Wikipedia

Talk:Germany/Archive 3

< Talk:Germany
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

"Nazi Germany" - or why not quite simply Germany?

I agree - the whole "Nazi Germany" thing is very tiresome - no one would talk about when the "Republican Americans" invaded Iraq. I can understand that Germans don't like reading about when "the Germans invaded Poland" or "the Germans killed six million Jews" but the fact is they did, and the fact that they were led by Nazis at the time doesn't doesn't alter that history. PMA 03:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are most probably right, that some Germans feel a need to make a difference between "Germans" and "Nazis". It would be stupid to argue against such a suspicion. However, a distinction is also made an integrate part of West-German identity as a constituent in the democratic post-war reeducation, that Western Allies and many Germans alike felt to be called for. (Probably, there were similar processes in East-Germany, but I can not comment on that.) Having grown up in Cold War Berlin, I can most certainly say that we were given the impression that we were expected to feel different from the Nazis without forgetting that the Nazis were Germans too. Who gave us this impression? The adults and the society/community together. Chiefly teachers and mass-media, I guess. I understand it as a heritage from the earlier post-war years.
A consequence of this is that not so few Germans (according to my strictly personal estimate) perceive a lack of recognition from the allied nations in NATO for the distinction between Nazi Germany and the democratic Federal Republic of Germany, as either a sign of disbelief in "our" conversion to democracy, which hurt convinced democrats, or as a more or less propagandist tool to brand present-day Germans and Germany by the association to our Nazi history, which arouses among other things nationalist sentiments that doesn't exactly facillitate the international relations.
There is, furthermore, a slightly different approach to this phenomenon, that I perceive to be harder to explain to many of the peoples around us:
France has been a pretty much continuous state, from its creation a thousand years ago until today. The same can be said about England, although expanded, Spain, the Scandinavian kingdoms, and many other countries that were founded somewhat later. Germans, however, make often a distinction between not only "Germany" and "Nazi Germany", but between Germany as "the land of the Germans" and the multitude of different states that have existed through history in Germany, of which the Federal Republic, West Germany, Nazi Germany, the Weimar Republic, the German Empire, and the German Confederation are only some of the most recent. We do this, not to distance ourself from these states, but to emphasize an important aspect of our history in order to avoid misinterpretations and over-generalisations. Maybe, as a side effect, some Germans make a much clearer division between the concepts land or country and state, than do for instance the French or the Swedes. We can, in casual speech, use the term Germany in two "quite different" meanings, namely as the Federal Republic and as the land of the Germans — and which concept we denote seems selfevident to us from the context. But here, at Wikipedia, this differentiation is blurred, and people, including me, get annoyed by what some of us perceive as slappyness when [[the land of the Germans|Germany]] is confused with [[the Federal Republic of Germany|Germany]].
I do not agree with you, that many Germans should react against the adjectival usage you exemplify with. The Nazis were Germans too, the Wehrmacht was a German army, and "the Germans" most definitely invaded Poland (many times through history — most recently in 1941). This is not controversial, except for, maybe, with far fringe groupings near the edge of the right wing. You see, it's rather a matter of exactitude. It was the state that existed 1933–1945, commonly referred to as Nazi Germany or the Third Reich, that invaded Poland, not that of 1948–1990.
I would have been happy with Germany being a disambiguation page, and this page being re-named to, for instance, Germany (federal republic), but I also realize that this is not the most likely development at Wikipedia.
--Ruhrjung 08:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Federal Republic of Germany would be better than Germany (federal republic). We could make do like Ireland/Republic of Ireland, with the Germany article discussing history and geography, and the Federal Republic article dealing with the present day state, I suppose, but this seems unnecessary. john k 08:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think we have seen plenty of tension over this issue. Heimdal and Gideon are only the last example. There are some similarities with the issue of Britain vs. Great Britain vs. United Kingdom, including some users' insistence on correcting what they perceive as slappy usage by others.
I would also suggest, that Germans in daily speech maybe have about as much latitude in their usage of Bundesrepublik v.s Deutschland as have the British in their usage of United Kingdom vs. (Great) Britain vs. England. Wouldn't in reality an article titled Federal Republic of Germany fit well beside United Kingdom and United States — that we actually do not call Britain and America?
--Johan Magnus 15:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
yes, it would be better w:de:Benutzer:Schaengel89
"I agree - the whole 'Nazi Germany' thing is very tiresome - no one would talk about when the 'Republican Americans' invaded Iraq."
The analogy quoted above is not rational. The government that was responsible for invading Eastern Europe and perpetrating the holocaust no longer exists. Consequently, a person cannot be faulted for making a distinction between the actions of the German state currently in power and the Nazi regime that disintegrated in 1945. This fact has no bearing on issues of moral responsibility, which should be firmly laid on those individuals guilty of the crimes (whether German, French, Hungarian, etc.: recall that the Nazis relied on collaborators). Questions of responsibility aside, the invasion of Poland and extermination of the Jews were initated and carried out by the Third Reich as a matter of state policy, and the Third Reich doesn't exist. If the United States' system of government was completely replaced by something else, a person might be quite justified in describing the invasion of Iraq "by the American Republic," or whatever. It's a question of semantics, and, for obvious reasons, of importance to Germans who want to distance themselves from crimes committed by other people: note that most Germans were not even alive when the crimes were being committed.
The principle applies more broadly. We like to talk about the "Americans" rebelling against the British. Technically speaking, that is inaccurate: certain segments among the American colonists rebelled against the British, while other segments (though smaller and less influential) remained loyal; the rebels did not generally think of themselves as "American," but as "Virginian," or whatever. Nevertheless, as Americans, the Revolution has assumed a firm place in our national identity, so we apply that identity retroactively. That's okay, provided that we acknowledge what we're doing.
one question, s.o. wrote that the second Reich is the one Bismark created 1871. In his book
Das dritte Reich (1923) Arthur Moeller van den Bruck called the Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation the first Reich. So far so good, but if you look at symbols etc. the Nazis had a differed opinion. first Reich - the roman empire ( about 1000 years ) second reich - the holy roman empire of german nation ( about 1000 years )and the dritte reich ( das 1000 jährige reich ) Olli

