![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
This recent case of brother a sister having sex with two children born with disabilities and died and having the other two children taken away. This has caused some upset but some lawyers are looking to lift the ban, saying that it is not harmful to society and that the children that died have not been proven to have been caused by incest sex.
-G —The preceding comment was added by anonymous user ( talk • contribs) 2007-03-04.
No they won't. Incest is only popular in Italy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.61.61 ( talk • contribs) 2007-03-16
The article uses the word "government" in two different senses: one, the general apparatus of the state; and the other, the executive branch. (The former is typically American usage while the latter is typically British or Commonwealth usage.) While either is formally correct, mixing the two can lead to confusion. Thus I plan to replace the second usage with "executive" or the like. Are there any objections?
In copyediting the article I've tried to avoid changes that could alter the meaning of the text, but if I inadvertently change the meaning please let me know. Thanks! Raymond Arritt 00:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
My latest round of copyedits may affect meaning in some places. Please take a glance at the article history and look for edits that ask "OK?". Also you might want to double-check some of my translations. Finally, I changed the description of the Dolchstosslegende so that it refers more generally to "domestic treachery" rather than strictly the 1918 revolution -- let me know if you disagree with what I've done there. A plea: change what you consider appropriate, but please edit specific items instead of doing a simple revert. If you do a revert, you'll cancel out any other copyedits made after the item in question. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 05:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The part of the article talking about German colonies established after the crowning of Wilhelm II is in so far wrong, as Wilhelm II’s crowning took place in 1888 - after the death of emperor Friedrich III (who - I think - is worth to be mentioned). Most of the German colonies were established before 1888, during Bismarck was in charge. (Bismarck himself was not interested in colonies, he only saw the economical reasons.)
It is also not completely correct to say, that Wilhelm I was forging the foreign policy of the empire. Indeed Bismarck did. In Germany we talk about the "Bismarcksches Bündnissystem" referring to that policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.158.246 ( talk • contribs)
This already is an improvement!
But it i think it is also necessary to mention Wilhelm II in this context. Of course the major part of the colonies was established before his time, but he made a significantly more imperialistic policy than Bismarck did.
Also his actions were rather unpredictable (for example during the second morocco-crisis (“Panthersprung nach Agadir”) or as he wrote the “Krüger Depesche” to congratulate Paul Kruger for fighting down a riot of British settlers, which was forced by the British government). Such actions of course brought trouble to German foreign policy. Another problem with Wilhelm II was, that there was disagreement between him and Bismarck, what led Bismarck to resign in 1890.
On the other hand it is not clear whether Bismarck himself would have been able to keep up his system of treaties for a longer period of time, because of it’s complexity. Some historians believe, that this system had to lead to a new European war, it only was the question, when.
I completely agree with that.
But I also think it would be a good idea to put in the box “History of Germany”. It seems not to take too much space and represents an easier link to further information. The box occurs in many articles referring to the German history, why not here? Of course you also could leave it as it is, but in that case I think it would be better to place a link to the Rhine Confederation on top of this Paragraph.(17:10, 2. Januar 2007 (MEZ))
there's a nazi germani flag and coat of arms at the beginning of the article. Eist345 07:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This post and the one below it seems to be a reaction to some vandalism, in the future, change it yourself, instead of spamming the discussion. 68.21.244.153 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Says Germany's motto is "Heil Hitler" Bawad1 08:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)bawad1
Aside from gaps in history that deserve at least cursory treatment (as noted by some readers above), the history section omits any mention of The Confederation of the Rhine, which was a forerunner of the German Confederation and the beginning of the modern consolidation of German States. The article doesn't even give a sentence about Napoleon's rule of the German states which lasted about as long as the Third Reich. I suppose the 10 years from 1805-1815 never happened in Germany? 10:36, 2 January 2007 (CET)Sean
Someone vandalised the beginning of the article by posting the Nazi flag and a false motto
Any specific reason why the See Also is empty?
Suggestions:
And that's just history. I know that the See also should not get too long, and most of the See also would already be linked to within the article. On the other hand, the see also IS supposed to be a shortcut - even to terms linked within the article... Cheers, MadMaxDog 13:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of the well known German trait of reserving a space on the sun lounger by putting a towel out very early. Is their a reason this has not been included? -- I love football 1982 00:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually this is a more or less common (imho humoristic) cliche, passionately often referred to by the britsh.
