Talk:Germany/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Shorter history section

I think the history section is far, far too long. It should be a brief summary of German history, with the details given in History of Germany. Any other votes for condensing it to two or three moderately-sized paragraphs? —Bkell 09:33, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are right. And that is already done at least once — but editors who think that their pet peeves must be emphasized make the history section on the front page to grow all the time.
--Ruhrjung 09:58, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow. Completely removing the entire history section was a bit more drastic than what I had in mind. —Bkell 06:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have now made a shorter version of the history section. Elizabeth A 22:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removal of clarification of real reason for Jewish immigration surge

I've added that part, and, Elizabeth A, I think it's not too much to expect at least a reason stated in the log, when someone simply removes a condradicting page edit again.

The statements that: A) Russian/ex-Soviet Jews come to Germany mainly because of a climate of "tolerance" and B) The said immigrants often speak Yiddish; are simply wrong, as anyone who did spend a small amount of time in investigating this immigration trend will easily discover.

So I am going to add a shortened version again. Please start reading up on the topic before you think about removing that version again (maybe here http://www.berlin-judentum.de/englisch/immigration.htm).

Thanks.

-- Wikithor 11:18 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Middle or Western

File:Germanymiddle.jpg

Germany is widely considered to be located in the "middle" of Europe. Both geographically and, last but not least, culturally. While West Germany is a part of Western Europe, the former East Germany is not. Germany is the country connecting Eastern Europe with the western part. So "middle" is more descriptive. Elizabeth

"Middle" is more poetic but adds nothing to the understanding of the article. Keep "Western", as a widely understood and accepted term garryq 15:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

"Middle" does add to the understanding of the article. Germany borders France and the low counties (clearly Western Europe) on the West, and Poland and the Czech Republic (clearly Eastern Europe) on the East. As Elizabeth pointed out, the GDR was considered eastern europe, and the GFR was considered western europe. Germany is the nexus between those two worlds. I think "Middle" is more appropriate than Western. Satori 18:23, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

East Germany being "Eastern Europe" and West Germany being "Western Europe" was more likely due to the cultural and governmental forces at work (Soviet-controlled East vs. NATO West). I have a gigantic map of Europe on my wall, and looking at it, if Germany is in the "middle", then eastern Europe is two or three or maybe even four times larger (wider) than western Europe. My vote is that Germany counts as Western Europe. -Branddobbe 19:11, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

Germany may well be in the middle of the enlarged European Union, but that is not the same as being in the middle of Europe. Poland is not "Eastern Europe" by any other definition than according to strict Iron Curtain-dichotomy, which is obsolete. People, not the least in Germany, may wish to refer to Germany as the center of Europe and an European Empire in being, but this is not particularly encyclopedic, nor is it helpful or useful in this English-language context. It confuses the reader, and it makes this article less credible (and secondarily harm all of Wikipedia by decreasing its credibility).
--Ruhrjung 21:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I think you're being a little overdramatic. Perhaps the best thing to do is lose the reference altogether. Interestingly, the wikipedia articles on Western Europe and Central Europe both include Germany, and the wikipedia article on Eastern Europe includes the GDR. Apparently there's little consensus on where the imaginary dividing lines are, so the most encyclopedic term may simply be "Europe".

No way. I'm not overdramatic! ;-)

In every possible sense present-day Germany belongs to Western Europe: Culturally, ideologically, economically, historically. This might come to change, ultimately, as an effect of the integration of ten new members in the European Union. But if so, that will take quite some time.

I try, as much as possible, to stay away from editing articles on Germany. I try to stick to pages where I better can keep a "professional distance" to the subject. But this is quite simply too much for me. Beware Wikipedia of the idiosyncratic POV-pushers.