I see nothing wrong with seperation of Germany and Nazi Germany. To me, it's just being more specific. The German Confederation, German Empire, Nazi Germany... etc. are all equally German, but significantly different entities. Oberiko 15:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup - shorten this article

This article is 42kB long. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, we should use wikipedia:summary style. Most sections here (e.g. history, economics, society (not part of the template) etc) and need to be drastically cut. Details belong in the daughter articles, not here. One line sections and sections entitles "Introduction" are also not acceptable. --Jiang 05:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ehm, I would move the history into a single article and give a short summary of this. --User:ckorff 15:57:23, 25 Feb 2005 (GMT+0100)


I guess I'm the chief responsible for expanding this article, by adding new sections and images. Personally I like it as it is now. Germany is a big and complex country; it deserves to be covered extensively. Heimdal 16:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've removed a few unnecessary headers. The images are fine. A few problems remain. The lead section of the article is lacking--the first two paragraphs should explain more on why the subject is significant, not just tell where it is geographically located. The history section also needs to be reduced to half. Extensive history can go in History of Germany. Please do not remove the cleanup tag until these are done.

I'm not sure whether "foreign affairs" should be under politics, or have its own section like at People's Republic of China and Republic of China. There's some debate on this...I'm leaning towards the latter since the "main article" Politics of Germany doesnt say anything about the subject. --Jiang 22:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to move it to its own section. PRC and Cambodia are both FA, both have it separate.--Jiang

Heimdal, please do not revert me unless you are prepared to give reason and respond to my comments on this page. In addition to the notes listed above, do note Manual of Style, which asks that headers be left uncapitalized after the first word. --Jiang 11:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, I do suppose that the article is long, but I don't think that it is too long. Actually, I've seen articles on the Wikipedia which are even longer. Heimdal 12:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it would be better to stick to the guidelines rather than everyone doing things the way they personally prefer. I think Heimdal could do a good job of shortening the article as he has done a lot of good work on it recently. Heimdal, can't you be persuaded? Saintswithin 13:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saintswithin, thank you for your kind words. Since your English is obviously much better than mine, I wish you could do the job of "cleaning up". I'm currently busy with writing a Wikipedia article on Germany's coat of arms...- Heimdal 14:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Heimdal, it seems you did have time for this page after all! I'm not too sure about the idea of removing the "main article" headings: it is much easier for anyone who wants to go to the main article page if the link is at the top, rather than hidden somewhere in the text. No doubt that's why that's recommended in the guidelines. If you're trying to make it shorter, I think there are still one or two tiny things that could go from the history section. Saintswithin 14:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Heimdal,
You may want to consider Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries.
--Ruhrjung 20:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, once again, please stop reverting me unless you are willing to explain yourself. The cleanup tag remains because the article needs cleanup for reasons Ive given. Dont you agree the lead section needs work? Not only the tag...but I see no reason for reverting my other edits. One paragraph sections should not exist. Sections should never be titled "introduction". The Manual of Style should be followed. Understand? Why do you disagree? Can you explain? I'm quite perplexed here. --Jiang 22:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article seem to be overdosed on history. I propose to move the history section to History of Germany/temp, in order to edit the text of History of Germany to a coherent narrative including what's removed from here. --Johan Magnus 11:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again, Heimdal has mass reverted me, not only me but subsequent edits by Moncrief, 213.39.199.251, and PMelvilleAustin. This has been done with no comment whatsoever on this page or any other page. --Jiang 22:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, just who told you to remove the "Foreign affairs" section? Besides, I wonder about your interest in "cleaning up" the Germany article, although it should be obvious that you know rather little about the country, and that you probably have never visited it. Johan Magnus, the history section might be "overdosed". But I decided to change the section after a certain user started to add images of Nazi camp mass graves to it, with the implicit intention of embarrassing German Wikipedia users. German history does not consist only of those 13 years, and it was my aim to make that clear. My suggestion would be to remove the "Holy Roman Empire" section, and let history start with Germany since 1871. Now that would shorten the article a bit. Heimdal 10:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, the accusations by Heimdal above, which I previously missed, are false. His percepetions, however, do shed light on the motives for his vandalizing and many times unexplained mass reverting contributions by several users. His understanding of Roma sociology - the mistakes were put in the article time and again and are still there - is to say the least unfortunate. So is the fact that the homosexuals and disabled are again not there, as they were murdered with the others. Heimdal does everything he can to minimize the genocides in German's history, including flooding it with information and time and again deleting several murdered population groups. I think that real errors and omissions should be fixed, even when the page is protected. He has taken over total control of this article and too little is done to fix it. gidonb 15:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also if that would shorten the section "a bit", there would be a long way to go until the article look like other country-articles. --Johan Magnus 10:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Johan Magnus, excuse me the question, but why does the Germany article have to "look like other country articles"? Heimdal 10:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For instance as a courtesy to the reader, to increase Wikipedia's useability, to not unnecessarily diminish the credibility of the content, to not give the impression that Germans expect them and Germany to be treated exceptionally without reason. In other words: There are reasons, why Wikipedians like the Wikiprojects. --Johan Magnus 11:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Johan Magnus, as you may have noticed, for example, the infobox of the Sweden article uses the parametrisized template (by courtesy of Cantus), whereas the Germany infobox does not. From this little detail you may see that not all country articles look like each other (thankfully not). I believe that the Germany article is broadly in line with the Wikipedia requirements. If you think otherwise, you may consider to contact the administrators. So far I've seen no complaints from the "official" side, although I'm sure they do check these articles regularly. Heimdal 12:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the role of administrators. The debate you are now involved in, which we are happy to see, is the way Wikipedia works. Compare for instance: Wikipedia:Overview FAQ#Who is responsible for the articles on Wikipedia? I guess you're a rather experienced Wikipedian, but I don't know how well you are acquainted with the relatively new Category-system. Maybe you would like to take a look at Category:Wikipedia FAQ? Administrators' role is not to convey complaints to you, but to execute certain tasks in accordance with the policies, as for instance blocking anonymous users who can't help vandalizing articles, or deleting faulty articles.
The guidelines of a Wikiproject are, among other things, a tool to facillitate the colaborative effort by the numerous Wikipedians who contribute to the articles in question. --Johan Magnus 15:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Johan Magnus, of course Germany is exceptional; isn't Sweden exceptional too? Look at the Japan article, and compare it with the piece on France: do they look the same? In Sweden, for example, you have this folkhem thing - the Swedish welfare state - which is really very unique. Why don't you devote a special section to it in the Sweden article? I still encourage you to contact the admins, if you have serious objections regarding the Germany article.Heimdal 15:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One thing that could be done to shorten the history section is to meld the German Empire / WWI sections and the Nazi Germany / WWII sections. Those conflicts precipitated the downfall of the political establishments that participated in them, but do not in my opinion, merit synopsis-level treatment apart from those governments. Shimmin 20:43, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, my knowledge of the subject has nothing to do with the issue at hand here. It is also irrelevant if you cannot point out what specifically I am inserting into the article that is false. I see no accuracy dispute here. see wikipedia:no personal attacks.