According to the cliche germans on vacation tend to get up very early to reserve the top places around the pool by putting a towel on the deckchair. If you happen to be on vacation at e.g. Spain, you will certainly observe some guy trying it early in the morning.
From my point of view this is neither an element of german culture, nor relevant for wikipedia and at last nothing more than a amusing cliche. ~
I see kraftwerk is listed, and as of right now, the band rammstein are the biggest german rock music export. so if you could add that to the section, it would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.165.163 ( talk) 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
What about their love of David Hasslehoff?-- I don't like football 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"school attendance is compulsory for twelve years"
You can quit school with a "Hauptschulabschluss" after 9 years. (But I am not too sure wether this applies to all German states. However all states have some kind of degree before the 12th year of school).
Addition: You don't even have to do that: You only have to attend school for nine years. Then you can quit even without any degree (at least in some states).
I have another remark to make. The text says: In contrast, secondary education includes four types of schools based on a pupil's ability as determined by teacher recommendations: the Gymnasium [...]; the Realschule[...] the Hauptschule [...], and the Gesamtschule [...].
In fact, the important types are Gymnasium, Realschule and Hauptschule. Gesamtschule is a type of school where those three types are combined - in most cases that means that those three schools share one building or campus. The Gesamtschule is an exception, as at most places there is only Gymnasium/Realschule/Hauptschule The teacher doesn't give a recommendation for Gesamtschule, he gives only recommendation to Gymnasium, Realschule or Hauptschule according to the student's performances. In addition, this recommendation is not obligatory. The parents can decide which school their kid shall visit.-- 84.56.237.68 14:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey Guys and Girls ;-)
I'm pretty sure that the actual 'compulsory' ,in a legal sense, years you have to do in Germany are just 10 years or untill your 16. But I could be wrong here. ---> Christian K.
The article says, that men are forced into military service, but I think it's also important to state there, that anyone can effectivly chose to do military or a civil serivce. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.64.122.11 ( talk) 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
officially, yes
The EU map showing, on this page, Germany highlighted, is now in use on every single EU page apart from, you've guessed it - the United Kingdom! It was there, but User:TharkunColl persists in removing it, even breaking 3RR. I would be grateful if editors interested in the EU pages could go along and fix it as I will myself be in breach if I do again. Thanks for any help! MarkThomas 19:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
What the hell is it? You guys just published pics of the south. Where are pics of the north and central Germany? I hope you people change it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.42.218.3 ( talk) 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
What is the purpose of the animation highlighting the states. The static map provides the same information and is rather less annoying.
this section focus (in a non that neutral way) on the US-German relation, forgot the world did not actually resolved around the US? Cliché Online 18:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 ( talk) 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
I have removed the Morgenthau sentence again, as I feel it is a bit out of place here. For one, it is only about the US policy with respect to Germany in the years 1945-47 (a too small topic for us to talk about in this broad overview article). Also, the Morgenthau plan is almost forgotten in present-day Germany, as it had no real lasting influence. Perhaps it is possible to partially rewrite the occupation section to mention the policy shift away also from denazification, but really all detail should be in History of Germany since 1945 or its subarticles.
I just felt so tired and disgusted reading the above sentences that I just left, but now I’ve reconsidered, I just can’t let the statements above go unchallenged. First, for claritys sake, the disputed paragraph:
Allied economic policy was de-industrialisation (see JCS 1067) , until the policy-change that took place from the end of 1946 to mid 1947. (see Restatement of Policy on Germany).
references,
“ | There is another reason for the Plan's continued vitality. It has transcended reality and become a myth. To this day, a truly astonishing number of Germans (and almost all advanced high school students) have an idea what the Marshall Plan was, although their idea is very often very inaccurate. They think the Marshall Plan was aid given exclusively to West Germany; that it was given in the form of a vast amount of dollars (cash); that it was an outright gift from the U.S. Many Germans believe that the Marshall Plan was alone responsible for the economic miracle of the Fifties. And when scholars come along and explain that reality was far more complex, they are sceptical and disappointed. | ” |
Surely you would not expect us to rewrite the Germany article as regards the Marshal plan to reflect what the average German thinks he knows about it?