Ruhrjung 07:58, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

When I learned German at high school, some ten years ago, we used a book called "Mitten in Europa". I think some people here are counting the whole of Russia as part of Europe - which is problematic. Only a small part of Russia (largely included in the map above) is culturally belonging to Europe, and historically known as European Russia. Russia is mostly an Asian country, and even its European part is often not counted when talking about Europe. In English, "Europe" is mostly used for the region of what is now the EU and the small countries in Eastern Europe excluding Russia. Anyway, I've now changed the reference to "Central Europe", which should be acceptable to most people. As for the European Union membership, we don't need history in the introduction. Germany is a member of the Union (which is the important in this context), and there is no need for a distinction between West as East Germany here, as the state now known as "Germany" in English, but known as the Bundesrepublik Deutschland in German since 1949, referred to in the introduction as a member of the EU, is the same state as the state which was founding the predecessor of the EU (technically, the Union was founded in 1992, after the reunification). Elizabeth

• If Russia's European part, stretching to Norway, the Gulf of Finland and Poland by the Baltics' South-East tip is not counted to Europe, then that's the result of bad Georgraphy education or ignorance of other reasons. (One would be tempted to guess in direction of the latter.)
  • This part is counted to Europe in the map above. And Germany is still located in the middle. Anyway, you know that the exclave between Poland and the Baltic countries is not a part of the historical Russia. This is nothing but hairsplitting. Elizabeth A
• When English speakers used Germany for West Germany that can not be understood as support for the extremist right wing notions of East Germany as illegally occupied by the Soviet Union. It has necessarily to be understood as a short-form for West Germany, and as a short-form it's appropriate to extend whenever needed for clarity. East Germany was outside of the European Union until re-unified with West Germany. That meaning loses its sense if it's to be interpreted as referring to the 1992 morph of the technical aspects of EU. Refer to the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community instead of the European Union if that's the important distinction for you, but realize that this was a dramatic step in the post-Nazi rehabilitation of Germany, and of significant importance both for Germans and for neighboring nations (in Western Europe/West-Europe).
  • Your point is? To repeat my point: Bundesrepublik Deutschland is the state which founded the predecessor of the European Union. Bundesrepublik Deutschland annexed the territory of the former East Germany. A new state was not created by the reunification, but DDR ceased to exist. The important thing is to state that contemporary Germany is a member of the European Union, and that this state, in fact, was one of the founding members, just like this article. Referring historical details on the European Coal and Steel Community in the introduction is ridiculous. Elizabeth A
• Western Europe is a concept in use. It's referred to in English language news papers quite frequently. And in a way that seldom, if ever, excludes Germany. The attempt to re-define Western Europe (at that page) is not suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has to describe current usage, not prescribe new.
  /M.L.
  • Yes, Wikipedia has to describe current usage, not prescribe new. And Germany is widely considered a central European country. Elizabeth A
    • It is also widely considered a Western European country. It shows up in the articles on both Western and Central Europe. I think the best way to deal with this issue is to just refer to it as a European country and let the reader decide for themself if it's western or central. (Furthermore, the map I was looking at only included the European segment of Russia.) -Branddobbe 05:00, May 17, 2004 (UTC)
    • Show that! --Ruhrjung 07:58, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

How about the 1911 Britannica? Agreed, it is a little outdated, but still relevant in my opinion.

http://81.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GE/GERMANY.htm

"GERMANY (Ger. Deutschland), or, more properly, THE GERMAN EMPIRE (Deutsches Reich), a country of central Europe. The territories occupied by peoples of distinctively Teutonic race and language are commonly designated as German, and in this sense may be taken to include, besides Germany proper (the subject of the present article), the German-speaking sections of Austria, Switzerland and Holland. But Germany, or the German empire, as it is now understood, was formed in 1871 by virtue of treaties between the North German Confederation and the South German states, and by the acquisition, in the peace of Frankfort (May 10, 1871), of Alsace-Lorraine, and embraces all the countries of the former German Confederation, with the exception of Austria, Luxemburg, Limburg and Liechtenstein. The sole addition to the empire proper since that date is the island of Heligoland, ceded by Great Britain in 1890, but Germany has acquired extensive colonies in Africa and the Pacific (see below, Colonies)."

