected but imperialism creates mistrust. Germany was seen as obnoxious (and threatening on account of its power), not unexpected.NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

As for her - I'm not the first to use it, it's on the page further above too, and it is correct in English to refer to (most) countries as "she" or "her".Str1977 21:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that was me- he, she or it? In French and Spanish: 'she'. 'It' works too though. Just as I'm interested: is 'Deutschland' gendered or neuter in German? Rednaxela 19:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hestitate to answer this, since I'm sure I'm contender for worst German language skills on this page, but as it's not been answered: grammatically neuter, is my understanding, as are most countries (with a few exceptions either say). Poetically, isn't G. masculine, if anything, given Vaterland? (Though that word's neuter, too.) Then again there's (Die) Heimat... In any event, I'm in the "it" camp for English usage, as using "she" for countries, trains, etc, is far from standard, and could be seen as somewhat flowery, rather than encyclopaedic, language. Alai 03:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right. In German, Deutschland is of neutral gender, as can be exemplified by the sentence "Das vereingigte Deutschland (the unified Germany)". Often, the country calls itself die Bundesrepublik (the Federal Republic), which is feminine. But in general, and for our purposes, "it" should be used. Luis rib 10:53, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Luis is right. In German Deutschland is neuter and nowadays basically all countries are. But this is in the English language. (See below for that.)

Str1977 15:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm against personifications of countries. It is a rhetorical figure and sounds nationalistic, which I'm definitely not a supporter of.{I'm off for today and tomorrow}NightBeAsT 22:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's (necessarily) nationalistic. It's common in English to use the female form for most countries and I support everything that retains grammatical gender in the English language. Str1977 23:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Every English-language encyclopaedia that I would know of (Britannica, Collier's), uses the word "it" for Germany and other countries. "She" is not necessarily nationalistic, but I think that it's more common to poetical language. Are you a poet, Str1977? - Heimdal 09:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I am a poet, but not now :-)

From my knowledge of English, the female form is common.

But I don't object to either "it" or "she"

Str1977 10:39, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nothing contemporary in America uses "she", except possibly in a poetic sense. Stratton 23:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)--

Well, America is not the center of the world. In England it is quite common to use she for a country (The Economist does it all the time), and "English" certainly refers to England, not to America. (Nevertheless, I am indifferent to the she/it question.) Luis rib 19:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

England is also not the centre of the world. The Economist tries very hard to be "poetical" and "intelligent" (don't get me wrong, it's a magazine I like very much), using unnecessary terms like "the middle kingdom" for China and such. As English isn't gendered anymore, it makes sense to use "it" to deal with objects. DirectorStratton 23:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Luis, I am coming from a more British English approach and generally write in that variety. If others are bothered, they are free to correct my spelling.

Just as you, I am basically indifferent to that question too, though in the end I like the "she" better (there's the poet lurking and also my "mourning" of the English language's loss of grammatic gender), but it doesn't bother me, if you put in "it".

Str1977 15:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Social issues

Hello there, I'm back. Regarding the contentious section about "Social issues", I'd like to say that it was originally added by User:Reboot, who also wrote the main article Social issues in Germany. The only things which I've added myself to the section were the reference to the NPD, plus one image of the German Constitution. Both the NPD reference and the image have repeatedly been removed by 83.109.xxx.xx. But I think that the NPD is a very relevant topic in Germany currently, so I think that it should be mentioned. I also intend to restore the image of the German Constitution. I hope the deletion squad will let it stay there this time. - Heimdal 09:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, why do you put the Grundgesetz under "Social Issues"? "Leagl System" makes considerably more sense. Neither the constitution nor constitutional reform are mentioned under social issues. Stratton 23:48, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)--

I was desperate to find a suitable image for the "Social issues" section. Unfortunately, the choice is very limited. So I copied the idea of the United States page to add an image of the Constitution. This also makes sense, in so far as many social issues are connected with the basic rights enshrined in the German Basic Law. - Heimdal 10:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS A good English version of the German Constitution can be found here (http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm). - Heimdal 10:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since Stratton has moved the GG image to the "Legal system", I've added a pic of Kreuzberg to "Social issues" (in the absence of something better). - Heimdal 13:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to give short shrift to the GG, I just wanted to move it to the appropriate section. I don't like the Social Issues section of the United States article. Some original author probably was talking about constitutional issues like gun control or a gay marriage amendment which has now been plowed over for the sake of brevity, while leaving the sacrosanct image intact (my very very vague guess). The social issues of the united states article covers entirely different points that the section of the United States article. Fixing the Social Issues section has been added to my "To Do List" although I hate to add more to an already full article. Stratton 00:35, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I hope I would be able to get through it in German, but thanks for the link. Stratton 00:36, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Talk page broken

Am I the only one who has a May 10 version of this page constantly as the "previous" version? This makes it 100% impossible to follow conversations. --Golbez 20:24, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's very annoying. I've been thinking of taking it to Village Pump, but the last time I did my issue was completely ignored. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've mentioned this hiccup some time ago, but nobody cared to do anything about it. Wilful manipulation? I don't know. But perhaps some knowledgeable person could fix it, thank you, because it is annoying (and it also looks very silly). - Heimdal 09:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the village pump several days ago, and seemingly it's an unresolved technical problem, and one that's also manifest elsewhere. Seeminglky no much to be done until it's fixed, generally. Alai

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Germany"