Talk:Germany/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Roman Germany?

What about the status of the region during the ((Roman Republic))? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.249.70 (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Germania, never got totally under roman control. The main roman intrusion was in the Imperial Rome and ended in the region of today Cologne (in roman: Colonia Agricola). There is the famous battle were 6 entire roman legions got destroyed and the Roman emperor forbidding more intrusions in Germania. PHWeberbauer

Actually, recent research proves that the Romans advanced much further into Germania then what is recorded in today's official History. Maybe this article will have to be updated soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.50.98 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

small error(s)

I'm not registered, so I can't fix this. In the intro (2nd paragraph), "(the German Democrat Republic [Deutsche Demokratische Republik, or DDR])." is repeated twice. The second instance can be safely deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.177.104 (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not registered too, but Germany adopted the European currency, the euro, in 2001! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.92.172 (talk • contribs) 2008-10-31

The euro was introduced in 1999, but euro notes and coins were not introduced till later. --Boson (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, in the part "Society" is an L missing:

"the mayors of the two argest German cities, Berlin and Hamburg, are openly gay."

In "Science" there is mentioned that "The Nobel Prize has been awarded to 101 German laureates.[84]", but there are 102 meantime.

This number cannot be determined uniquely. There are too many vague parameters determining it. Still, I will change it due to your request to be in line with List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Germany. Tomeasy_{T C} 11:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

please change the misspelled "Hanover" to the correct "Hannover". tia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.100.227 (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not misspelled, "Hanover" is the official English language spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.131.139 (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to bring up this particular controversy

Perhaps it is time to insert the fact that the Bundesrepublik is in fact NOT the legal successor to the German Reich?

“It remains the case that the German Reich [established in 1871] survived the collapse of 1945 and did not cease to exist, neither through capitulation nor the exercise of foreign power in Germany on the part of the allies; it possesses today, as it always has, legal and judicial sovereignty. The BRD (Federal Republic of Germany) is not the legal successor of the German Reich.”

- Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), 31 July 1973 (Urteile 2 Bvl.6/56; 2 BvF 1/73; 2 BvR 373/83; BVGE 2,266 (277); 3, 288 (319ff; 5.85) 126; 6, 309, 336 und 363).

209.226.138.70 (talk) 19:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That might be somewhat misleading unless the whole quote is given. The Bundesverfassungsgericht said that it was not the legal successor because the two entities were identical. Since it changed its name rather than ending there was, of course, no successor; it lives on with a new name, new constitution, new territory, etc. It is now called the Federal Republic of Germany.

And while we are at it, Article 7 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany says:

(1) The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America hereby terminate their rights and responsibilities relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. As a result, the corresponding, related quadripartite agreements, decisions and practices are terminated and all related Four Power institutions are dissolved.

(2) The United Germany shall have accordingly full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs.

--Boson (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

EKK On Perseestä 4ever ÄLKÄÄ TULKO TÄNNE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.121.216 (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Allianz Arena Is Home to Bayern Munich AND Munich 1860!

The Allianz Arena Is Home to Bayern Munich AND Munich 1860! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.89.48 (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct, and the German national team too. Bonzostar (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Motto

There is no source that states "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" is the national motto. The only national symbol laid down by constitution is "Die Bundesflagge ist schwarz-rot-gold" in Article 22 Grundgesetz. Achates (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ein. und Rec. und Fre." is used in the german coins, so it must be some kind of symbol -- C D 15:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The words "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" are found in the national anthem. The 3rd verse begins with and further on uses these words. The coins show these words, too. So one might say it's some kind of motto, although there is no actual national motto in Germany. --OCTopus-en (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is What is a national motto? Only if it is called and defined as such in a constitution, as Achates insinuates? I think no. If you look around in the world, you would not find many mottos, if defined this way. Actually, I do not know any state that makes such a declaration in its constitution. IMO, the claim so far made on this article is better sourced than most other reported mottos. We find "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" on the coins and it's also the national anthem. IMO, that is sufficient. Perhaps we should add a note that specifies in how far this motto is official. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Einigkeit..... is acceptable for the purpose unless a note like that person above suggested is added. When you say "national motto", do you mean something like "In God we Trust" in the USA? Bonzostar (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You will not find any national symbols defined by german law. The german state does not dare to prescribe national symbols. (The anthem is "official" due to it was acknowledged by government in 1952 and 1990 but not by any prescription or law!) German state(s) are only regulating their state symbols (including flags such as Bundesflagge and even more Bundesdienstflagge which is only a state symbol). Nevertheless there are symbols of the german nation including flag, motto and anthem. Geo-Loge (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the whole "Song of the Germans" was the motto of the supporters of an german nation around 1870, it wasn't meant in the arrogant sense of the 3. Reich, but as a demand to people and leaders of the individual states to drop all their petty-minded concerns and join in the dream of an united Germany. Using the third verse after WW-II was an act of defiance, now meaning that the separation WILL end one day, and in this sense a national motto of the FRG too. Today it's not that much of a motto anymore.--79.207.104.242 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm from Germany and we don't have any national motto. "Eindigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" is, like said before, part of the national anthem. But that is hardly ever sung and many people (younger generations at least) don't even know the full text of it. 84.177.86.59 (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional Court in the state of Schleswig-Holstein

Since May 1, 2008 the state of Schleswig-Holstein has an own constitutional court. The constitutional jurisdiction is no longer exercised by the Bundesverfassungsgericht. Source: http://www.schleswig-holstein.de/STK/DE/Service/Presse/PI/2008/MP/080423__stk__mp__landesverfassungsrichter.html

Kikonium Kikonium (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is true, but, ("Landesverfassung" = state constitution) which means, the "landesverfassungsgericht" can't judge about federal belongings, this makes a difference! The "Bundesverfassungsgericht" is whatsoever higher ranked then the other one, also in state belongings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.123.211 (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy??