Or a more late edition of Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=109145&tocid=0

"Germany

officially Federal Republic of Germany , German Deutschland or Bundesrepublik Deutschland country of north-central Europe traversing the continent's main physical divisions, from the outer ranges of the Alps, northward across the varied country of the Central German Uplands, and then across the North German Plain, or Lowlands. It is bounded at its extreme north on the Jutland Peninsula by Denmark. East and west of the peninsula, the Baltic…"

Or simply try a google search for Germany and central europe/central european. Elizabeth A

I've already said this a number of times: It is completely irrelevant that the German Democratic Republic was not one of the founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community. First, the German Democratic Republic does not exist anymore! Second, the article is not dealing with the German Democratic Republic! However, the Federal Republic of Germany, which the article is dealing with, was one of the founding members. The Federal Republic annexed the territory of the GDR, but that does not mean that a new state was created. The US have also acquired new territories during its history, however, it does not mean a new state was created each time. The important in this case is to state that the contemporary Federal Republic of Germany is a member of the European Union, and it's certainly worth to mention that it was one of the founding ones (see France for another example).

Also, if you believe Germany is not located in central Europe, you should write to Britannica and ask them to correct their encyclopedia. Then you can convince me. Elizabeth

I did not like the last version, so I restored the old one. It was clumsy written and there is really no reason to make this more difficult than it is. Also, if we, contrary to other encyclopedias (which use simply "Central European"), should call Germany "Western and Central European", why not also "Western, Central and Eastern"? East Germany is clearly a part of Eastern Europe, not Western. Elizabeth

Have you liked any version but your own? See Talk:Central Europe for the discussion of by whom Germany is considered Central European. Please, try to start to cooperate with other contributors.
--Ruhrjung 09:52, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I have already showed you that both the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and the last edition of it, states that Germany is "a country of central Europe" and a "country of north-central Europe traversing the continent's main physical divisions", respectively.

http://81.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GE/GERMANY.htm http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=109145&tocid=0

Here is the Columbia entry as well:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/ge/Germany.html

"Located in the center of Europe, it borders the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and France on the west; Switzerland and Austria on the south; the Czech Republic and Poland on the east; Denmark on the north; and the Baltic Sea on the northeast."

You may also want to have a look at the article on Europe. According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, Central Europe includes "Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary".

http://www.bartleby.com/65/eu/Europe.html

Elizabeth A

I don't know what this edit war is about, but I am curious why so much information about Germany's location relative to its neighbors is included in the intro. That's the stuff of Geography of Germany, no? This seems much, much less important than, say, salient features of recent German history, the origin of its modern state, or its current world position (there's some of that there now, of course). VV 01:04, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

In a crude graphical sense, the middle of Europe is in East-West direction to find along:

70N 40E Ø 
65N 40E Arkhangelsk
60N 30E Saint Petersburg
55N 25E Vilnius
50N 25E Lvov
45N 25E Bucharest
40N 10E Sardinia

In a North-South direction, to find somewhere between Vilnius and Lvov. Germany has never stretched as far east as to such a middle of Europe.
/M.L.

Ruhrjung or 212.181.86.76: This is ridiculous. Russia is culturally not European, and rarely included in such a context. Pure geographism is not relevant here. Germany is widely considered to be in the middle or central of Europe. That's why all English-language encyclopedias states it is a part of Central Europe. You will not be able to find many people in the English world who believe Lvov is the centre of Europe.

If you don't consider Ukraina, Belarus and Russia (West of Ural) to belong to Europe, what does it then belong to? /Tuomas 14:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

As for the European Union, I'm now pretty tired of telling you this: We don't need all these details on the European Coal and Steel Community in the introduction. "Germany is a founding member of the European Union" is correct in either case. It is irrelevant that Saarland or the Eastern states had not joined the Federal Republic of Germany (which the article is actually about!) in 1951, when the predecessor of the Union was founded. The important is that contemporary Germany is a member of the EU, and just like France, it's worth to mention that it is a founding one (the "fifth republic" was not a founding member either, however, the state called the French Republic was). Elizabeth A

Your discussion on France is far off the mark. The important difference is that Germany until 1991 was divided, and references to German states before 1991 are to be disambiguated unless it from the context is obvious how to interpret a particular statement. Wikipedia policy is: state the obvious!