I pointed out to him that he had deleted a sourced paragraph, without providing any sources showing that it was POV. When challenged to provide sources for what the alleged “mainstream analysis” was he responded with silence, and a second revert “delete again extraneous sentence inserted by POV pushing editor.” I naturally consider such activity as vandalism. The inspiration the Morgenthau Plan provided Allied occupation policy should be straightforward for anyone who does not use his ignorance as evidence but instead has actually bothered reading literature that focuses on the occupation. For example:
A snippet from the writing of Richard Dominic Wiggers.
“ | In the end, tens of millions of Germans lived through at least several years of malnutrition and deprivation in the wake of the 1945 surrender. It is unlikely that any historian will ever be able to calculate how many civilian deaths can be attributed—either directly or indirectly—to the prolonged suffering that prevailed in postwar Germany. What is certain is that many more POWs and civilians suffered and perished than needed to in the aftermath of World War II, and that the victorious Allies were guided at least partly by a spirit of postwar vengeance in creating the circumstances that contributed to those deaths. | ” |
Then there’s this statement by you Pascal.Tesson ( talk · contribs): In fact, this user is involved in content disputes in multiple articles surrounding purpoted crimes of war against German civilians. What exactly is the purpose of that statement? Is it perhaps an attempt to avoid discussing the facts by using Smear tactic instead? As far as I’m aware I’m involved in discussions in only one other articles talk page at the moment, and I happen to believe that the use of talk pages improves the resulting article content, but I guess you feel otherwise about Talk-pages.
Fourth: Being a believer in sledge hammer tactics and unnecessary quoting, I’ve enlisted the views of some more or less famous people:
“ | Their attempt to govern this large disorganized country from outside, often guided by extraneous political and economic criteria of their own, was bound to fail. It brought about a rapid economic, physical, and psychological disintegration of the Germans which might have been avoided.
It also seems that intentions such as had once been manifested in the Morgenthau Plan played their part. This continued until the Marshall Plan brought the turning point. The Marshall Plan will remain for all time a glorious page in the history of the United States of America. But the change was very slow and the economic, physical, moral, and political decline of Germany which had begun with the unconditional surrender took great efforts to reverse. |
” |
“ | b) U.S. policy was pastoralising ( Morgenthan) until Stuttgart speech. They supported R. & Fr. case – to point of reducing steel prodn to 5.8 m. tons. And during Loan talks, cdn´t oppose them too strongly …. They forced us to 5.8 m. – but all experience has shown we were right on APW Cttee in our figure of 11 m. …Conference held in Paris – after long discns have now submd memo. Before this was completed I had seen Byrnes (before Stuttgart speech) & asked wtr. this meant he wd. overthrow Morgenthau policy. He said yes – with Truman´s authy. ….In Coalition days we went too quickly along line – ruin G.´s export trade & clip her wings. cf. H.M.´s memo. To save our money we shall have to allow her some (less important) exports. | ” |
Herbert Hoover, the 31st President of the United States (1929-1933), Report on the situation in Germany, 1947 [5]
“ | …..In addition to the above courses of action, there have been general policies of destruction or limitation of possible peaceful productivity under the headings of "pastoral state" and "war potential." The original of these policies apparently expressed on September 15, 1944, at Quebec, aimed at:
"converting Germany into a country principally agricultural and pastoral," and included, "the industries of the Ruhr and the Saar would therefore be put out of action, closed down…." ……..There are several illusions in all this "war potential" attitude. a. There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a "pastoral state". It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it. This would approximately reduce Germany to the density of the population of France. |
” |
“ | I have been giving careful consideration to the present situation in Germany. I have come to the conclusion that this has now become so serious primarily as the result of our dismantling policy, that I must send you and Mr. Acheson my views without further delay.