German literature can be traced back to the Middle Ages and the works of writers such as Walther von der Vogelweide and Wolfram von Eschenbach. Various German authors and poets have won great renown, including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Friedrich Schiller. The collections of folk tales published by the Brothers Grimm popularized German folklore on the international level. Influential authors of the 20th century include Thomas Mann, Berthold Brecht, Hermann Hesse, Heinrich Böll, and Günter Grass.[101]

Why did you put this under Philosophy, its Literature, or write it in the general culture part before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.57.2.107 (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Gottlob Frege invented predicate logic the single significant advance in logic ever since Aristotle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.223.75 (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

One major philosophical cornerstone is the not mentioned Albertus Magnus (teacher/praeceptor of Thomas of Aquin), who founded the first university/academy in Cologne (ca. 1250). You could also tell about Hrabanus Maurus(Fulda-Abbey) - but he was perhaps a little bit too early in history. Master Eckhard and Nicolaus Cusanus would close the middle-ages philosophy part.--139.30.132.121 (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Map Caption

Suggest the map caption, "After 1949 two German states and a divided city of Berlin evolved alongside the allied occupation zones. West Germany was formed by the American, British and French zones while East Germany was formed by the Soviet Zone." be changed to read, "After 1949 two German states and a divided city of Berlin evolved in juxtaposition to the allied occupation zones. West Germany was formed by the American, British and French zones while East Germany was formed by the Soviet Zone."ANNRC (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You want to change alongside to in juxtaposition to, right? What's the value you intend to add here? Tomeasy_{T C} 08:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Alongside" does not have the same connotations as "juxtaposition", especially if the subject is the same land area.ANNRC (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain the difference, please. Tomeasy_{T C} 07:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"alongside" in the phrase "evolved alongside the allied occupation zones" implies (to someone unfamiliar with occupation zone history) some land area(s) "set aside" i.e., "alongside" the Allied Occupation Zones (as in, perhaps there were some land areas set aside in some but not all zones for the Germans to develop politically on their own without zonal "administration" interference). "In juxtaposition with allied occupation zones" connotes that both operations occurred parallel within the same land area(s). . . . However, an easier solution would be to simply add the words "the administration of" to the subject phrase, yielding, "evolved alongside the administration of the allied occupation zones".ANNRC (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your argumentation seems reasonable. I am just skeptical, because I do not understand the word juxtaposition well, which is due to the fact that I am not a native speaker. However, this is not the Easy-English Wikipedia, so we should use the words that are most descriptive and not just those that people like I understand. Bottom line: I do not really feel competent to decide on this. However, since there has been no objection raised by anyone else here - why don't you just give it a try. After all, you seem to know quite well what you are talking about, and I can confirm that alongside can be misleading. Tomeasy_{T C} 10:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

States Table

The sort function does not seem to work correctly on the table in the "States" section. It sorts the wrong column, hurls you to the top of the article, or shamblizes the whole table. Samuel Robbins (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Society section - anti-gay site

This is really just a minor concern, but the link that's used as reference for the openly gay mayors of Berlin and Hamburg is for an anti-gay site. The story itself is fine, but the content of the site, much of which is displayed alongside the story, is discomforting. You might want to fix that. I tried to find the original one I think and if somebody has enough Wiki skills to replace that reference, that would be great. 151.188.213.229 (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I did the job. I did not find homophobia in the article we were citing before itself, but the site may qualify as such. Anyway, I think the new reference is simply better because it is the original text, which is just cited by the other text. Also it provides much more in depth information. Tomeasy_{T C} 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Positive reputation

Couldn't we find someone with more gravitas to illustrate Germany's "positive reputation around the globe" than Claudia Schiffer? Sca (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Take Giselle Bündchen, ist the same heritage ;) . Honestly, as brand name an as a professional, Schiffer really is working. ONe could however replace her now and then e.g. with Karl Lagerfeld, Willy Brandt, Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard Anne-Sophie Mutter and - the man of the millenium - Johannes Gutenberg. BR --Polentario (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Urban myth alert

In the Infrastructure section you claim that on most Autobahn routes there is no blanket speed limit. As a citizen of this nation I really cannot read this anymore. :-( It is a myth. On almost every route here there is actually a speed limit. Typically 130 km/h on Autobahns.

Something else should be added to the article since our exchange pupils are still being asked about these topics: Yes, we have running water, TV sets (in color!), and fridges. And no, there is currently no war in Germany and Mr. Hitler is dead. Really, he is.

89.245.121.145 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not true. He's actually alive in a U-boat that's been circling the globe underwater since 1945. Sca (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the ADAC (PDF), as of October 2007 40% of the Autobahn-network has a constant speed limit, and 9 more has traffic control systems that can limit speed for certain trafic or weather conditions — so on 51% (IOW "most") Autobahn routes there is no speed limit (and on 60% no "blanket" speed limit). Lars T. (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call Lars. I added the ref. Tomeasy_{T C} 01:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There is however a recommended speed limit of 130km/h and there could be problems with the insurance if you surpass it 84.177.86.59 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nature in Germany

This is a Featured articles but I do not see anything about nature in germany e.g. plants and animals. IMHO that is very important subjects. raziel (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

National animal

I put a fact tag on the caption of the golden eagle, declaring it was the national animal. As far as I know this precise information is a bit of an urban myth. Without doubt, the eagle is the national animal, however, the kind of eagle is never specified in any official document. I have heard this golden eagle claim more often, and therefore I do not want to promote it here, if there is no official document supporting it. I have just now spend some time again to find evidence as to which species is meant, but could not find anything more specific than eagle.

I would highly appreciate to be proven wrong, and see a citation being added. Otherwise, we need to slightly reformulate the caption. Tomeasy_{T C} 12:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I made some research. The official "Wappentier Deutschlands" is the eagle. Because the heraldic eagle is not specified, I´m going to change the caption. If there are still problems with it we can rewrite it again. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine for me. Tomeasy_{T C} 16:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect GDP figures shown in the table on the left

GDP (PPP) 2007 estimate: Total $2,812 trillion (5th) should be Total $2.812 trillion. Please amend the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.176.173 (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the FRG hatnote (again)

Given that the FRG hatnote I added a while back has been removed and that I have not received any reply to my previous thread, I thought I should bring up the issue again. Is the general consensus that the hatnote is superfluous and unnecessary, or that it is useful? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 01:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What is FDR? Tomeasy_{T C} 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean West Germany by that. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Federal Democratic Republic:-) Nice try, but I am afraid it won't help the communication if we make up our own abbreviations. You might consider using FRG if you need a short cut for West Germany. That, at least, is standard and chances are high you make yourself understood.