I did not delete the foreign affairs section. I moved it to its own section after "economy" following precendent described above. If you believe this should be done otherwise, then let's hear your take on this.

If you would like to mass revert my edits, then please justify every single thing you reverted. For example, why should one-sentence sections such as "international rankings" even exist? I combined some sections that only had one paragraph, far short of what is needed for a section to stand alone. That's an easy way to save space. What is wrong with that? --Jiang 23:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, it looks like you to ask AllyUnion to block the Germany article so as to prevent other users, who are not as totally ignorant as you, such as Saintswithin, to continue their good and sensible edit work. Let me guess: you started this "cleanup" fuss in the first place because you wanted to get rid of certain sections you disagreed with, such as the one on "foreign affairs". Or maybe it just piques you that the Germany article is a bit longer than the ones on China. I was quite right to call you a vandal.
I would recommend you to waste your "cleanup" efforts on the People's Republic of China instead. It's just cheeky to post cozy pictures of Jiang Zemin together with Bill Clinton at a time of serious divisions between the US and China over Taiwan.Heimdal 17:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "foreign affairs" section is still there as "foreign relations". I did not get rid of it. The rest of your personal attacks aren't really relevant. Can you please address the subject at hand so we can settle this dispute? are you interested in resolving this dispute? You are free to edit the People's Republic of China as I am free to edit the Germany article. This is the nature of a wiki. --Jiang 19:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, once the protection expires, I'll revert your silly, ignorant, misinformed edits, be sure of that.--Heimdal 19:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dear Heimdal,
Since you emphasized the importance you put on official complaints, I do hereby "officially" raise the complaint about your breach of Wikipedia:Wikiquette, constituting a breach against Wikipedia's official policy. As you can follow on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution:
I hope the following steps then will prove to be unnecessary.
Good luck!
--Johan Magnus 07:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to note that User:Heimdal also used very inappropriate language in his postings to me (see above). He also mass reverted many of my corrections and edits to the page Germany, sometimes without explenations. Since I felt alone in my efforts to make this page more neutral and factually correct and was very offended by the for Wikipedia unusual language used by Heimdal, I had to cease my efforts and move on. My polite emails to his user page were deleted. I have made positive contributions to this article, which last over time, and look for oppertunities to contribute in more pleasant environments. I am glad that others, such as Jiang, continue the efforts for this page from the place where I had to give up. 16:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From User talk:Jiang:
Hello Jiang, I would be ready to compromise with you over the Germany article. I shall remove all the subsections of the article's chapters (with subsections I mean sections like "Holy Roman Empire", "German Empire", "First World War" etc in the History chapter, for example). That would automatically shorten the article. The idea with the subsections originally came to me when studying the structure of the Japan article - see for example the chapter "Society" there, which I copied and which you dissolved. Since they appear to offend you, the subsections will go. You in turn will need to accept that the text of the article will not be shortened. The paragraph about the "Holy Roman Empire" for example will be reinstated, although it will no longer be a subsection but a simple paragraph. Likewise, the piece about "Foreign affairs", which you rechristened "Foreign relations" - and which for some unknown reason you placed behind the "Economy" chapter, of all places - will be put back into "Politics", though as a simple paragraph, not as a subsection. Another point is your decision to remove my title "Parliament" above the piece about the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, and to rename it "Government". But in a parliamentary democracy like Germany's, parliament and government are not one and the same thing. In the Japan article, for example, the subsection about the parliament is rightly called "The Diet", NOT "Government". So do us all a favour, ask AllyUnion to unblock the article. You have time to consider until next Monday, as I shall be away over the weekend. Heimdal 13:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to discuss this. I'm glad we can finally get some discussion going. Actually, I am fine with subsections/headings provided that they are followed by enough text. I did not remove the paragraph about the "Holy Roman Empire" (The first Reich ? known for much of its existence as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.... is still there). I just merged the headers "Holy Roman Empire" and "German Empire" to save space. Since you're offering to do away with headings completely, I presume this is fine with you? The actual text of the history section, when compared between "my" version and "yours", differs only by a few sentences. I just removed "main article" headings of links already contained within the text, removed an image that was crowding/creating whitespace, and made the images smaller so theyd fit on 800x600 screens. Looking at the diff, is there something contentwise you would like restored? If there's a promise that this section wont get any longer than it already is, then I will compromise by not pursuing the issue further and not reinserting the cleanup tag.

In the politics section, I did not simply rename the "Parliament" section "Government". I moved the header higher to include discussion of the constitution, Chancellor, and system of government, and then removed the headers on "head of state" and "Federal Constitutional Court" to include discussion of the president and Bundesverfassungsgericht. by "Government" (note capital G), I was trying to refer to the government as in its structure and institutions. Would renaming the subsection from "Government" to "Government structure" make it clearer? The Japan article separated Diet from Imperial Household, not unlike here where I merged the sections on government institutions.

The "foreign relations" section is where it is because, as I've outlined above, there is prcedent for keeping it separate from politics. My main concern for moving it under politics is that the main article Politics of Germany make not mention of the topic and does not even link to foreign relations of Germany. However, I will not object if it is moved there. What is the reason for using the term "foreign affairs" versus "foreign relations" given that the article foreign relations of Germany uses the former?