2. It is clear that for several reasons the moral authority of the High Commission and of the Allies in Germany is being rapidly destroyed. The principal cause of this is the present dismantling programme, which is arousing bitter resentment and opposition in Germany, particularly in the British Zone, where most of the dismantling is taking place. |
” |
What they said in those quotes and much more is mirrored again and again in the literature I listed and other besides. Mainstream opinion, minor consequences, sure… -- Stor stark7 Talk 22:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
In contrast to the Marshall plan, the Morgenthau plan is deservedly forgotten in present-day Germany, as it had no lasting effect whatsoever. If anything, it should be mentioned in the History of Germany article. Therefore, removing the link to the Marshall plan subarticle makes no sense, particularly since it doesn't shorten the section as a whole either. I have therefore reverted the change. Nellov5 21:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
“ | In the end, tens of millions of Germans lived through at least several years of malnutrition and deprivation in the wake of the 1945 surrender. It is unlikely that any historian will ever be able to calculate how many civilian deaths can be attributed—either directly or indirectly—to the prolonged suffering that prevailed in post-war Germany. What is certain is that many more POWs and civilians suffered and perished than needed to in the aftermath of World War II, and that the victorious Allies were guided at least partly by a spirit of post-war vengeance in creating the circumstances that contributed to those deaths. | ” |
-- Stor stark7 Talk 13:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The Bundesrat is not a parliamentary organ, thus Germany does not have a bicameral parliamentary system. Many written overviews and even a few lexical works get this wrong, but the German Federal Constitutional Court stated explicitly, that the Bundesrat is an organ sui generis that can't be compared to any other in the world. The article Bundesrat of Germany is pretty good and describes the unique character. -- h-stt !? 15:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
In other countries, this type of parliamentary system is referred to as a "bicameral" system. However, it is not customary to talk of a single institution comprising the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, and it is even disputed whether the Bundesrat is a "second chamber" (approximate translation) .
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); |pages=
has extra text (
help)Zweite Kammer? In vielen Staaten der Welt – Einheitsstaaten wie Bundesstaaten – gibt es für die Legislative zwei Häuser. Im Ausland wird ein solches parlamentarisches System im Allgemeinen als „Zweikammer- System“ bezeichnet. Für Bundestag und Bundesrat ist dagegen eine gemeinsame Bezeichnung nicht allgemein üblich und es ist sogar umstritten, ob der Bundesrat eine „Zweite Kammer“ ist. Diejenigen, die dem Bundesrat diese „Kammer-Eigenschaft“ streitig machen, verweisen darauf, dass die Mitglieder nicht in den Bundesrat „gewählt“ werden und für die Abstimmungen an „Weisungen“ gebunden sein können. Diese Besonderheiten ließen es nicht zu, von einer parlamentarischen „Kammer“ zu sprechen. Wer so argumentiert, lässt aber außer Acht, dass der Bundesrat als ein Repräsentativorgan der Gliedstaaten anderen Prinzipien zu genügen hat als ein Repräsentativorgan des Volkes. Manchmal wird auch das Bundesverfassungsgericht für die Versagung der „Kammer-Eigenschaft“ in Anspruch genommen. In Karlsruhe sei ausdrücklich entschieden worden, so wird behauptet, der Bundesrat sei keine Zweite Kammer. Tatsächlich hat das Bundesverfassungsgericht 1974 in einer Entscheidung ausgeführt: „Nach der Regelung des Grundgesetzes ist der Bundesrat nicht eine Zweite Kammer eines einheitlichen Gesetzgebungsorgans, die gleichwertig mit der „ersten Kammer“ entscheidend am Gesetzgebungsverfahren beteiligt wäre.“ Das Bundesverfassungsgericht schränkt seine Verneinung also ein und verweist dabei außerdem auf eine wissenschaftliche Abhandlung, in der auf die „Beliebigkeit“ der Wortwahl hingewiesen wird. Es ist in der Tat ein Streit um Worte, der hier manchmal mit großer Leidenschaft ausgefochten wird. Für die verfassungsmäßige Stellung des Bundesrates ist er ohne Bedeutung, denn die Aufgaben und Befugnisse des Bundesrates ergeben sich nicht aus dieser Bezeichnung, sondern aus den Einzelbestimmungen des Grundgesetzes. Wenn man mit einem Großteil der Staatsrechtler und Politikwissenschaftler die mitentscheidende (also nicht nur beratende) Beteiligung am Gesetzgebungsverfahren als das entscheidende Kriterium für den Begriff „Kammer“ ansieht, dann wird man den Bundesrat als eine „echte Zweite Kammer“ bezeichnen; wenn man andere Umstände für ausschlaggebend hält, also von der „Beliebigkeit“ der Wortwahl einen anderen Gebrauch macht, kann man ihn aber auch für „keine Zweite Kammer“ halten. Seine Stellung bleibt trotzdem die gleiche. Wegen seiner vielen Besonderheiten ist der Bundesrat ohnehin ein „einzigartiges Organ in der Welt“.