As concerns your issue. I do not quite get it. Could you please explain what it is about, I mean this hadnote. I have experienced that Federal Republic of Germany is redirected to Germany and not to West Germany, which I find OK. Beyond that, what is it that you want? Tomeasy_{T C} 20:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I just thought West and East Germany were referred to as the FDR and GDR respectively (I'm sure I read that somewhere). Anyway, my point is that do people want that hatnote that I had placed in this article but which was subsequently removed to be put back again or would they rather not have it? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, it's FRG not FDR. Any source that uses FDR for West Germany would highly interest and delight me.

Excuse me for my ignorance. I still do not know what you mean by this hatnote. The mere mentioning of the fact that Federal Republic of Germany redirects to Germany? Is that what you want to discuss? Tomeasy_{T C} 21:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm sure you're right - I thought that FDR was just something I'd read or heard somewhere. Anyway, section renamed. The point is, though, do you want a note at the top of the Germany article saying ... or do you think that it is unnecessary? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I find this message is important if I typed in Federal Republic of Germany and was taken to Germany. For the case that I typed in Germany, I do not really see the point mentioning one of potentially many existing redirects. I mean, is this done elsewhere in Wikipedia. If so, what are the general guidelines that tell us when to do this. Personally, I do not find it necessary if I typed in Germany. But perhaps you can convince me of the opposite. Tomeasy_{T C} 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the hatnote would mainly be beneficial to those who arrived at Germany through the Federal Republic of Germany redirect. The guideline suggesting the use of such hatnotes can be found here. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That was my point earlier. For this case, the note will appear anyway, even without your edit. 11:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

← But if you are redirected, you only get a small note at the top saying "(Redirected from x)"; what I thought would help would be a template suggesting an alternative destination you wished to arrive at by typing a particular page title into the search box (in this case, "FRG"). Click on the The X Factor (UK TV series) link for an example where you would be able to see both templates, and note that only one offers alternative destinations. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not against your proposal. Just that I do not really see the added value. You, however, seem to be much more versed in this issue than I am, and it also seems to matter for you. So, why don't you just do what you think is right. I mean if anyone was really against it, he or she should have joined our discussion long time ago.

One comment on what appears bad argumentation style to me (perhaps I just miss a point, if so, my apologies). In your above comment you show the example "Redirected from x", which I was talking about earlier. You applied a color code to this snippet which makes it almost incomprehensible. I am wonder why you did this. To me this action appears to have the purpose of making this text appear less helpful than it is, in order to support your argument that this note is insufficient. I hope, I misunderstood your intentions, if so you might enlighten me. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I did that because the actual message appears in grey, if you look. It actually took me quite a long time to get that colour coding right, you know! :) It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is that you clearly did not get it right. Don't you see that yours is unreadable while the original gray is so dark that it poses no problem to read. Anyway, this is so unimportant that we should not waste our time on it. What will you do about your issue; will you give it a try? Tomeasy_{T C} 10:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OK, I'll add the hatnote again, and if someone has further objections or just removes it again without commenting, I will direct them to this discussion. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 17:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I support the hatnote, just I do not object its use. Therefore, I motivated you to go your way and reinstall it. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

against vandalism

PLEASE AS A JEW I AM OFFENDED AND UPSET TO SEE THE VANDALİSED PAGES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilybaeum (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, if the version before this diff is your idea of "vandalism." Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Lily, why are you shouting? And what is it that upsets you anyway? Tomeasy_{T C} 17:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Germany in World War Two

While in World War Two, 90% of the people that Germany killed were cizilians. Germany completely wiped out Italy of its pride. Germany murdered 100,204 Italian citizens. Germany sunk 18 Italian ships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.220.209 (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to to something with the article or did you just want to tell us these "facts"? Tomeasy_{T C} 17:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought Germany helped Italy salvage its pride after the Fall 1940 war against Greece didn't go too well, and in North Africa where Itay's war against the Brits didn't go too well. Re the latter, from Wikipedia: "When Italy entered the war in 1940, a large Italian force faced the British Western Desert Force under Richard O'Connor on the frontier between Egypt and Libya. . . . In Operation Compass, in December 1940, O'Connor's forces effectively destroyed the Italian armies in Libya by several outflanking maneuvers that isolated the Italian front line troops, and ultimately drove across the desert to intercept and capture the retreating Italians at Beda Fomm. At this point, British forces were diverted to campaigns in Greece and elsewhere, being replaced by comparatively inexperienced units, and German armored forces under Erwin Rommel landed in Africa to reinforce the Italians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Breakfast habits

Currently the page states: "Breakfast is usually a selection of cereals and jam or honey with bread or rolls. Some Germans eat cold meats or cheese with bread for breakfast.". --- This is plain wrong. Correct would be "Breakfast is usually a selection of breads and rolls with jam and honey or cold meats and cheese, often accompanied by a boiled egg. Cereals are uncommon and hot breakfast is unknown except in large international chain hotels."

Source: 35 years of growing up and living in Germany. I can't edit the page. Therefore whoever has permission to do so is welcome to correct the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.119.200 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference provided with the current breakfast description, so it would be nice to have a reference for a new description. I have been given omelettes and scrambled egg for breakfast in Germany (and not in a hotel). Also porridge (Haferbrei) is eaten hot. Hohenloh 16:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia provides the following description:

In Deutschland, Österreich oder der Schweiz besteht das Frühstück üblicherweise aus einem heißen Getränk (Kaffee, Tee, Milch oder Kakao) sowie aus Backwaren (vornehmlich Brot und/oder Brötchen) und verschiedenen Belägen und Aufstrichen (Butter oder Margarine, Wurst, Käse, Marmelade, Honig, Quark, Nuss-Nougat-Creme), verschiedentlich auch aus einem Glas Saft, einem gekochten Ei, zunehmend überdies aus Müsli, Getreide, Joghurt oder Obst. Hohenloh 18:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Lear 21 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

dear editors: this article weighs 122k. I suggest this is due to the article insisting on dwelling on the precise composition of the typical German breakfast. Imho, this is not something that belongs in the main article on a country. Please try to improve the article by cutting away trivial detail rather than by adding more and more detail until you get everything 100% correct and accurate. --dab (𒁳) 17:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the article is too long. That, however, is not only due to the breakfast habits. If you are seriously interested in this, why don't you start a new section for a size discussion. But keep in mind, this article is FA and the people who contributed most to it might be quite conservative with respect to substantial changes. Tomeasy_{T C} 09:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Party membership of Köhler