If you take a look at the recent edit history of this page, you can see that your sentence on the founding of EU can be improved in many different ways. In your wording, it's either trivial or false. The Union was founded after the Maastricht treaty of 1992, but that's irrelevant for the reader. What's important was the founding in 1951, and how the integration of (West) Germany in the economically and politically Free World was to the advantage of both the Germans and their neighbors. That founding was not of EU, and not by "Germany" but by its Western part. Of course you are, in a legalist interpretation, right in arguing that the Federal Republic in 1991 was given full sovereignty at the same time as it grew eastwards. But before that, East Germany was also Germany. You would for sure have saved a lot of both your energy, and that of other contributors, if you had considered these improvements.

By clinging on to the wording that "Germany" and not the Federal Republic was a founding member of EU, you put yourself and Wikipedia in that political camp that question the legality of East Germany and of Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik. And that is exactly what Wikipedia must avoid. /Tuomas 14:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Once more time: The article is actually dealing with the Federal Republic of Germany. Not the German Democratic Republic. The important, really, is that contemporary Germany IS a member of the union, not who WAS what and founded what in 1951. "Germany" refers to the subject of the article: The Federal Republic of Germany, the only state in the world called Germany for short now, which is a member of the EU and which was one of the six founding members of the Union's predecessor — and which also was one of the founding members of the Union in 1992. My point is that the state which the article is dealing with IS a member, and that the very same state was one of the founding members. The annexation of the territory of the former German Democratic Republic did not mean that a new state was created. The same applies to Saarland. Or to the United States, whenever a new state joined it.

We could however change "Germany" to "it" (like the French one), to avoid the word Germany, although it refers primarily to present-day Germany as a member of the union. Elizabeth A

Today, there is only one Germany. Nobody says anything else. But in 1951 there were two. Except according to some people on the political right wing. Regardless how you think of it, Germany of today was only partly a founding member of EU in 1951. And that part has a specific name and a relevant Wikipedia article. Namely: West Germany. My question is: Why do you so strongly oppose the reference to West Germany (at this place)?

This discussion get me to believe that there ought to be two different articles. One for Germany, which has changed shape and borders zillions of times during history, and been split and (partly) re-united and then split again and (again) re-united. But that will not be so. Instead editors of the article must recognize that Germany and The Federal Republic of Germany are no exact synonyms./Tuomas 15:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

In fact, there were three German states in 1951 (or five if you count Austria and Switzerland). You are correct that Saarland and the eastern states were not part of the state which founded the EU's predecessor when the foundation took place. But "Germany of today" is legally the same state as the founding one.

There has never been a state named "West Germany". That used to be a nickname for the Federal Republic of Germany, when the area of the state only included the western part of what it now includes. Note also that "Germany" (Deutschland) is an official short name for the Federal Republic of Germany, according to the German Foreign Ministry. "Germany" was also an official short name in 1951. Those "some people on the political right wing" were the political establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany until the 70'ies and their view was the official view of the state which is the subject of the article. Elizabeth A

I believe, in every European country, the people believe, their country is the "heart" of Europe. Once I lived in Austria. The wheater forescast maps showed a Austria-centred Europa. I guess it is the same in France or Poland. If Europa is the EU, then Germany may be located in the centre. If Europe is everything between Portugal and Ural, then it may be in the West. Therefore it is hard to say. Bavarians told me, they believe, Bavaria is the heart of Europa :-) Stern 14:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the middle of Europe means in the middle of the European Union. After the expansion of EU, the new geographic middle is in Kleinmaischeid in Rhineland-Palatinate. O.A. 01 Jan 2005

Number of muslims and orthodox christians

I am astonished by the recently made downgrading of figures for muslims and orthodox christians in Germany. Would it maybe be appropriate to insert references (inside [...]) to something like official statistics?

Meanwhile I restore the old figures, but please understand that I do this without having any knwoledge myself, mainly in order to provoke someone else to point us to the relevant and correct data. /Tuomas 14:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deweaslification?