-- Boson 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
If I understood it correctly, in the article the Federal Chancellor has been ranked at Position no. 3, after the Federal president - the "Bundespräsident" - and the President of the Parliament - the "Bundestagspräsident". In fact the chancellor is no. 4, because the President of the chamber of the states - the "Bundesratspräsident", is no. 3.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.176.52.116 ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Please, link Sarland under post-WW2 map to Saar (protectorate). -- 83.131.195.107 06:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This article currently mixes American and British English.
Examples of American English:
Examples of British English:
-- Carabinieri 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Looking through the article once more I've noticed it mostly uses BE and that those two are just exceptions/errors, though I'm not so sure about the second one: is World Trade Organisation an acceptable spelling? I've changed "athletic organisation" to "sports organisation", because I believe that would be correct British English, though I speak AE so fell free to revert that change if that's wrong.-- Carabinieri 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Even the BBC uses World Trade Organization [6], so I guess I can answer my own question...-- Carabinieri 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There certainly are national differences for both words:
*4 Britain : to close or keep (a door) closed usually as an indication that one is too occupied for company
Germany is described as both a unified State, and a Federal State. This is a major contradiction. If Germany indeed is a Federal government with 16 States, then it - like the USA - is a Federal Union where the States have governments of their own, a significant measure of self-government, and an internal identity that is only shaped by Berlin to a limited degree. Yes, they have all given up a measure of their sovereignty, but they are sovereign states none the less. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Germany does not have any national motto. The slogan Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit is only the anthem. Any officials motto does not exist. 84.142.84.61 00:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The German Workers Party, which later changed its name to National Socialist German Workers' Party, was founded on January 5, 1919, not in September of the same year (see Wikipedia's History of Germany). No reason was given for the date change. I therefore reverted the change. Nellov5 15:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
That, according to "The Guardian", German residents "spend a significant part of the year living in Spain" is no proof that an increasing number of Germans are actually emigrating to that particular country. Nellov5 08:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Read well. A lot of them are considered immigrants by all means. Millions visit it every year, but those are tourists. See again well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1830838,00.html
Just to help you I have cut and pasted this:
"That brought the registered British population in Spain to 274,000 - equivalent to a city the size of Bradford or Leicester.
But experts estimate that up to three times as many Britons, about 750,000 people, spend a significant part of the year living in Spain. Only Morocco, Ecuador and Romania have more foreign residents in Spain. Germany, which comes second among the EU countries, provides only half as many."
In fact Germans make up the second largest EU immigrant community in Spain after Britons and their numbers are increasing every year. It is an important fact of one of the the patterns of emigration within the EU.
If you want more information about German immigration to Spain check these sites, which are in German:
http://artikel.4.am/archives/1018-Weg-aus-Deutschland-nach-Spanien-auswandern-....html
http://www.handeln.cc/urlaub-auswandern-spanien/
http://www.deutsche-in-spanien.de/community/links.php?fuseaction_lba=showsites&category_lba=25
From here I have cut and pasted this:
"In den nächsten fünf Jahren planen nach einer Umfrage des FOCUS-Magazins 460.000 Deutsche ihre Auswanderung in den Süden Europas- überwiegend nach Spanien. Nicht nur Rentner wandern aus, Spaniens Wirtschaft boomt, es herrscht in vielen Bereichen grosse Nachfrage nach gut ausgebildeten Arbeitskräften."
Translation for those who do not read German:
" In the following 5 years 460.000 Germans are planning to emigrate to the south of Europe, mainly to Spain. Not only pensioners are emigrating, The Spanish economy is booming, and in all fields there is a large demand for skilled workers."