I think the party membership of Köhler should be omitted in the Germany infobox. At the very least, it should be noted that his party membership is suspended/dormant/quiescent while he is in office. Here are some citations to show that his party membership is quiescent:

"Lebenslauf von Bundespräsident Horst Köhler". Retrieved 2008-01-04. Horst Köhler, evangelisch, ist verheiratet mit Eva Luise Köhler. Sie haben zwei Kinder. Er ist seit 1981 Mitglied der CDU. Die Mitgliedschaft ruht während der Amtszeit als Bundespräsident.
"Kommt es wieder auf Köhler an?". Retrieved 2009-01-04. In beiden Fällen entstammte der Bundespräsident, dessen Parteimitgliedschaft während der Amtszeit ruht, einer der Parteien, denen er mit seinem Personalvorschlag eine Regierungsbildung ermöglichte. Dies ist nach der jetzigen Bundestagswahl nicht der Fall. Köhler, der ruhendes CDU-Mitglied ist, hat sein Amt im besonderen Maße der CDU-Vorsitzenden Angela Merkel zu verdanken.
"Superwahljahr 2009 Köhler und Schwan gehen in die zweite Runde". Retrieved 2009-01-04. Köhler, der 1981 in die CDU eintrat, war nie ein Parteimensch. "Parteipolitische Konstellationen spielen für mich keine große Rolle." Die Parteimitgliedschaft ruht, wie üblich bei Bundespräsidenten. Mit Köhler rückte erstmals ein Mann an die Spitze des Staates, der nicht aus dem politischen Establishment kam.
"Von Heuss bis Köhler: Die bisherigen neun Bundespräsidenten". Retrieved 2009-01-04. Die bisherigen Bundespräsidenten (Die Parteinamen zeigen die politische Herkunft. Bei Präsidenten ruht die Parteimitgliedschaft)

--Boson (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Sorry for my previous revert. I am convinced now that Koehler's CDU membership is suspended. Therefore, we should not report differently in the infobox. Your first source is the absolute and authoritative one for this, no further discussion necessary on this.

What I am still curious to find out is whether it is really a rule or just common practice that presidents do so. I can remember that Kohl was quite discontent with Weizsaecker's claim that his membership was suspended. As far as I remember, Kohl's position was that such thing (a suspended membership) does simply not exist. If this memories are not just fantasies, they would at least imply that there is not binding law for a suspended membership. However, I acknowledge that the burden of evidence is on my side now, since all I am saying is just what I think to remember. And even if I can produce this evidence, it would not change much about our article. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

At least, I found something about the dispute of Kohl and Weizsaecker, here.

The German constitution does not force the membership to be suspended. The relevant article is 55, here. Of course, this does not say that there is no law that does. However, my impression is that it is more a custom to do so. Tomeasy_{T C} 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a convention rather than an obligation. Some sources say it applies to all presidents to date; some say all but Heinemann (including http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/B%C3%BCrgerwissen_Deutschland/_Parlament,_Regierung_und_Streitkr%C3%A4fte/_Pr%C3%A4sident), but the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, which I would normally regard as a reliable source, explicitly lists Heinemann. I haven't been able to clarify that. --217.226.61.1 (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fourth largest economy

I agree with Tomeasy and Nirvana888, the new ranking is verifiable and accurate. I think there is consensus here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.125.79 (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The national nominal GDP and all rankings deriving from it rely on one source, the official IMF World Economic Outlook Database [1]. If the dataset changes there, Wikipedia and its statistics change. The consistency of data among other articles like the List of countries by GDP (nominal) must be uphold as well. Lear 21 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Lear on the importance of consistency and sticking to one set of figures using the same methods for all countries. I see the People's Republic of China article currently has "third or fourth". I do think, though, we should have a note explaining that there are claims, based on China's recent revision of 2007 figures (possibly using different methods of calculating the exchange rate from the World Bank and the IMF), that the People's Republic of China has the third largest economy. Perhaps we should also add a liberal sprinking of {{As of}} templates.--Boson (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I could live with these suggestion. If you want to implement those, please go ahead. Tomeasy_{T C} 09:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just implemented Boson's suggestion. Hope everybody's happy with this solution.

There is a technical issue. I do not know why, but the label for the note renders in an unpleasant way (like a reference with a template). Perhaps someone can fix this. I could not resolve this. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

note in the infobox

copied from User talk:Agathoclea Do you know why the note that I put did not work as it was supposed to? Is it because the content of the note contained a reference?

To be honest, I do not really like the fix that you implemented. I am not a fan of parenthesis within parenthesis (bla (blub)). What do you think about simply adding the number 3 as a superscript, possibly between square brackets. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the content of the field creates the visible part of the link to the list and the expanded ref will be included in that linkname

[[Linktarget|(Linktext [[referencelink|referencetext]])]]

As I said the only way is to actually change the template by adding yet another field which gets added after the List-Link ie

[[Linktarget|(Linktext)]] [[referencelink|referencetext]]

Good luck in getting someone to change the template. Agathoclea (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to explain the issue, but I have to admit that iy goes beyond my capacity. Anyway, I made the change in the format as proposed above, since you did not object. Tomeasy_{T C} 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

2007/2008 figures

If you want to use the 2007 figures you will need to remove "estimate" otherwise you will need to use the 2008 figures as given by the link provided. Agathoclea (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Official Language plus Ethnic groups

First of all, there is no official language in Germany, so I'm wondering why the article says, that German is the official language of Germany. Another point I would like to mention is, that according to the German microcensus only 81 % of the people living in Germany were full ethnic Germans, which makes it incorrect to say, that there are 91 % ethnic Germans in Germany. Thanks in advance.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.94.193 (talk) 21:10, 02 February 2009 (UTC)

Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz § 23

"Amtssprache

(1) Die Amtssprache ist deutsch."