Any chance of firming up this sentence: His [Hitler's] policy of annexing neighbouring territories may have been one of several reasons that led to the outbreak of World War II...? Why not "was one of several reasons"? — Matt 03:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

East Germany?

In "History" I have changed the sentence "(East Germany, in West Germany referred to as Middle Germany)" because normally the average (Western) German said "East Germany" when the German Democratic Republic was meant. There were (and are) some people which are referring these regions as Middle Germany, but these are the persons which a propagating revisionism in fact of the Oder-Neisse-line (and they are a very small minority). Erlando 22:40, 19 Sep 2004 (CEST)

Mitteldeutschland means the landscape, see also MDR=mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (Central german broadcasting), "der Osten" the former GDR. Osten means simply east. Mitteldeutschland means Central Germany, so it sounds more euphemistic while Germans usually associate Easterness with decivilisation Western (= Western Europe, USA, "free world"), east = Russia, Former Eastern Block, Far East, the Huns.

It has nothing to do with the Oder-Neisse Line. Eastern is pejorative, so you rahter take Mitteldeutschland = Core/Central Germany, this is what the region traditionally was called, "der Osten" is more a propaganda phrase from the cold war and I guess it is more common in Western Germany while Mitteldeutschland is more common in the "eastern part". So the statement is in deed wrong, as it is quite the opposite. --145.254.160.195 14:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) André 1.5.2005

Oh, goodness, how did that piece of crap find its way back into the article? Good move on your part. john k 02:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't do much editing on pages concerning Germany, but this is the kind of extremism that now and then makes me break my principle. :-> The representatives for such extremism often feel suppressed by mainstream media and take their chance here. It will return, now and then, but that oughtn't be a problem as long as Wikipedians feel sufficiently engaged to revert it on sight.
--Ruhrjung 21:45, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Costs of reunification

IMPOV the statement that reunification costs more than 1.5 trillion Euro shouldn't be included without explanation. This figure was critisised heavily on the ground that it just adds up all public payments to the eastern part of Germany, without taking into account that people of the new länder contribute to the funding with their tax payments as well (thus net costs are lower than the number indicated). Another reason why some (including the German minister of finance Stolpe) critisised this figure was that investment in infrastructure (although assumably higher in the east) does also take place in the western part of Germany. Those costs are not attributed to reunification either. Stolpe argues that "pure" reunification costs amount to 15 billion euro a year (in the period between 1990 to 2003). Gugganij 20:38, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1.5 trillion Euro are the net-transfers to the eastern part calculated by Freie Universität Berlin.   
The statement of Manfred Stolpe (Bundesminister für Verkehr und Aufbau Ost/federal minister for  
traffic and rebuild east) is 250 billion Euro. But this is only for infra-structure! The german 
government's statement is 1.25 trillion Euro for net-transfers. Now, additional, there are 100 billion 
Euro special-transfers every year. O.A. 17:45, 01 Jan 2005 (UTC)

best social security system?

I think some Scandinavians would refuse... and I think it should be mentioned, that there are reformations on the way.

I will add this.

Bye, --Erlando 15:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Best" is hardly NPOV, to begin with.

Holocaust denial?