And I could add many more. This is a fact known by a lot of people, it is not new. So I am posting again this information that is important and verifiable.
Veritas et Severitas 14:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thousands of German senior citizens are spending a significant part of the year in Spain for medical reasons. This has been the case for several decades now. Are those included in the figure provided in The Guardian article? If so, it isn't made clear. Moreover, a foreign resident is not necessarily someone who has "emigrated", i.e. left his country for good. All the other German articles are stating that the estimated figure is for those Germans who "are planning" to emigrate (I'm a native speaker of German, thank you!) You are anticipating something that defacto hasn't happened yet. Moreover, no figures for other European countries - to which Germans have alledgedly emigrated - were given. Please provide verifiable statistics that prove your point. All links should be to English-language articles. I have therefore removed the link to a German-language website.
Nellov5 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
I you want more precise data here you have the official statistics from Spain in Spanish. Obviously most information concerning Germans in Spain is either in German or in Spanish:
http://www.ine.es/revistas/cifraine/cifine_ext0605.pdf
As you can see in page two (you do not need to understand Spanish for that: Germany is Alemania in Spanish))the number of German immigrants amounted to 130.232 in 2003., being the second largest group of EU immigrants after Britons. These data are for immigrants, of course, not for tourists, since about 60 million tourists visit Spain every year. These data only account for registered citizens and are from 2003. Over the last 3 years immigration has increased dramatically and has almost doubled since there are now about 5 million immigrants in Spain. Last year alone almost 700.000 came in from all over the world, some of them also from Germany. Veritas et Severitas 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, the number of Germans leaving the country has clearly decreased between 1992 and 2005. These are official data provided to members of the Bundestag. http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/bevoe/bev_bsp_t3.htm Germans may be the second largest group of EU immigrants in Spain, and immigration to that country may be on the increase in general. But on the whole, German emigration today is less than what it was in the years following German reunifaction. That Germans are "increasingly emigrating to Southern Europe" is therefore an unsourced claim (what about emigration to other countries in and outside of Europe?). Nellov5 15:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Then where are the statistics that back up your claim? The link you provided is for the FSO shop with no further information. Do I have to purchase one of their publications in order to find the missing data? Sorry, but as long as the appropriate sources are missing, I will take down the (unsourced) sentence about German emigration. Nellov5 18:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well I am sure that you can find information about other countries. I have provided valid sources here for this fact. You can change the wording though and introduce other places too. Veritas et Severitas 16:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The German immigration is some places of Spain and other countries is important. If you do not want to show it in the article, I think it is because you do not want to show it. Do as you want, I have left already more than reasonable information here. I am myself a German in Spain but I am not going to discuss what is written in black and white. Veritas et Severitas 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The other two most popular sports in Germany are marksmanship and tennis represented by the German Marksmen’s Federation and the German Tennis Federation respectively, both including more than a million members.
I'd like to mention that this needs some comments. Marksmanship is not really a popular sport in Germany but a folkloristic thing. Nearly every small village (not the larger towns) has a "Schützenverein" a marksmen club. That means once a year most male members of the community come together to shoot at a wooden bird high on a pole. Mostly with a gun fixed to a base. When the last bit of the bird comes down (after seveal hours), the man that had the last shoot is "Schützenkönig" King of marksmen for one year. That means he has to pay the beaverages for the hole community to party all night and get drunk. Biggest and most important party of the small village year. Yes, one of our more ridiculus traditions. You can not call this a sport. It dates back (I'm not shure about this) to the time after Napoleon and was supposed to show, that the population can defend itselfe an to keep the people in training. No one cares about that military aspects anymore today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.63.114.124 ( talk) 23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
You are right, but in Northrhinewestphalia it still is a big thing (e.g. my hometown, pop. 13.000 and at least 5 "Schützenvereine") But this is not sport but Tradition. Of all the hundreds of people I came to know untill now there is only one person who does marksmenship as a sport and she's from poland ;-)Could someone please change the sentence I copied above because it gives an false impression. To have a firewapon and practice with it may be quite a normal thing in the USA but is very unusual in Germany.