--Boson (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But it's not part of the constitution. So, hmm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.81.163 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC poll

According to a the BBC World Service poll Germany once again fared best, with every country viewing it positively and 61% of people rating it favourably, up from 55% last year. This may be added. 85.178.54.109 (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Weimar republik

The text to the weimar republic is very short and not very informative. At least the wrong politics concerning the german economy have to be added. I also may ask for more neutrality in topics like the "november-revolution", "Sparktakus Bund",... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.104.25.187 (talk) 2009-02-13

The section on the Weimar Republic refers to the main article on the topic.--Boson (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Date: Formation of Germany

The dates mentioned in the info box on the formation of Germany, namely

-  Holy Roman Empire 962

is incorrect in the sense in which it is mentioned and here's why.
1. It can be argued that Germany is the successor of East Franconia, being the national German state. It is, however, not the successor of the Holy Roman Empire (which in its connection to the Germans was indeed founded in 962), which is the Austrian Empire if any state (and somehow the Republic of Austria today). Because: If somehow the "nation" of the Roman Empire (if there is any) was Italian until 476, Greek until 800 (with a doubted participation until 1451 and a generally denied continuation by the Sultan until 1922), Franconian until 887, Langobardian until 962, German until 1806 (I simplify), then it is not automatical that the building of a German national state (with Polish minorities and not including the undoubtedly Germans of Austria and Bohemia, by the way) create at the same time a successor of the HRE. If there is any successor, it is a) the French Emperor Napoleon, who was crowned by the Pope and without contradiction named his son the King of Rome and b) at least after the end of the First French Empire, the Austrian Empire which was explicitly constituted in 1804 to maintain the Habsburg claim to the (that is, the Roman) emperordom.
2. On the question when at the first time a Germany was built, there are two answers. On the condition that the Franconian Empire was never formally divided (until 1791 by the French Revolution), but was only ruled by a plurality of kings with different districts, Germany (more exactly, Franconia) arose in an unknown period of time within the 4th or 5th century (or, that Germany was constituted by the French secession in 1791). An interpretation that is quite formalistic, anyway. On the condition that the change of dynasty that took place in 914 in East Franconia is to be interpreted as secession, the date we look for is 914. I'd compromise that there was a insidious German secession from Franconia which began in 914. By no means 962. --84.154.113.230 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

'Russia!' flame all over the article

It'd be very kind of an admin to remove the flaming 'russia' words in the artivle. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amegot (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? Tomeasy_{T C} 22:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"During the Nazi era..."

Actually, many of those Jews were Polish therefore this statement is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.36.15 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair argument because they were in fact Polish nationals and Judaism is a religion. The statement could be revised, perhaps list the number of deaths by religion and countries seperately but not in one sentence. Beckenbauer1974 (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement is unclear, but not necessarily incorrect. Well known is the figure of ~6 million Jews murdered, whereof a large fraction was Polish. The question (that I am unable to answer) is whether the 3 million Polish victims include this fraction. Or, are both to be added in order to calculate the amount of murdered Polish nationals?

Referenced clarification of this would be highly appreciated. Once we have this evidence, it will be easy to put a clearer formulation. Tomeasy_{T C} 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The 3 million does not include this fraction because 3 million Polish Jews alone were killed during the war. Half of the Jews who were killed were in fact Polish. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_country for complete statistics.Beckenbauer1974 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

I think the revised version succeeds in clearly stating this fact. Tomeasy_{T C} 13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag in Economy

The flag of the European Union is an official symbol of the Federal Republic of Germany [2]. The image of the flag has been a stable longterm part of this article. It represents the deep involvement of the country´s economy and its political structures within the European Union. Among the 50 images of this article the flag image completes the picture of the country. It´s re-installation ensures a comprehensive understanding of the articles matter as a whole. This rationale is likely to be accurate for all articles concerning the member states of the European Union. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This flag was removed several times from EU countries articles because it adds nothing to the article. EU membership is mentioned several times in each article and the flag is therefore redundant. Besides, the photo is not that good. --Tone 13:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest, you convince the German government to remove the EU flag in front of its parliament. If you succeed, we might start talking about the "nothingness" ;). The logic you propose would lead quintessentially to a removal of the national flag in the infobox as well. The European Union and all its consequences are integrated in a manifold of affairs in Germany and all member states. The purpose of a Wiki country article is to present a broad picture of its reality AND to visualize it. The removal of the flag without a substitute reduces the scope and quality of the article therefore. That would be most likely the case in all EU member state country articles and needs to be avoided. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I recommend that particular photo to be removed from all EU countries articles. The EU flag in front of Reichstag is something completely different. If the flag would be included anywhere in the article, it would be in the country infobox on the top. By the way, the same nonsense is to have a picture of euro banknotes in the article, again, they contribute nothing to the article but serve just as a decoration. Remember, there was the same discussion at Slovenia's article and you certainly did not have a consensus to have that photo there. Regards. --Tone 15:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong by showing euro bills to illustrate that the country uses the euro? I think it is just a question of (undue) weight. The article is (like most country articles) too long. I think we all agree that the German membership in the eurozone deserves mentioning. We can do so by simply putting a short sentence. The information might be supported visually by the mentioned picture, in an appropriate way as I find. However, this blows up the size of the article, which is already going over board. So, I could support its removal, but not with the argument that it makes no sense to have it. Tomeasy_{T C} 16:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that showing a picture of the national face of an euro coin (or relevant currency for those EU member-states that are not in the eurozone) is okay as it shows something characteristic of the country described on the article. Now the very same flag and the very same picture of the banknotes add nothing to articles but an annoying déjà vu. Hús ö nd 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