Some other things:

  • I moved "states" to its own section. This is done everywhere else and Geography of Germany does not describe political divisions. Here in wikipedia, these geography sections focus on physical geography so I thought it was inappropriate to move something on political divisions under the header.
  • I removed the subheadings under the economics section because they were each followed by only a short paragraph--not enough to make a section. in the interests of saving space and conforming to standard formatting guidelines, i removed them.
  • I merged "education" with demographics in the interests of saving space and because it only had one paragraph.
  • I moved culture behind religion because it's convention to have the "culture" section be last. Any reason that this would put text out of sequence?
  • I removed "International rankings" because it was a one-liner not deserving of its own section. i dont even think it's relevant.
  • I reformatted "Miscellaneous topics" in standard bullet point form used in almost all other country articles. I removed redundant listings--links already linked before in the text.

If you still object to any of these changes, which you reverted, then I would like to know the reason. I prefer that there not be a "society" section for the sake of consistency, but if that is reinserted, I won't object. The Japan article has its flaws, so I'd look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries first for standards.

I look forward to working with you to resolve any outstanding issues. AllyUnion posted that he no longer wanted to be involved in this, so I'll unprotect this article myself when all is settled.--Jiang 12:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just and only for the record it might be noted, that I do not see why the history section of this article has to be this long, that what's the article History of Germany is there for; which makes me feel rather unhappy about Heimdal's statement that we in turn will need to accept that the text of the article will not be shortened.
--Johan Magnus 15:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I too believe this chapter is too long. Given the rude language he used when refering to me, I have reason to believe that this related to certain events in the History of Germany which user Heimdal previously tried to minimize their exposure. I do however see Jiang's efforts in a positive light. It is difficult to deal with someone who takes control over a page. gidonb 18:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still think strongly that the history section should be drastically shortened. Though the rules and standards are flexible they should only be altered when there is both good reason and consensus to do so. I see neither here. Consensus here seems instead to lean towards shortening the section, than leaving it as is or longer. --Jiang

The history section is much longer than even the longest sections on other pages. It has 1655 words: compare it with other countries' main page history sections - USA 219, UK 561, Egypt 364, France 452, Japan 972. I've shortened a few minor details but really it could do with a simple summary, with the details in the main articles. Perhaps it could be shortened in this way:

The incident which sparked off the war was the assassination of the Austrian heir apparent and his wife at Sarajevo in Serbia on July 28th 1914. The causes were the opposing policies of the European states, the armaments race, German-British rivalry, the difficulties of the Austro-Hungarian multinational state, Russia's Balkan policy and overhasty mobilisations and ultimatums. Germany declared war on Russia on August 1st, and on France on the 3rd; Britain declared war on Germany on August 4th.
==> Germany declared war on Russia on August 1st, and on France on the 3rd; Britain declared war on Germany on August 4th.

i.e. just the facts of what happened, with the reasons elsewhere if people want to know more. Any comments? Saintswithin 10:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

sounds like a good plan. We should keep in mind that History of Germany is itself an overview of the history of Germany series. In that article, I counted approx 1720 words, not including headings and captions. This does not differ much from 1655. We need to have three levels of specificity here, but instead, we have more like two since the history section here is almost as long as the general history article. This duplication is not helpful for our readers. I believe the section here should be shortened to at least half its current size- to 800 words and preferably less. I think the level of detail Heimdal had in mind would be best served by the History of Germany article alone, rather than having two articles going into the same detail. If any info removed from here is missing at History of Germany then let's add it in there. We wont be losing any info--Jiang 10:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, as I have said to you already - I'm ready to compromise with you over the structure of the article, but not over the text. Through the removal of the subsections the article would automatically be shortened. Besides, it's not up to you to decide what should be written into the Germany article and what not, and how long it should be. I'm ready to fight this out with the the administrators if necessary. - Heimdal 11:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is not for me to decide alone how long this article should be and what it should contained. The rules are made through community consensus and convention. Five of us here so far (myself, Saintswithin, gidonb, Johan Magnus, and Ruhrjung) have expressed the sentiment that the history section is too long. Only one has implied otherwise - you - and you've not provided a reason for it while we have. Is this not enough to sway towards condensing? The guidelines set out at WikiProject Countries have been discussed countless times by numerous editors and have lasted for two years. If we're going to differ, then there's must be a good reason and and consensus. What are your reasons for differing and where is your consensus? As I have already discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Germany, the refusal to discuss the specific issues under dispute and weigh each of these changes rationally makes it impossible for us to arrive at a resolution here on this page. This is a collaborative project in which everyone who decides to edit is part--not just me and you. We cannot simply agree that I let here and you'll let there...even if I lay off the history section, there are still four others, and perhaps many more once theyre made aware, believing it should be shortened. Their voice cannot simply be ignored. This is not a two person project.
The administrators are not given editorial authority. I had the capacity to protect this page myself, but as an interested party did not do so and asked for another administrator to do it. Regrettably, if there is no willingness to discuss the content and to weight the arguments and rationales i have set out on this page, then I have no choice but to take this further in the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution process. I really don't want to do this, but I feel left with no other choice. My understanding of precedent suggests that you will be banned from editing this article and placed on personal attack parole after the dispute passes arbitration. (just go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests to see for yourself) I don't really want to see this happen since you, after all, are a German and could do much to improve this article and keep watch over it. I'm sure you're well meaning and don't really deserve. I hope, for the sake of yourself and others, that you reconsider and please address the content under dispute. --Jiang 12:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still think Heimdal could do an excellent job of shortening the history section here as he has the best overview of all of us and can see what the main facts are, plus he's bilingual. The History of Germany article would look much better if it was something like the history section here is now, with more pictures and a little extra detail. The section "History of Germany#The rise of Prussia and the German Confederation" is very short, and there's nothing on The Revolutions of 1848 in the German states. People looking on the Germany page will be going to the linked pages to get more detail without realising that actually the information here is better set out and hardly any less detailed in places. Moving the information would make the whole thing look far more professional and make it less frustrating to read. Saintswithin 13:06, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Germany I keep getting mass reverted by User:Heimdal, who has so far ignored my requests to tell me exactly what he thinks is wrong with my edits. He has simply called them "vandalism". I am trying to cut down the ridiculous size of the article and format it according to the Manual of style and WikiProject Countries. a misguided newbie? I hope page protection will encourage some discussion since simply asking for discussion isnt working. --Jiang 23:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I recommend protection for 2 weeks. And thus, I shall be protecting the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment removed

Jiang is an excellent editor who has put incredible amounts of work into standardizing and cleaning up the various country articles. Please do not insult him or his contributions. Snowspinner 19:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
I did not admit that I know "virtually nothing about Germany". I said my geographical location and personal travel experiences are irrelevant to me editing the article--I was formatting and not adding content. Even then, such qualifications are irrelevant.
Will you agree to a truce? If you don't touch the article, then I won't? then we lift the protection to allow others to edit it? --Jiang 21:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The protection will not expire automatically in two weeks. It will expire when serious attempt at discussion has been made. Attacking me for not being from Germany, having never been there, etc. and therefore not having a right to edit the article is not serious discussion. Everyone, please refer to Talk:Germany#Cleanup_-_shorten_this_article to see the dispute. --Jiang 19:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

comment removed

I shall not be involving myself further in the protection or unprotection of this article. I leave it to another administrator to whether it needs unprotection at the end of the two week suggested period. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AllyUnion, I apologize to you for my past rudeness. I was just very upset, since I believe that Jiang does not deserve your protection. Please compare his version of the Germany article with my version. Some points:

  • In the History chapter, and without asking anyone first, Jiang wiped out the paragraph about the Holy Roman Empire - although he chose to left stay the related image of the prince-electors, which looks very awkward now.
  • In the same History chapter, Jiang changed the title "German Empire" into "Imperial Germany" (whatever that means), although "German Empire" is the English equivalent of Deutsches Reich, and there are articles under that name on the Wikipedia.
  • In the Politics chapter, Jiang changed my title "Parliament" over the section about the Bundestag and the Bundesrat into "Government", despite the fact that the related paragraph is in fact about the German parliament, not the government. Never mind that in a parliamentary democracy, there is a difference between parliament and government. In the Japan article, for instance, the piece about the parliament is rightly entitled "The Diet", NOT "Government".
  • In the same Politics chapter, Jiang removed the paragraph about "Foreign affairs", rechristened it "Foreign relations" and put it behind the "Economy" chapter, of all places.
  • In the Japan article, the "Economy" chapter is carefully structured into sections about the agricultural, the industrial and the service sector. I structured the "Economy" chapter in the Germany article likewise, with four subsections entitled "Agriculture, fishery", "Industrial sector", "Service sector" and "Natural resources". Jiang dissolved all subsections.
  • In the Japan article, there is a chapter called "Society". I copied the idea. Jiang dissolved the chapter and all subsections.

Put briefly, Jiang has made such a mess of the Germany article that it hurts! - Heimdal 10:54, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not the one being protected or deserving protection. I asked this article be protected for the sake of dispute resolution and I will see to it that it remains protected until this is resolved.
I believe there are some fundamental misunderstandings that have cause unnecessary hard feelings here. I mentioned some of these misunderstandings at Talk:Germany. I will repeat some of them here:
  • I did not take out the paragraph on the Holy Roman Empire. Please take a closer look. I merged the "Holy Roman Empire" and "German Empire" section under the heading "Imperial Germany".
  • I did not simply change "German Empire" and "Imperial Germany" as explained previously. It was a merge of two sections.
  • I did not simply change "Parliament" to "Government" in the politics section. I merged the "Introduction", "Parliament", "Head of State" and "Federal Constitutional Court" sections into a single section on government structure.
  • The move of the "foreign affairs" section was made following repeated consultations on the talk page, and repeated requests for comment on the talk page. I have made my rationale clear there. So far no one has bothered to discuss them
  • As I posted on Talk:Germany, the subsections in the economy sections did not have enough content to have their own headers. Just because it is done wrong in the Japan article is no excuse.
  • As I posted on Talk:Germany, we need should be looking wikiproject countries rather than Japan as a guide. If there is a consensus to differ, then that is permitted. However, there is no consensus to change things and my repeated requests for reasons behind using a different format have fallen silent.
Unfortunately, Heimdal has just posted on Talk:Germany "I'm ready to compromise with you over the structure of the article, but not over the text." Again, he has again ignored requests to discuss my points on specific disputes of content. This is despite the near-consensus, expressed by not only myself but Saintswithin, gidonb, Johan Magnus, and Ruhrjung (that's 5 to 1, not considering quality of argument) that the history article needs to be drastically shortened. Unfortunately, the Heimdal's position that there can be no compromise over content, despite counter-opinions and counter-arguments, and refusal to discuss the specific issue and weigh each of these changes rationally makes it impossible for us to arrive at a resolution through discussion. Regrettably, this article must be protected indefinitely until Heimdal expresses willingness to act otherwise or this is resolved further through the wikipedia:dispute resolution proceedings.--Jiang 12:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, but in a democracy like Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court is not - I repeat NOT - part of the "government structure", but of the judiciary. Only in dictatorial systems like the People Republic of China's are the government and the judiciary one and the same thing. And it's just plain wrong to merge the Holy Roman Empire with the German Empire under one the title called "Imperial Germany", because at the time of Charlemagne, something like "Germany" didn't even exist yet. Besides, who are you to decide what is right and what is wrong (see your comment above about the Japan article). In view of your obvious ignorance about all things German, shouldn't you be a bit more modest instead? - Heimdal 12:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These are good points and I acknowledge them. Posting stuff like this is all I ask for. When you post "government structure", do you mean executive branch? A judicial branch is still part of the government, I presume? It's just not executive. Please take this further at Talk:Germany. --Jiang 12:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heimdal, I specifically stated that I would not involve myself any further in the protection or the unprotection of this article. And I shall not. However, I accept your apology, and I apologize if any of my comments were read as an insult. Please bare in mind that I am doing my best to assist you by providing alternative solutions. The whole Germany Wikipedia comment was a suggestion on the fact that we have other Wikipedia projects in different languages, and their community may differ greatly from the English Wikipedia. I would like you to stay with the Wikipedia project, even though it may not be the English one. However, I am glad you have decided to stay and cooperate with the other editors. Just remember, we are not mind readers and we can not read beyond the texts of what is posted here. If you are angry at something, and if you do not express why, we have no way to really help you. Being stubborn and saying nothing doesn't help us try to help you achieve a solution that works the best between people. I have worked with Jiang, nearly getting into an edit war myself over Template:University of California several months ago when I first joined the Wikipedia. However I found that Jiang is an outstanding Wikipedian who is a open, willing, and compromising individual that is willing to listen what you have a problem about, and likes to see any issues resolved from the article. As you can see, Jiang has expressed a willingness to help you and would like to know what you have a problem with. I hope that you and Jiang can come to some kind of agreement over the article such that any issues with the article is resolved. Please keep in mind of the Wikipedia's policies, and remember that we're hear to build a neutral point of view encyclopedia, not to bruise egos, ideals, or beliefs. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AllyUnion, thanks for your reply. Jiang asked me above whether "a judicial branch is still part of the government". My reply is: NO. Because in a democracy, including the United States, there is the principle of the separation of powers between the government and the judiciary. I'm surprised that, as a student at the University of California, Jiang doesn't know this himself. Unfortunately, Jiang is preventing me from correcting the mess that he has made of the Germany article. Apart from that - if he believes that the structure of the Japan article is "wrong", why doesn't he put a "cleanup" banner above that page, remove all the subsections, and ask someone to protect his edits, as he has done with the Germany article? Best wishes. - Heimdal 14:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know my government and politics very well, mind you. There's no point in personally attacking me. I don't know what definition you're using for "government", but in the US, the government is composed of three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. Courts are part of the judicial branch of government. The courts, in their role of enforcing and interpreting laws, are indeed part of the government. Of course, there's a secondary definition for parliamentary systems meaning the PM and his ministers, but it should be obvious, in context, which definition we're using. Even if we use the secondary definition, we would not be putting the entire parliament under it.
I asked you kindly to reply to my changes, and even outlined them for you. Simply calling them a "mess" won't help any of us understand what is your beef with my edits. If I happen to be wrong or misleading, like with the use of "Imperial Germany", then I'd like to know. For the record, Heimdal posted on my talk page "I do not even intend to discuss with you any further, as long as you keep the article blocked." Unfortunately, trying to resolve our differences through simple discussion isnt working. --Jiang 01:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, I know that in English (but not in German!), "Government" can mean as much as "the State". But then, it might have been better if you would have changed the title of the chapter "Politics" into "Government", or "Government and Politics". But to place "Government" (meaning "the State" here) as a subsection of "Politics" doesn't make any sense. If "Government" means "the State", what does "Politics" mean then: the "Super-State"? That's the problem: your edits are half-baked, they are not carefully thought through. They should never have deserved protection in the first place. - Heimdal 12:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My edits were not being protected in the first place. Please refer to the protection policy as has been outlined to you by AllyUnion. Protection is meant to facilitate discussion, not favor a particular version. I am not calling you a vandal.
I partially agree with you, but what applies for Germany applies for all other countries. I was simply following the template, which calls for the section to be named "politics" instead of "government and politics". My edits are not "half-baked" (again, please cut the personal attacks). They are made in accordance to established policies and conventions. There was debate over the naming of this section at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#.22Politics.22_heading_is_missleading. You are free to reopen this discussion to change the overal standard, but we should remain consistent.
Poltics does not mean "super-state". It means "1. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. 2. Political science. 3. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party 4. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government." [1] So government can be considered a subset of politics, but politics is not limited to government, it also centers around the personalities and conventions of government. The current setup does make sense based on my understanding of the term. --Jiang 17:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that my tip on the meaning of the word "government" was helpful! I'm afraid that this particular subject has a *lot* of words which have subtle differences in meaning between English and German, which may not be obvious even to very advanced speakers of either language; the differences are not usually even in bilingual dictionaries! I suspect "politics" may also have a different meaning in German to English, so be warned that any arguments may actually be caused by misunderstanding. Saintswithin 08:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I received this note on my talk page "Jiang, I prefer to wait until your protection request expires. That should be next Tuesday or Wednesday. First thing I'll do is to revert the mess you've made of the article and give the whole thing a shorter structure. Then let's hear what the others have to say about it. Mediation can wait. I'm sure that no person in his or her right mind would prolong the protection of your confused edits any further. - Heimdal 15:36, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)" (emphasis mine)

As I am threatening to be mass reverted, the protection should not expire. I would appreciate it if another admin would confirm this because Heimdal is using the notion that protection will somehow "expire" in two weeks to stall any discussion posting (again on my talk page) "I do not even intend to discuss with you any further, as long as you keep the article blocked." --Jiang 17:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I have not joined the Wikipedia to take orders from Jiang. I think I have made sufficiently clear above why I believe that Jiang's edits are faulty, and why they should never have deserved protection in the first place. I have offered him a compromise - that I will shorten the article's structure, if he in turn agrees that the text itself will not be shortened - which he refused. First he threatened to block the article indefinitely if I didn't comply to his wishes, now he is even threatening to ban me from Wikipedia. What kind of coercion am I to expect next. Sorry but I have to leave now, because unlike Jiang, I don't have the time to spend the whole day in front of the computer. - Heimdal 17:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At where you complained about my edits, I responded and explained. What do you still find "faulty"? Everything? It wouldn't seem so if I'm not getting a response. Some issues, which i conveniently outlined for you, have not been addressed by you. I will phrase them in the form of questions in the hope on receiving some clarifications:

  • what is your opinion on the precedent to have foreign relations sit on its own? why keep it under "politics" when Politics of Germany makes no mention of the article? why call it foreign affairs when the main article uses the term "foreign relations", as do featured articles like People's Republic of China and Cambodia?
  • why do you want to have "states" under geography when Geography of Germany focuses exclusively on physical geography and every single other country article has political divisions under its own heading?
  • why include so many subheadings under the economics section when none of these subsections have enough content to be sections on their own?
  • what is wrong with moving culture behind relgiion given that the convention would be to have the "culture" section be last
  • why even bother with a one-liner section on "international rankings"? how is it even relevant?
  • what is wrong with formatting "Miscellaneous topics" in standard bullet point form used almost everywhere else on wikipedia where there is a list? what is wrong with removing listings of articles already linked in the text from that section?

As I have said before, the Japan article should not be used as a template. I will go and "fix" and "mess" there (to use your terminology) one once I am done here. Your compromise is unacceptable because four other users have expressed the view that the history section is too long and needs to be shortened. There is no way any of us can bow down unless we are persudaded leaving the section as long as it is now is the best thing to do. What are your reasons? do you have any? --Jiang 00:39, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is all very unsatisfying. As far as I can see, Heimdal disregard arguments put forth by anyone, thereby in effect demonstrating his disrespect for all other contributors at Wikipedia. --Johan Magnus 13:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly my experience with Heimdal, when I previously tried to make positive contributons to this article. He keeps on attacking persons concerned with this page, until they quit improving, so he can do what he wants. Unexplained mass reverts, personal attacks, unclear objections, anything is fair game. I follow this discussion with much deja vu. gidonb 13:08, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A (very) small part of the problem seems to be the difference in what's meant by the word "government." The Federal Constitutional Court is most certainly part of the German "government," as the word is used in American English. Similarly, the FBI is part of the American "government," along with the Environmental Protection Agency, the local police, and the Internal Revenue Service. What the Germans call "Regierung" is better translated as "administration": no American would refer to the "Bush government" or the "Clinton government," at least not in the same way that the British refer to the "Blair government." If Wikipedia adopts American English as the standard for its articles, as I'm pretty sure it does, then Jiang's use of the term is correct.

I also agree that the history section is too detailed. The history of Germany is long, complicated, and influential, and deserves more space than it has here; that's what the History of Germany article is for. Herr Heimdal: your English is very good, but it's clear from the conversation that you're missing subtle connotations of certain words that even native English speakers have trouble with. Without this understanding, it must appear that you are up against willful and contrary foes - but you must believe that we do not want to suppress or taint any information, we simply want this article to be as useful as possible. If it is too long, it will deter readers. Moving the fine details to a more suitable location will improve every aspect of this article. Pjrich 16:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Size of Muslim population

There is a page from the Federeal Statistical Office in Germany: http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/bevoe/bevoetab4.htm According to that there are 1.9 m turks living in Germany. As they form the larger part of muslims the number of 3.4 m seems much to high 

Anonymous User:82.82.110.238  18:02, 20 Feb 2005
The Economist seems to believe in that. See: Muslims in Europe. --Johan Magnus 18:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
qantara.de("the concerted effort of the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (Federal Center for Political Education) Deutsche Welle, the Goethe Institut and the Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen (Institute for Foreign Relations) to promote dialogue with the Islamic world.")says 3.2 million Muslims live in Germany, and also: "most of Germany's Muslim population are guest workers from Turkey who were recruited during the 1950s and later. There are also a large number of political refugees including Iranians, Kurds, Palestinians, Bosnians and Afghans." Saintswithin 19:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I guess most of the Muslims in Germany are former Turkish guest workers and their families, who often have the Turkish citizenship but often also the German so that they are counted not as Turks in the statistics. ben 14:43, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Small error

Germany is ranked as the 13th largest nation in terms of population. However, according to List_of_countries_by_population it's ranked 14th.

Those figures are a projection for July 2005, however. Saintswithin 12:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

change image please

please change the image Image:Germany map states.png into Image:Map objekt and num file final.png. the last is in the commons, but looks thesame. w:de:Benutzer:Schaengel89

small mistake

Under the image of Luther: "German reformer and reformer of Gemany" – redundant, isn't it?

-- Serpens 20:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bad language, rather. I believe the writer ment that he was 1/ German, 2/ reformer of the German language, and 3/ in effect the most drastic reformer of Germany (i.e. the land of the Germans) between Attila (or rather Charlemagne) and Napoleon.
--Johan Magnus 00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This was exactly my intention, with points 2 and 3 combined. Please feel free to improve the phrasing. gidonb 01:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) Just to clarify: with German reformer I meant a German whose impact as a reformer of christianity goes far beyond the current boundaries of Germany. gidonb 01:57, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah. I don't think the intended pun works in English. In German, Reformator often refers specifically to the driving forces behind the Reformation (the one with a capital R). The English word reformer is much more generic. (I could be mistaken.) We need a native English speaker to clean this up. Thore 09:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the recognition of my pun. I will change the first reformer to reformator. Others can continue from there. gidonb 13:47, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But is reformator an English word? Thore 14:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, Reformator is not an English word. Why don't we just say something like "Father of the Reformation", or some such? john k 14:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I changed it as you suggested. No need to discuss further improvements. Just go ahead and do as you wish. gidonb 17:14, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The caption is in correct English now, but how is it a pun? Saintswithin 10:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The original version was attempting something like (in mock-English) "German reformator and German-reformer", since Luther is both a reformer of (the language) German and the father of the Reformation. I think that's a good caption (it's informative and makes the reader want to learn more), so I gave it my best shot to keep the idea, but make it English. Looking at the sorry result, maybe we should just abandon the idea and find a non-punning caption... Thore 11:31, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it works too badly, Thore - those familiar with the Reformation get the idea that he was instrumental in that, and in reforming German language, and there is the hint of a double-reformer semi-pun there. Berek 12:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(Sorry, but I couldn't resist:) A person whose name I don't even want to mention here dared lump the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich together into one single subsection (!), and you are discussing about a pun for the Luther image?? The social democrat Philipp Scheidemann, who proclaimed the first democracy on German soil on 9th November 1918, would be turning in his grave if he woud see this page. Please remove the German flag from this page - this article is about anything, but for sure it's not about Germany. Well then, happy continuation, Jiang, Gidonb and Thore. Weiter so! -Heimdal 12:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes after the protection

For some reason my corrections with respect to the populations which were murdered in WOII were undone *after* the page was protected. Notably the homosexuals were removed and the Sinti tribe, which is together with the Roma tribe part of the Roma people, was reentered. Also the link to the Porajmos, the Roma people's equivalent of the Holocaust, is to my opinion very important. I assume the undoing of my edits was a mistake and look forward to these facts being fixed once more. I believe that these populations deserve to be included in a correct manner. There is no reason that errors should be added to the contents of a page, after it is protected. gidonb 22:12, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The unprotection of this article was a mistake, so the article was reverted back to its originally protected version. The page was not supposed to be unprotected as the dispute had not been successfully resolved and would have turned into another edit way. These edits will be restored once the page is unprotected again. However, this will not happen until Heimdal either chooses to discuss the dispute or is banned. When either of these events happen, then a request can be made at wikipedia:requests for protection. --Jiang 02:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If this is the way admins must handle the situation by protocol, no problem. I am all in favor of applying the rules with respect to Heimdal. As long as my comments will be considered at one stage or another. gidonb 07:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Can I suggest you poll opinion between the two versions? If there's a consensus in favour of one version or the other (or any point in between) it should be possible to unprotect the page on that basis, regardless of the participation of any particular individual. Long-term protection is not a good option (or an especially likely one, I'd imagine). Alai 10:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A poll?

I think a poll on the issue whether this article ought to adhere to the guidelines of the Wikipedia Country-project would be a good idea. --Johan Magnus 10:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no one is saying that the template should be applied stringently - for example the template makes no provision for foreign relations or relgion sections. that is not really the dispute here. any poll needs to be more specific than that. but if there are reasons to deviate from the template under dispute, these reasons should be made known before making a poll. --Jiang 11:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What do you believe the specific, key issues to be? A poll may be over-doing things, but there should be an attempt to establish a consensus, rather than simply a Sitzkrieg. Alai 18:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put this in once more (modidified), as it may get lost in the long history: The accusations by Heimdal above, which I previously missed, are false. His perceptions, however, do shed light on the motives for his vandalizing and many times unexplained mass reverting contributions by several users. His understanding of Roma sociology - the mistakes were put in the article time and again and are still there - is to say the least unfortunate. So is the fact that the homosexuals and disabled are again not there, as they were murdered with the others.

Heimdal does everything he can to minimize or erase the genocides in Germany's history, including flooding it with information and time and again deleting several murdered population groups. I think that real errors and omissions should be fixed, even when the page is protected. Heimdal has taken over total control of this article and the change in to the standard takes very long. Why don't we skip the elections, as they mostly represent the number of names someone creates who alters his identity and discussion page frequently, and just get to work.

Personally, I expect all populations that were killed in the German genocides to be listed (the holocaust as it is at present), with links to the holocaust and the parajmos, and to include one picture which represents all genocides. I do not think that is too much to ask for or that it consitutes of excessive coverage, on the contrary. Some 12 million people were murdered in these genocides. Also it does not replace more pleasant chapters in the history of Germany. gidonb 15:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can I propose a temporary sub-page with a working version of the section in question be created, with a view to editting it "off-line", and achieving what agreement there is to be had? I won't unilaterally do so myself, as there may be a "better" version in the article history to work from. Alai 18:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like the fix the worst errors now, since we are doing a bad service to the public who may read it. I agree that is very important information in the mass reverted versions. Your idea of working on a draft is fine with me. I would like to hear what the others have to say. gidonb 22:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have come to this discussion only recently, and have followed it with some interest. Forgive me for saying something that probably has been mentioned before, but I think the sensitivity towards the genocide issues in Germany's history are quite understandable, and have difficulties in seeing how exactly a NPOV perspective on this can be reached. I checked the corresponding article about the USA for how similarly problematic issues were handled there. (These issues could include, say, the treatment of Native Americans during the colonization, slavery, or the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians in WWII). Unfortunately, that was very little help, since these issues aren't mentioned at all on the USA page. Edit to add: I'm wrong, as pointed out below. Sorry for being sloppy. I was searching for "native" on that page. Should have searched for "Indian". The History of the United States mentions "battles" with native Americans and explains the reasons for slavery, but otherwise relegated these issues to yet another page. No mention is made of Hiroshima. I assume that these formulations were chosen in order to be mindful of reader sensitivies. Should a similar approach be used for the Germany page? Thore 19:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is plainly UNTRUE. Both issues are mentioned in the very concise article United States. Reasons for the German genocides can very well be given at another page. As you may have noticed, I did not mention these in my concise draft. It would get too long. There are many other issues and events in Germany's past and present which should be touched upon in a concise article. What Heimdal has done to this article - by his admission out of very specific motives - is plainly devastating. The article should be short and well readable, for everyone. I find it hard to believe that the fact that Germany has some black chapters in its history, would come as a great surprise to anyone, including Germans. gidonb 22:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! The History section states:
During the 19th century, many new states were added to the original thirteen as the nation expanded across the North American continent, destroying many Indian nations in a decades-long military campaign, and through coercion, military prowess, and diplomatic leverage, it acquired a number of overseas possessions; during this period the nation became an industrial power. (my underlining)
That article is an example of what we could strive for, keeping in mind that Germany's history from the Franks till today somehow has to be evenly illuminated on very few lines. Specifically, that means that I do not totally agree with gidonb's views and proposals, which I think put civilian sufferings outside of the death camps (not the least behind the Eastern Front) in too much of a shadow.[2]
Ruhrjung 01:17, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Don't forget that slavery is also mentioned. All Thore's 'facts' were wrong, which really undermines his claim. All articles should mention the good with the bad. Interesting that Americans seem more open to (self)critisism. gidonb 04:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my inacurracy about "Indians". The USA article is really very good, and I should have spent some more time reading it. That was very sloppy of me. However, this means my original plan was ok: The USA article seems to be a good example of how things could be handled. A would think a phrase like "murdered many native Americans" is not very NPOV, neither is "killed many native Americans". Neither are there images of slavery or Hiroshima on the main page. Instead, the formulations in the USA article are neutral, correct, and precise, and there are links to brilliant articles exploring these issues further. Maybe we should strive for that? Thore 08:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germany/Archive_3&oldid=1145956678"