Someone time and again deletes the phrase about the Holocaust from this article, claiming this is POV. The Holocaust - POV! If this continues I will put a 'disputed' message above this page and ask to take action against vandalism on this page. Why must the Holocaust - in which much of my family was murdered - be omitted from German history? It is after all one of the central events in WOII and German history. Gidonb 22:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since this behavior is continued - before it was done without making clear what was deleted, now under the edit summary "rv pov pusher" - I have put a pov warning above the page. Gidonb 22:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted the vandalism, so there will be no pov message above this article. I understand that user Maria Stella's main activity on Wikipedia is deleting the Holocaust from the article Germany (see user contributions). I hope that this article remains without a pov warning and that negative facts from Germany's history will not be ommitted. There are enough positive facts about the country from 1945 to the present. Without the Holocaust this page will be unbalanced. Gidonb 22:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not a question of balance - a question of fact and notability. Clearly should be in there. Rd232 16:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Both answers are correct. Until today even having the Holocaust in here seemed contested (see previous discussions). After I introduced it, time and again it is being deleted, transferred to aftermath or the proprietors are being changed from Germans to Nazis, and the country name from Germany to Nazi Germany. Not because of hard feelings but out of respect to my murdered and otherwise negatively affected family, and the millions and millions of Jews, disabled people, homosexuals, Roma and others, who were left defenseless as against the German brutalities, I will continue to make sure that these very central facts in Germany's history do not get erased from German history again. gidonb 00:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Today user heimdal removed all pictures which were related to the Second World War and the picture of the Berlin Wall, but left the picture I added of the Reichstag. Again, he changed Germany into "Nazis". I reverted his edits to this page and his one-sided portrayal of German history and politics. I understand some of the facts are uneasy to relate to for Germans - actually I am happy that some are ashamed of Germany's history - but the article and Wikipedia belong to all users. It should be factual, informative and unbiased by the embarrassment of some readers. gidonb 17:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do understand gidonb's strong feelings about Germany - but considering "the Germans" in general inferior in his social-moral foodchain should not give reason to disrespect the necessity for a balanced presentation of the facts in this article (which is per definition not a personal one). Gidonb seems to be upset if the Holocaust section is repetitively deleted from this article. I do understand him and I do agree with him. But this cannot be blamed on "the Germans". To my knowledge (and correct me if I am wrong), the denial of the Holocaust is a crime in Germany - in contrary to the US where a substatial amount of Nazi-propaganda is shipped every minute to Europe. Germany at least seems to have recognized its responsibility. The image of the mass graves is inappropriate in this context but is is appropriate in the Holocaust article where everybody has access to it. I strongly recommend the culture of political correctness be respected in this public forum, and it is an undeniable fact that not all Gemans were Nazis and not all Nazis were Germans. If you want it or not - you find numerous examples, I would be happy to provide you with some if requested. However, bashing on the Germans by playing the mass-grave card makes me wonder if this is rather an phenomenon of the new germanophobia (www.germanystinks.com) in the US after the German government refused to believe the administration's interpretation of the intelligence data concerning "weapons of mass destruction". I wonder why gideonb thinks this central issue of German foreign policy is not worth mentioning here, as he is quick to delete it. Bush lied to "the Americans" - and they believed it. This time, "the Germans" were smarter, don't you agree? Before further bashing on the Germans you should also not forget - and this is not even mentioned in the article - that the contemporary Germany is a stong supporter and one of the few true friends of Israel in these days. Gideonb: please do not continue to play this shock-and-awe game; it really does not adress the right people here. Better focus on the white-supremacy idiots here in the US ... User: Victor Hugo 11:42 PM, 31 Jan 2005

It has been pointed out again and again that the Holocaust, Nazi Germany and WWII are all extensively covered on the pages of the Wikipedia, a fact that User:Gidonb somehow chooses to ignore. It's a vain undertaking trying to represent German history in its complexity through a couple of more or less arbitrarily chosen images of Nazi camp mass graves and heroic American liberators. The image of the Reichsgründung can therefore be nothing more than an introducing image to the article's History section. If you want to see more images of Nazi cruelty and of brave GI Joe, you'll have to follow the links to the respective articles on the Third Reich and the war. And yes, you do need to make a subtle distinction between "Germany" on the one hand and "the Nazis" on the other, in order to avoid simplistic allegations of German collective guilt. Personally I wouldn't even dream of adding images of slavery in the US southern states, of massacres of native Indians committed by white settlers during the colonization of North America, of Hiroshima victims and of Vietnamese children scarred by napalm bombs to the United States article, because (a) I wouldn't want to offend the feelings of my fellow American Wikipedians, and (b) I'm far from being the rude insensitive boor as which User:Gidonb has presented himself. Heimdal 11:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The following threat was deleted by Heimdal from his own talk page, after he logged out of from his own account. This course of action can be seen in his history. I will place the discussion here as they shut additional light on his harsh language (see also above) and continous vandalism to the page Germany. I seem not to be alone in having a hard time cooperating with him. He deletes facts from the page which is related to the holocaust and adds incorrect information. I did try to talk with the person, but it was to no avail. gidonb 20:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you will enjoy yourself and make a positive contribution to the ongoing work on this 'democratic' encyclopedia. Second, I regret the fact that you keep on deleting the WWII and Cold War images from Wikpedia page Germany. You left my contribution of the Reichtstag picture, but encyclopedia articles about Germany should not only contain pleasant facts and picture materials. The history of Germany, as of most countries, is a mixed bag and 12 million people murdered by German genocides just 60-65 years ago deserve sufficient mentioning. The same applies for the Cold War period, which was even more recent. Wikipedia and its articles belong to all users. I hope that our future cooperation will be more fruitful! Regards, gidonb 19:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello Gidonb,

I removed your added images to the History section of the Germany article because I think that it's a vain undertaking to try to represent German history in all its complexity through a couple of more or less arbitrarily chosen pictures of Nazi camp atrocities and heroic American liberators. Furthermore, I think that all major countries, not only Germany, have their skeletons in the cupboard. The mass killings perpetrated by the Stalin regime in the Soviet Union, the crimes committed by the Japanese in China and elsewhere during WWII, even the massacre of native Americans by white settlers during the colonization of North America are only a few examples. Perhaps the Germans have just been more sincere than others at acknowledging their own skeletons. Feel free to add your images of Nazi camps and WWII to the respective articles on the Holocaust, Nazi Germany and the war. These subjects are all extensively covered in the Wikipedia. As regards the History section of the Germany article, one picture about a major event of German history, such as the Reichsgründung, should be enough. Heimdal 10:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I undid your repetitive removal and altering of images and facts on the Germany page. The genocides commited by Germany between 1941 and 1945 are central enough to be included in the main article, including picture material taken in today's Germany. Also, the Roma people include many tribes, among them Roma and Sinti tribes. You relate to facts in the European colonialization of North America, Japanese and Chinese history and I strongly encourage you to write about these and to make them better known throughout Wikipedia. gidonb 13:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bonn also seat of government

I think there is a mistake in de "infobox Germany" because - as far as I know - Bonn ("Bundesstadt Bonn" = "Federal City/Town Bonn") is still also seat of government. There are more federal offices and workers in Bonn than in the new capital Berlin. And a lot of embassies are also still in Bonn.

Bonn is still the first seat of the Department of Defense (Bundesverteidigungsministerium) which is part of the government. --Pixelfire 07:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But the infobox says "capital" - can a country have two capitals? On the official German site there's no mention of Bonn: www.deutschland.de Saintswithin 12:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Berlin is capital of Germany. There was a short period after the reunification, when Berlin was declared capial, but the government in fact was still situated in Bonn. This was because the infrastucture and facilities needed for the government to actually move to Berlin first had to be build and established first. But until now, almost all of the important parts of the government like the Bundestag (parliament), the Bundeskanzleramt and most of the ministeries are situated in Berlin. Some lesser organisations of government remained in Bonn mainly because it would have been a massive blow to the local economy if they where entirely removed - and maybe because of the high costs for moving. But nevertheless Berlin is the only capital.--80.135.241.129 14:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Victims - references

Just in case, the sources for the number of victims are [1] and [2] (BSE). Paranoid 02:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Someone removed the template:germany infobox. Please put it back, thanks.--Jerryseinfeld 22:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please see the Edit summaries of the page history, that says:

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Country_infoboxes_as_templates

...where, it turns out, User:Jerryseinfeld has already been.

Troll! ;-(

--Ruhrjung 04:44, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Indigene people

Indigene People such as the Frisians, Sinti and sorbs and indegene minority languages as low German, sorbian, saterfrisian, and jiddish shall get mentioned. According to the EU minority language charter these languages shall get mentioned. Frisians regard themselves as cultural non-German.