True, the national face of the coins would make even more sense. Tomeasy_{T C} 09:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Before this becomes edit warring, we should discuss the issue with the flag on one place since noone will monitor 27 article talk pages and several user talk pages. Should it be here or at someone's talkpage? --Tone 21:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems this will be the place for a central discussion. Let me then make my position clearer. Why this specific photo adds nothing to the article? Because it is one random EU flag, the photo was taken who knows where and as such has no connection whatsoever with Germany or any other EU country apart from the fact that they use the same flag. If you want to have a meaningful use of the flag in the article, since you mention Reichstag, why not putting the photo of Reichstag there, with the caption like Reichstag, the parliament. There are flags of Germany and of the EU on it since Germany is a EU member. What I find amusing is that you can't actually see the EU flag on the Reichstag photo now used in the article. And one more, you can see the EU flag in front of parliaments in Zagreb, Kiev and Tbilisi but none of them are EU members. One of the reason for the flag there is that it is the flag of the Council of Europe as well. And I don't think one would put the flag in Russia's article, though Russia is a member as well. I will not enter the discussion that Germany's article has absurdly too many photos, by the way. I hope I make myself clear. About euro, as discussed above, a constructive thing to use is a picture of the national side of a coin but showing a pack of banknotes is again just putting one image too many in the article. I hope I make myself clear. --Tone 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my position. It would make a little sense to have a picture of the European flag taken on different countries with a recognizable location (or next to the national flag), and even then there would concerns such as the ones mentioned by Tone. Thus, we should just get rid of the flag as it's bringing no benefit to the articles. Hús ö nd 07:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The 27 member states are involved in EU matters in a high degree. Vice versa the EU is integrated in national policies and the national economies to a very high degree. This is common knowledge. Country articles at Wikipedia integrate images to visualize written content. Most of these articles present 30 - 50 images or graphics. Because of the high degree of involvement the EU membership needs representation at the respective articles. The EU flag the is most widespread symbol of the European Union. This should be common knowledge as well. As wether this isthe best image to visualize the fact of an EU membership can be discussed. Because the 2 last editors have never mentioned an alternative, it can be assumed that their initial intention is not more than a blind EU-deletion action. Honestly, I wonder why a Portuguese citizen which probably knows about its fellow citizen Barroso and a Slovenian citizen, which experienced an EU presidency of his country a year ago can´t acknowledge the high level of involvement in EU matters.

As for this article here, there is no doubt that an image of an EU related content in Economy DOES serve an important purpose. The German economy can not be understood without the EU membership. Lear 21 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lear, noone is trying to hide the fact that the EU exists and that it has a big influence on the economy and politics. What we argue is the way how to show this in the article. The very first thing you see in the article fo a EU country is a map with EU in light green. The first paragraph of the article mentions the EU. And EU or one of its institutions is mentioned in almost every section of the whole article. So why exactly do we need an additional flag in the article that tells totally nothing more? If someone is interested in German economy he will read the section and see that EU membership is important. If he's not interested, the EU flag will not enlighten him. A Portuguese citizen and a Slovenian citizen presumably have nothing against EU but do have a lot against a use of redundant photo in the article. And I wonder, who are the 2 users that have never mentioned an alternative? And please, do not place the images back in the article before we reach an agreement here. --Tone 17:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

@Tone, you said it, the EU is mentioned in the introduction, many times ! Wikipedia articles have to address the issues mentioned in its introduction. This is done by using sections, written content, images, graphics, etc. Obviously the EU is so important that it is mentioned in many sections. Thats why an image to visualize a membership is even more justified. Very logic, isn´t ? The Flag image is supported by its caption ! It names the EU membership specifically and does NOT only signify a flag. The EU flag is the symbol for the political and economic ties of Germany. Please respect the fact that this is a FA rated article. If you want to change or even delete content you have to rationalize first and not afterwards. This is another principle of Wikipedia. Lear 21 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have presented my opinion and I am not satisfied with your argumentation. Above, I provided a better alternative. Wikipedia is also about improving articles. I respect your position and I see your rationale but I believe my is better. But maybe let us wait for some other people to comment, I'd appreciate some more input. --Tone 18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Lear, you shouldn't conclude that I'm against the EU just because I'm against this flag thing. In fact, I'm actually a strong EU supporter. I just find that it is most inadequate that we have the same picture of the European flag on every single article on a EU member-state. What's the point with that repetition? It doesn't bring any particular benefit to the articles. It's like putting a picture of the Eiffel Tower on every single article of an European country, with a caption saying "(x) is located in Europe". It's hardly any relevant and certainly not an improvement. Hús ö nd 18:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

@Tone: A way to prevent edit wars is to discuss contentious things before change. I guess you relate to this when you tell Lear to stop re-inserting the pictures. However, you should remember that the article contained the pictures before this discussion was started.

@Lear: To remind people about their nationality in order to a point does not help the discussion, simply because it is not an argument at all but it reaches people personally. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Even though Husond seems not to favor his own idea, I think it would be the best to show the EU flag in a German context, i.e., in front of the Reichstag and substitute that picture. So, if such picture can be found, I would be most happy. We would win on many fronts: There would be one picture less, making the article smaller, the flag would not just be generic, as in all other country articles, and we would reflect better the current situation in front of this building. Tomeasy_{T C} 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don´t understand the logic of you Husond. You lately suggested that the best position of an EU flag would be the infobox. An even more prominent place to display the membership. At the same time you argue for a removal of the Membership image (the flag) in Economy ? And where is the problem to introduce the image in every article of the EU states ? Take these two Images (only examples) [3], [4] they have presence in more than 10 articles each. Does that make them redundant ? Or are the articles get devaluated by using images already in use at other articles ? I don´t think so. Plus: why should a country article improve without the image, when at the same time you Husond and maybe Tone agree with the relevance of the EU in general. Why should the articles are better without even a substitute image which signals an EU membership ? I just don´t get the logic. Lear 21 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't. That must've been another user's suggestion. I can think of a dozen articles where the same picture of Hitler would be adequate. But if you were to put e.g. a picture of the swastika on every single article of every single Nazi collaborator with a caption saying "(x) was a Nazi" it would look really useless, annoying and repetitive. Hús ö nd 19:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

@Tomeasy: The German parliament, the Reichstag, is a dominant symbol of the national government of Germany and not the EU. Today the EU is most commonly known for its involvement in Economy and as a single market, thats why the image is best situated in Economy. Lear 21 (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, the country articles are mostly edited by nationals of the respective countries. It is not convincing to claim a so called consensus only because 2-3 editors out of 27 country articles have doubts about the flag. In fact in more than 20 country articles the flag has been an accepted part for several months now. I call that silent consensus in favor for the flag. Lear 21 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not until a group of editors starts arguing against it. And there is no such thing as "country article being mostly edited by nationals". Not only that is false, as also even if it were true it would still be totally irrelevant as all decisions are made by the community, not by a particular group of editors. Hús ö nd 19:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Economy of Germany is influenced by the EU and vice versa. It relies on EU policies and is heavily connected with all EU members. The flag is the natural and most known symbol of the EU. There is nothing wrong to present it here. Keep in mind that the flag is an official symbol used in many occasions when the Federal Republic as a state is enacting its affairs. Until another image can symbolize the Germany EU relation in an adequate way it seems unproductive to delete the established image. Lear 21 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you're obviously impervious to the arguments provided here, which is fair enough, but you're still in minority so the flag picture must go as there is clearly no consensus for the inclusion of this particular picture. Hús ö nd 18:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As long there is no alternative to visualize the importance of EU-German economic relations the established image will remain. Wikipedia is based on argumentation and not on majority. This one of the major principles. The silent acceptance in many country article for several months indicates even a broad consensus here. @Husond: Until now, there were NO arguments provided other than "Delete the flag because we don´t like it (in our country article)". That is simply not enough. Lear 21 (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

@Tone: WHERE is a new consensus on what kind of basis ? The flag image and its caption has been installed at this article for around half a year. This is an FA article, the layout has been a model for several other country article. The content has copied many times. 2 editors so far have critised the flag image at the talk page one highly established editor has severerly argued for the status quo. Again: where is a new consensus ? Lear 21 (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to answer at this talk page although I´m hesitating because I have not edited here. I think the picture of the European Union´s flag makes sense especially when used in economic circumstances. The editor Tone has argued on my page, that the EU (the flag) has nothing to do with the country. That is is plain wrong, you only have to switch on daily radio or TV or read newspapers to realize that every country in the European Union is bound to all other countries in via economy and many EU institutions. In a long country article it makes perfect sense to me to show this reality. I also don´t see what is meant with "the image is repetitive". The picture is used only once in a country article, right ? KJohansson (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the problem (seems you misunderstood me). The flag in this context is used purely for decoration and adds no special value. See above, what kind of flag image could actually show the connection between Germany and EU. The problem is that there is only the flag in the photo and nothing else, that could identify it with Germany. Why the image is repetitive is explained above as well. --Tone 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the flag decoration ? It even appears on license plate everywhere in Europe. The value is that the picture demonstrates the membership of a country. In terms of Economy it demonstrates that the country is in the Eurozone and part of a common market. How else could this be demonstrated if not in a picture with a flag ? I also don´t understand the "nothing else that could identify with Germany". Germany is part of the EU, so is Finland and so is Sweden and so are all others. KJohansson (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just the flag in the article demonstrates nothing. If the flag would be used in this way, we should use File:Flag of Europe.svg instead. In terms of economy, any other image that has something to do with economy of Germany and has the flag somewhere in the photo is good because it actually shows something (for example, a photo of German license place, as you mention, shows that the countries are connected). I totally agree, the flag is pretty much omnipresent in the EU countries. But, if it is to be used in the article, it should signify something other that being the flag. By the way, above are some concerns about other institutions that use the same flag but are not in the EU. So I will remove it from the article for now, if the consensus leans towards inclusion, I will put it back. --Tone 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can´t follow your argumentation that the flag signifies being "a flag". This impression is strange. The flag is probably the most recognized sign of the EU. Everybody who sees it will be most likely be reminded of the EU as economic and political apparatus and of a union of 27 fellow countries. Even more important, the written text underneath the picture makes it pretty clear in what sense the EU flag is meant. The text leaves no contradiction and clearly points to the membership and the common market which is connected to the subject here (Economy). You pointed out that another picture, with the flag would be fine, but where is the other picture ? Do you have one ? KJohansson (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this was not completely clear. If we want to have a flag of the EU, we should use File:Flag of Europe.svg because this is the flag. The photo in question is one random flag on a flagpole in the wind. So, if we want to use a photo, it should have some more content than just a flag. There should be several better images available. --Tone 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick search shows maybe something like File:Horst Köhler und Hans-Gert Pöttering - Kirchentag Köln 2007 (7231).jpg with the German president and EU flag. And I am sure that even better photos exist. --Tone 15:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I´m not sure about the Wiki policies regarding the plain File:Flag of Europe.svg, but I think this one is not supported by the recommendations. Not even the small ones can be used in texts. They are not supported here I believe. Probably that was the reason why the photograph of the flag was positioned at the article. I can not see the reason why you see it as "a flag on flag pole". The picture is loaded with information other than "being a flag". When you see the EU flag in the news do you think "well this is just a flag" ? Probably not, like for the majority of people the EU flag means many things connected with Europe, as I pointed out. And I repeat myself when pointing out that the written text underneath the picture (the caption) leaves no contradiction how the flag is meant. KJohansson (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that neither the number nor the quality of arguments for a removal have changed. Rather the opposite is the case. Lear 21 (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. You're just dealing with people that, unlike you, have little patience to go around the same arguments over and over again. We have explained why we think that the flag is uncharacteristic of this article as it repeats itself on most articles on EU countries. You on the other hand think that the European-ness of Germany is all concentrated on that picture. Which, as far as we know, could've been taken in Australia. We're not repeating yourselves, you are. Again, you are clearly outnumbered, so the picture goes. Same for the other articles. Hús ö nd 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

@Husond: You are wrong. Again: The image is not repetitive ! It is used once at this article. All in all 3 million articles exist in Wikipedia, there are several images at commons which are used in a manifold of different articles. Are you suggesting a one-image-per-article-policy here? That is hardly convincing. There are 2 editors who argued for the flag at this article. Another had no complaints at all. You and Tone are not the majority the opposite is the case. Even more important, if you and others are not able to convince these editors by argumentation to change the article, the longstanding status quo must be kept. You and others have not even tried to bring an alternative to the very fact that the German economy is bounded to the EU. If there is no alternative to the flag image there will be no change. Please respect these very simple rules which are standard etiquette at Wikipedia. Lear 21 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Keyword for you: "repetitive". Both you and the flag, apparently. You're being reverted by several users every time you try to reinsert the picture. Take it as a sign. Hús ö nd 06:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Hamburg?

Hamburg is the second-largest city in Germany and is the most populous non-capital city in the European Union by population within city limits. The port of Hamburg is the second-largest port in Europe, and the ninth-largest in the world.

Hamburg is a major transportation hub in northern Germany and became a media and industrial center. The radio and television broadcaster Norddeutscher Rundfunk and publishers such as Gruner + Jahr and Spiegel-Verlag represent the important media industry in Hamburg. In total there are more than 120,000 enterprises. The city is a major tourist destination both for domestic and overseas visitors, receiving about 7.4 million overnight stays in 2007.

Hamburg has architecturally significant buildings in a wide range of styles. There are only a few skyscrapers. Churches like St. Nicholas's church, the world tallest building in the 19th century, are important landmarks. The skyline of Hamburg features the high spires of the principal churches (Hauptkirchen) Saint Michael's Church (nicknamed “Michel"), Saint Peter's Church, Saint Jacobi Church and Saint Catherine's Church covered with copper plates.

The many canals in Hamburg are crossed by over 2300 bridges, more than those of Amsterdam and Venice combined.[17] Hamburg has more bridges inside its city limits than any other city in the world. The Köhlbrandbrücke, Freihafen Elbbrücken, and Lombardsbrücke and Kennedybrücke dividing Binnenalster from Aussenalster are important traffic buildings.

Hamburg offers more than 40 theatres, 60 museums and 100 music venues and clubs. In 2005, more than 18 million people visited concerts, exhibitions, theatres, cinemas, museums, and other performances of cultural achievement. More than 8,552 taxable companies - the average size was 3.16 employees - were engaged in culture like music, performing arts and literature. There are 5 companies in the creative sector per thousand residents.

Hamburg is sometimes called Germany's capital of sport since no other city is home to more first league teams and international sports events.

The gross domestic product (GDP) in Hamburg is total €88.9 billion. The city has the highest GDP in Germany – €50,000 per capita – and a relatively high employment rate, with 88 percent of the working-age population. The city is home to over 120,000 enterprises. In 2007, the average income of employees was €30,937.

But for all that theres no word about this city in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.167.34 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This article deals about Germany as a country. Written content about German cities in general is not emphasized. Visually, most of the major German cities are represented in this article, this includes Hamburg (as Hamburg harbour and Hamburg police officer). Lear 21 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Currency image in History

The introduction of the Pan-European currency, the Euro and the establishment of the Eurozone is widely acknowledged as a major event in Germany, the EU and even the world. It is the most significant incident in Germany since the fall of the Berlin wall. The visual representation is therefore justified. The longstanding image was deleted with no alternative introduced. Because of the mentioned rationale the image has been re-installed. Lear 21 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See above. The plain photo of banknotes is not ok. What would be acceptable is a photo of German eurocoins or a photo of the European central bank that is in Germany. --Tone 17:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your deletion actions without discussion. This violates several Wikipedia guidelines. The established image is a part of this article for more than a year now. It is obviously the Euro currency which is displayed here. This correlates with the introduction, the section and the sections written content. Lear 21 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the discussion two paragraphs above, it's about this photo as well. And regarding the guidelines, WP is based on consensus and at the moment there are more people against the image than for it so you should present better arguments. You haevn't addressed any of the concerns presented above yet. Cheers. --Tone 18:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? THIS is talk topic concerning the currency image. YOU have deleted it. YOU are the only one so far arguing for its removal, with no other argument than to call it "not acceptable". Listen, Wikipedia is based on arguments, I rationalized the inclusion of the Currency image. The reasons are common knowledge. Stop deleting content from a FA article without discussion. Lear 21 (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the banknotes. The national face of an Euro coin would be far more adequate. Hús ö nd 18:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Present an alternative currency image and we talk about replacing the old image. Until that happens, the long established version of the banknotes will remain. Having no image at all is not an option.Lear 21 (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

right|100px Here, this would be fine -->. Hús ö nd 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Husond, the proposed image displays a single coin, not a currency. A currency is made of several banknotes and coins. The formerly established image has the quality of displaying many different banknotes. Here is an example of Canada presenting their currency [5]. Lear 21 (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the worst argument you can give. The Canadian banknotes actually show people of great importance for the country, this is even given in the caption. Euro banknotes show absolutely nothing connected to Germany or any other EU country - they were designed as totally neutral. Therefore, the only relevant image that can be used for this purpose is the one of the coin. Now, before restoring those images you should give some stronger arguments because your present arguments are not convincing and we apparently have a consensus against use of those images in the articles (at least 5 different users have expressed direct opposition to your edits and noone supported them). --Tone 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So coins are not currency but banknotes are?! As far as I know, Germany's currency is the same I carry in my pockets. And it comes in the shape of coins and banknotes, just like any other currency. The German national face of an euro could hardly not be the most adequate and characteristic way to depict the currency used there. Hús ö nd 18:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: The central message of the banknote image is that a European currency has been introduced. To emphasize the EUROPEAN aspect it doesnt make sense to display the national coin design. To emphasize the CURRENCY aspect, it doesnt make sense to only present a single coin when instead an image is available where a whole set of banknotes is included. The section is named "Berlin Republic and EU integration" which also points to the Pan-EUROPEAN developments. In this light it doesnt make sense as well to direct the focus on the nationally designed coin. The introduction of the Euro was not a national event, it was an historic EU event. Lear 21 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to emphasize the national currency you don't use a picture that can be put on every single eurozone country, which would lead to the same unnecessary and undue repetition as with the flag. It makes perfect sense to have something characteristic of Germany, as its own coins which are minted there. No consensus for inclusion of the banknotes picture, so picture is gone as you're outnumbered in your arguments. Hús ö nd 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

@Husond: Stop the deletion of major content in History without presenting or introducing alternatives. The Euro and the Eurozone have NO national character ! That is expressed in the longstanding image. And yes, the same image can be used in the respective country articles. The Currency named EURO is European in its nature ! It doesn´t make sense to emphasize the national design on some coins because the core element of this new currency is that it is a pan-European payment instrument. Lear 21 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: this has been brought to WP:AN3. Feel free to leave a comment there as well. --Tone 12:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.