I see this article has just been flagged "Expand". If I recall correctly, it was condensed in the course of the Featured Article process and the details transferred to the subsidiary articles. What should be added to this article?-- Boson 07:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure it is IPA: [ˈdɔɪtʃlant] and not IPA: [ˈdɔɪ̯tʃland̪]? -- 84.159.109.239 19:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree... I'm taking a class on the phonetics and phonology of modern German and this final "d" should definitely be de-voiced. 169.229.81.21 09:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
World War II and the Nazi genocide were responsible for about 35 million dead in Europe, with nearly 30 million of these in Poland and the Soviet Union alone.
That leaves a margin of five million deaths in all the other European countries. But even Germany alone has 7.5 million deaths according to World War II casualties, the "source" that was used. And what's everybody's impression after reading the above quote regarding the numbers of deaths in Poland? 17m dead or something like that? According to the wiki article again, it's 2.6m when not counting Jewish victims, much less than Indonesia and much much less than China. User:Serafin is evading his block to indulge in Polish advocacy, as so many times before. By not undoing these edits outright or even make concessions, one would indirectly support and encourage further block evasions on his part. In the German wikipedia, he mainly (or even only) tried to replace "Silesian" with "Polish" against consensus, soon got blocked indefinitely, accused everybody who opposed him as a Nazi (see User:Contra Nazi's talk page for Serafin's "truth"), but in the end got nowhere and with his current behaviour he should not get anywhere here, either. Sciurinæ 14:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
To Lars T.: I'm sorry to have reverted some of the good changes by mistake. Because of Snieg's/Serafin's continued vandalism, there have been so many revisions that it's become kind of confusing. Sadly, removing this nonsense on a daily basis seems to have become the main contribution for a lot of editors. Nellov5 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This may be controversial, but I have reverted NOON'S additions about the Holocaust. The details he provides are important, but should be in the sub-articles ("History of Germany", "The Holocaust" etc.), IMO. The history part of this article is meant as an overview of German history, not as a detailed description. One moderator stated that this part shouldn't be expanded any further. If the moderators find my revision to be against the rules, please undo my changes. I have also removed the disputed sentence about Poland and the Soviet Union. Nellov5 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
"That's the minimum that should be written in the Holocaust section". But this isn't the Holocaust section. This section is called "The Third Reich" and meant to provide an overview of that period in German history (the holocaust and its victims are mentioned, but further information should be in the main Holocaust article.) Please read more carefully and add your details to either "The History of Germany" or any other relevant sub-article. The history section of this article is not in need of expansion (see Kusma's and Baristarim's recommendations). Nellov5 00:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have reverted the changes. If you think that the main article about The Holocaust is too short, then add your details to it, but not here. I think it's time for the moderators to lock the entire history section of this article, except for those who are going to shorten it. Nellov5 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions Germany’s contribution to ISAF in Afghanistan. It suggests this is a significant contribution (Germany had about 3000 ISAF troops in Afghanistan, the third largest contingent after the United States (14000) and the United Kingdom (5200)), but this can be seen as deceptive and needs some context, especially as Germany has been criticised for not helping enough with the fight against the insurgents/Taliban. Can we discuss this rather than get in an edit war? Chwyatt 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I deleted your contribution by mistake! No harm meant! Nellov5 17:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted again, and know that it is not neccessarily a content issue. The history section should not be expanded even if it concerns 7th century BC Germanic tribes, Medieval Germanic princedoms or post-war politics. There needs to be a discussion on how to best to proceed with summarizing the history section. That way potential content concerns of certain editors can be addressed in a more global context in a much more efficient manner. So any ideas? Baristarim 20:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, by reverting to the longer version, you just expanded the history section yourself. Why? Aren't you suggesting the opposite? Nellov5 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
"Military Service is compulsory for men at the age of 18 and conscripts serve nine-month tours of duty"
I'm 99% sure this isn't true, there is a 'social' option which involves various community based work e.g. working with the elderly etc.
Investigation needed!
I am not quit sure about the fact, that Germany is best exporteur of 2005 AND 2006. Could someone get information about it and add the fact to the text. thanks niggix in German Wikipedia see at www.destatis.de Exporte 2005 and Exporte 2006 +13%
where is it??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.63.98.189 ( talk) 07:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC).