Talk:Germany/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Map in infobox

I personally have no preference for any of the two different maps. The green/dark green color scheme seems to be the standard one used at most country articles though. Lear 21 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer the green one, mostly because it has a much more sensible map projection. The red one uses Mercator, which produces an absurd amount of size distortion towards Skandinavia, and makes the core of the continent appear far too small. Also, the pseudo-precise inclusion of topographical detail such as rivers is really extraneous to the task of a locator map, and produces more distraction than proper information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

With a second thought, I´m inclined to prefer the green projection. Mostly because of aesthetic reasons. Lear 21 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Green is better, I agree. --Tone 13:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Harbor image

The established harbor image presents two large scale ships in docks. Several cranes which are typical for harbor works are recognizable as well. The image quality matches the high standard at this article in terms of brightness and color. The recently proposed images to replace the established were of poor image quality and have been removed again. Lear 21 (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing with current image is that it just shows 2 ships. Hamburg Harbour is the 2nd biggest port in Europe and it just has 2 ships? How about these:

The first image cannnot be identified as a harbor, the image quality is not suitable as well. The second image fulfills all quality criteria and it present a panorama of the harbor including the typical Landungsbrücken Tower. It wouldn´t be a mistake to see this one introduced here. BUT, the dominant numbers of ships presented here are of a touristic purpose. The Queen Mary is also evoking associations to a specific ENGLISH oceanliner. Because the harbor image is used in Infrastructure it seems necessary to have a professsional aspect focusing logistics and maintenance. I tend therefore to keep the established image with cranes and docks. BTW, not only 2 ships are recognizable, a small "Schlepper" can be seen to. Lear 21 (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How about this? The tower is under restoration :( but you can see some of the Landungsbrücken.

EU in Economy section

The German economy is highly interwoven with all member states of the European Union. The single market as well as the European currency, the Euro, are the most recognizable economic and monetary systems established and are evidence of a coherent economic space, the EU. These facts need visual representation like many other significant realities in this article. The EU flag is the most widespread symbol to be identified with these European realities. An image of the EU flag in the Economy section, including a caption stressing the membership & the Eurozone, has been installed for several months at this article and can be considered as valuable addition to this article. Attempts have been made to remove the image without alternative. The consequence would mean a reduction of the articles content and its scope to explain the most significant realities related to Germany as an encyclopedic article. It seems neither necessary not useful to do so. Therefore the long established image has been reinstalled. Lear 21 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself. There is absolutely no point in putting that repetitive flag in that section, same for all other EU countries. The flag per se doesn't say anything about Germany and the EU, you don't even know if the picture was taken in Germany (or even Europe). This is not a kindergarten, nobody is so dumb to the point of needing a visual representation of the European reality of Germany in the shape of the omnipresent EU flag. The only visual representation it has is the flag itself, there is nothing specific about Germany there. Now please stop at once. Húsönd 10:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is already suffering from an overload of images. The content conveyed by the image is easily represented by text, and the image of the flag does not help to stress anything about the role of the EU for Germany. Please stop edit warring about this, and please stop misrepresenting your opinion as consensus ("long established"). Kusma (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of this flag achieves nothing that is not already sufficiently achieved by other means in this article - notably the map in the infobox. An image of a European flag in a German context - in front of the Reichstag, say - would not perhaps be out of place, but a random image of a European flag in the middle of the article without visual context says nothing about Germany whatsoever and should not be included either in this article or in the other country articles. Pfainuk talk 17:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hannover//Hanover

Hannover instead of Hanover, this is my hometown!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.136.215.130 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - that is just the way the English spell it. My hometown gets even worse treatment: "Munich". But we do get our own back and call their California de:Kalifornien Agathoclea (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Location

What is the location for? I'd suggest to put it on the Bundestag (52° 31' 7" N 13° 22' 33.27" E), not in some little road somewhere in Berlin. --62.214.202.11 (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

{{tl:Infobox Country}} only allows decrees and minutes but not seconds. Agathoclea (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

TOC

I moved the TOC (Contents) to the top of the page. That created a need for some picture and space adjustments. I hope that these minor tweaks meet with every ones satisfaction. I think this article is great! John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

TOC at the top can be set to default either hidden or show (without hidden in code). The documentation is scant so adjustment is needed. Viewers can select to have the TOC in "hide" or "show" position. When the TOC is in hide position for the current article, large gaps appear. This also happens when you attempt a print version. By moving the TOC to the top of the page (in either hidden or default) mode the gaps in the article go away. Having the TOC at the start of the article instead of the middle I thought was better, but it is your choice. John R. Carpenter Jrcrin001 (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Missing bracket in info box

Horst Koehler (CDU) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.50.98 (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Boson (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Name of Germany

The French name should be added: "l'Allemagne" and perhaps the Spanish name: "Alemania"?

The link to Names of Germany is better than including examples. If we don't say anything interesting about the Franch name, we don't need to include it, and this is a too specialized topic for the main overview article to write much about it. Kusma (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored contributions which had been deleted

1) About the percentage of Protestants/Catholics in Germany:

What was in the article: “Each denomination comprises about 31% of the population”.

My contribution instead: “According to recent (end of 2007) estimates by the German Religious Media and News Service ("Religionswissenschaftlicher Medien- und Informationsdienst eingetragener Verein", or REMID http://www.remid.de/remid_info_zahlen.htm) and other sources, cf. «Religion in Germany»), there are 26.5 million Protestants (or 32.31 % of the total population) and 25.5 million Catholics (or 31.87 %) in Germany.”

And it was deleted.

2) About the Jewish population in Germany:

What was in the article: “Germany has Western Europe's third-largest Jewish population (Ref: Blake, Mariah: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1110/p25s02-woeu.html «In Nazi cradle, Germany marks Jewish renaissance»).”

My contribution instead: “Germany has Europe's third-largest Jewish population (after Russia and the United Kingdom)”, based on the fact that the source was obviously misquoted as it doesn's say “Western Europe” but just “Europe”, in order to include Russia.

And it was deleted as well.

It will be my pleasure to get to a consensus. Meanwhile, I have restored both of my contributions.

Kind regards, --Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the second largest Jewish population is in France, including the President Sarkozy. The second is in Russia. The third in the UK and the fourth in Germany.--81.37.38.195 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Germany - 8.2 Tourism

In line with the contents for France we feel that there should be some information on tourism in Germany, we suggest the following details.

With more than 133 million foreign visitors and 27.2 billion Euros spent on travel and tourism, Germany is ranked as the 7th most visited travel destination worldwide. [¹²³]

The capital Berlin is currently on position 8 among the top 100 list of most visited cities. Including camping sites and accommodation with 9 or more beds a total of 369.6 million overnights were spent in Germany during 2008, this includes 56.5 million nights by foreign visitors. This represents a total increase of 2.1% in comparison to the previous year. For domestic visitors this number increased by 1.9% to 313.0 million. More than 30% of Germans spend their holiday in their own country, which shows that Germans love to travel within their own country. [¹]

During 2008 the most visited federal states were: Bavaria with 76.91 million nights followed by Baden-Württemberg 43.62 million nights and Lower-Saxony with 41.52 million nights. The majority of foreign tourists came from the Netherlands with 9.69 million nights, the United States 4.45 million nights and the UK with 4.22 million nights. [¹]

Germany has a lot to offer, from vibrant cities to cosy villages, from sandy beaches to high mountain ranges. Popular perceptions and reasons for holidaying in Germany are: culture (75%), outdoors/countryside (59%), cities (59%), cleanliness (47%), security (41%), modernity (36%), good hotels (35%), good gastronomy/cuisine (34%), good accessibility (30%), cosmopolitanism/hospitality (27%), good shopping opportunities (21%), exciting nightlife (17%) and good price/performance ratio (10%) (multiple answers were possible). [²]

Forthcoming highlights for Germany are: 20 Years since the Fall of the Wall, the Passion Plays in Oberammergau (Bavaria) in 2010 and Ruhr 2010 European capital of culture.

The official body for tourism in Germany is The German National Tourist Board, represented worldwide by local National Tourist Offices in 29 countries.

For the USA the official website for tourism to Germany is http://www.cometogermany.com and http://www.germany-tourism.co.uk for the UK. Both websites offer a variety of information services and a selection of free brochures.

¹ Source: Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (Federal Statistical Office)

² Source: DZT / World Travel Monitor

³ Source: World Tourism Organization

SylviaBaier (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:

• Some of this might be appropriate for Wikitravel.
• Though a small amount of information on tourism (e.g. economic importance) might be appropriate here, the existing article on Tourism in Germany might be more appropriate.
• The tone of some of the above is promotional, and thus not appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide or a directory.
• Sources should be cited with more detail.

--Boson (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

External links

Is the Britannica article a suitable external link according to WP:EL? --Boson (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It provides a large amount of useful information related to the article topic, and is a highly respected publication. Whereabouts does Wikipedia:External links say not to use Britannica? Hayden120 (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the external-links policy, the main point is that (with a few exceptions such as the official Web site of the article subject) one should avoid “any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article”.

In my opinion, the Wikipedia article (including sub-articles) is already much more comprehensive than the Britannica online article, so the Britannica article doesn’t add any more information. Even if it does, that information should probably be incorporated into the Wikipedia article (or sub-article), giving Britannica as a reference, not as an External Link, if appropriate.

As I interpret policy: if suitable information is in Britannica it should be included in Wikipedia (and probably already is); external links are, for instance, for levels of detail not appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia – or Britannica.

For these reasons, I would think that links to Britannica are generally unjustified, though there will be exceptions (such as the Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Britannica) .

--Boson (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to withhold such comprehensive information from the reader just because it could possibly be incorporated into this article at a later date. The Britannica link is an alternate source for readers to draw their information from, and possibly other facts that are omitted from Wikipedia. If anyone wanted to, they could copy all of the information from the CIA World Factbook (as the content is free to use), and paste it into this article. Would that possibility mean that the CIA link cannot be used? Hayden120 (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Offhand, I didn't notice any information that was missing in the Wikipedia articles. There may very well be reasons for omitting the CIA World Factbook link, though I see no reason for pasting the information contained there. I believe some information (not text) from the CIA World Factbook was already incorporated in the article, though it may have since been replaced by better data from other sources, such as the IMF. Personally, I would be in favour of retaining the CIA link because it contains relevant information that is probably too detailled for inclusion in Wikipedia, such as "Manpower reaching militarily significant age annually". There is probably an argument for consistency, but if that is applied in favour of inclusion that would mean having the CIA link for all country articles (which I find acceptable) and having a Britannica link for all Britannica articles for which there is a Wikipedia article. So this discussion might best be continued elsewhere, e.g. WT:WikiProject Countries, WT:EL or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).--Boson (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

universitie fees

Nearly all German universities are public (i.e. non-private) institutions, charging tuition fees ranging from €50–500 per semester for each student.

Acctualy that is not true. There are still a lot of public universities with no fees. It depends on the state (Bundesland) you live in.

Source:

http://www.studis-online.de/StudInfo/Gebuehren/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.230.34 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the second commenter is correct. It depends on the state in which you wish to study.--Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

1945-1949 Germany

Between the fall of Nazi Germany and the division into East and West Germany, what was the full name of that Germany? Was it again the Germany of pre-1933? Or a new manifestation of the country? SGGH ^ping! 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Occupation Germany" of the size of 1937 Germany existed between 8 May 1945 & the Potsdam Conference (16 JUL to 2 AUG 45). The Potsdam Conference changed the size of "Occupation Germany" to be all 1937 German territory west of the Oder-Neisse Line, with the provision that "the Final Peace Conference" could make further adjustments to borders and populations in the 1937 German territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line. The Allied Control Council viewed "Occupation Germany" as one entity for certain purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1947 Vier-Zonen-Karte

I inherited some papers from my grandmother and there was this original map from 1947, from when she was in occupied Germany. It shows the four occupation zones and then it is further broken down into 28 postal zones. I've scanned it and a simple "Enhance" in iPhoto removed most of the yellowness that has occurred as a result of aging. I would hope that it is of value and that someone could find an appropriate place to insert it. I'd like to upload the file, but I don't have the appropriate access. I've signed up for an account, but I'm only really interested in making this one time contribution. If anyone is interested in taking and adding the map to the appropriate section within the Germany page, or a related page, please let me know. The scanned image is 2454x3516 and approximately 9.7MB. Gerbeary (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Gerbeary. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jewish population ranking

The Religion section currently has "Germany has Europe's third-largest Jewish population (after France and the United Kingdom)." (recently changed from "Russia" to "France"). The source cited does not appear to support either Russia or France, and another source suggested that third position is unsure. Does anybody have a reliable source for the rankings?--Boson (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

But it is true, as the article says, that during the last years more Jews prefered emigrating to Germany than to Israel as they, usually Ashkenazies, feel much closer to Germany and the German language (Yiddish is a Germanic language) than to Israel. The Hebrew language is too much different from Yiddish and Israel is a Mideast nation in a conflictive area, so an increasing number of Ashkenazies prefer emigrating to Germany where they feel more integrated.--88.24.242.203 (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The above contributor's comments and insight are simply not true, are totally away from reality and show a profound lack of knowledge of current german/jewish life.

Good and reputable sources on this matter are abundant. I would suggest that you first start by readind the "Juedische Allgemeine" Germany's (internationally aclaimed) leading daily newspapers devoted to the jewish community. You'll find there lots of insights, analysis, studies, newsreports, and this will help you a lot to understand the reality of the Russian-Jewish post 90's emigration to Germany. Furthermore the german government policies, decisions and the impacto on german society have also been thouroughly described, analysed and commentated on the main media press (Spiegel, etc) easly.

more Jews prefered emigrating to Germany than to Israel or feel much closer to Germany

The reason number one for this preference is the exceptionally conditions (read money) that this german post-berlin-wall policy entitles them to. (much to the critic of the Israeli Governement)

Most of Russian who came, would never have left the ex Soviet Union, if it wasnt for this special german policy and the catastrophic collapse of pensions and social security in Russia. Not to Israel, not to anywhere. So it is incorrect to say "preferred". They just grabbed the opportunity. They neither feel closer to Germany nor to Israel. They feel and will continue to feel close to Russia, were they have already spent 2 thirds of their lives.

... feel more integrated.

The issue of the integration and participation of the "russian jews" in the german jewish community, their clashes and success stories is a well documented (and problematic one). Again, read the german (jewish and non jewish ) newspapers.

In their vast majority they were already above 50 when they arrived in Germany, and I would not say that their connection with judaism was/is "that big". Actually because many of them are from mixed marriages, their offspring in Germany, no longer considers itself or has interest in their "jewishness". The cornerstone of they identity is Russia, not Judaism. Again, read the german sources.

Israel is a Mideast nation in a conflictive area

Most of the young, connected to Judaism, educated Russian Jews, have indeed by enlarge emigrated to Israel, Canada or the US. This started happening in the 1970s and peaked in the 90s

feel much closer to... German language (Yiddish is a Germanic language) again this is nonsense, as the vast majority of these people have never spoke yiddish. They spoke Russian and are connected to the russian culture.

"Nationalsocialistic reign" instead of "Third Reich"

IMHO we should replace the title of section 1.6 "Third Reich" by "Nationalsocialistic reign" or something along these lines.

The term "Third Reich" was used by the nationalsocialists themselves to evoke historic legitimacy of their regime. The german word "Reich" means 'realm' or 'empire' and the nationalsocialists believed themselves to be direct successors of the Roman Empire (the "First Reich") and the Holy Roman Empire (the "Second Reich"). Thus, I think the term "Third Reich" does not meat Wikipedia's standards of neutrality as the title of a section dealing with history and should be altered.

On the other hand, reading the article Nazi Germany, one can assume that the term "Third Reich" in the english-speaking world lacks the bad aftertaste as the corresponding german term. I'm not entirely sure how to proceed, then.

Hyugens (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This period is normally referred to as the "Third Reich" in English. In my opinion, since the German word is used, and non-historians probably only use the word in the phrase "Third Reich", to an English native speaker there is no element of legitimacy conferred whatsoever, as might be the case if an English word like empire or reign were used. --Boson (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, the bad aftertaste is very important. It is so important to distinguish between good and bad. And consequently 1,000 years of German history take less space than 12 years of bad aftertaste in this article. Excellent work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.53.172 (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The first Reich would be the Holy Roman Empire, the second the Kaiserreich 1871-1918.--MacX85 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping anyone from writing more on Germany's one thousand years of rich history before the 20th century. If anyone is wondering why there is more about 20th century Germany than pre-20th century Germany, 20th century German history, from the Kaiser to Weimar to Fascism to the Cold War to Reunification and so on, has a more obvious relevance in our world today than Barbarossa.

If "Third Reich" were replaced with a different term, it wouldn't make much sense to replace it with "national socialism," as the latter term sounds far less negative than the former, at least in my English ears, even though the abbreviated "nazi" obviously does have an automatic negative connotation in English. I am not a fluent German-speaker, but as an English-speaker I find the literal term "national socialism" as politically ambiguous as "ministry of truth." So "nazi" and "third reich" I think are more appropriate than "national socialism."

IMHO there is no need to change the title of this particular section. I'm not exactly sure if there are any differences in english, but as a native german I can say, that germans use the term "Drittes Reich" (translated third Reich) is used allmost all the time, refering to the period of nazi reigned germany. Saying this, I can't make ou any need to change the title.

keep third reich because it's standart term in both english and german ('drittes reich')11:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)11:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk)

Formation

At the risk of sounding ignorant, shouldn't the 3rd Reich be added to the formation part of the infobox? All the other major government reigns are there, including the first 2 reichs. You can't just overlook those 12 years. LikeHolyWater (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead sure.

--Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Germany is loacted close to the middle of Eourpe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.24.253.150 (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Formation box sought to avoid such matters as contained in the following abbreviated excerpt from PBS in Wiki Talk in Nazi Germany: "The change in the Basic Law after the reunification of the two parts [of Germany] by a dejure alteration to the German constitution[,] [reflected the desire] to define the current territory of Germany as [the totality of] German territory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd Reich should not be mentioned in the infobox because (1) the Holy Roman Empire denotes (or is meant to denote, see below) the first-ever German state, (2) the Creation of the German Empire denotes the extant (!) German state (according to German jurisdiction, whatever may be interpreted politically), (3) the creation of the Federal Republic denotes the extant political form of the state, and (4) the Reunification denotes the extant (and final) territorial form, as well as it was the major change in the history of Western Germany as well, and last but not least it is the national holiday. The German Confederation of 1815, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, and the German Democratic Republic, all historical, are not mentioned, because it is an infobox on formation and not on history. I do not think that for the sole fact of its evilness the Third Reich should be mentioned here, and this would even imply that today's Germany was somehow formed by Hitler becoming chancellor (an incorrect, and ugly thought). -- By the way, the Holy Roman Empire should be called of German nation, because the H. R. E. in itself was already created in 800 and not 962 (or, if the continuity is disputed, at least a H. R. E.). Even more, it should be replaced in the info box by "Kingdom of Germany" with the date of 843 or 914, as if we are talking about the state of Germany, this is when the Kingdom was formed; in 962 "no more" happened that its king became Emperor. That's why I said "is meant to denote" above. -- Last point: We have to keep in mind that if we call the Third Reich this way (which has become a historical name, that's why I do it) and especially if we likewise call the H. R. E. the first and the German Empire of 1871 the second, we are following Nazi propaganda: The name of the state during the Weimar Republic was "Deutsches Reich" (German Realm) as well. --84.154.43.233 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Population estimates

A population estimate 40 years ahead is non scientific research. It is not a factual reality and usually based on data trends in the past. It resembles crystal balling and has no place in an encyclopedia. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Without the estimates, the article makes it look like Germany's population is expected to grow (we include File:Population of German territories 1800 - 2000.JPG), and it is a good service to our readers to tell them that extrapolating this graph is unscientific. Of course the population projections rely on some assumptions and will be wrong if there is a sudden radical change in German society, but the statement "under reasonable assumptions, it should be expected that German population will shrink" is scientifically perfectly reasonable. It is important that science makes long-term predictions, on which political decisions are then based (think global warming). In other words, I will revert your removal. Kusma (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Germany needs a Census every decade as the U.S. and Spain do. It is time for it so everybody can know what is the real population of Germany, instead of estimates. From 1970 to 1990 West Germany´s population didn´t change and it was expected to shrink...but finally, thanks to immigration from Ausslander (ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe) and Reunification population increased by 22 million people. What will be next? We don´t know because a Reunification with Austria and Eupen (Belgium) is also possible during the next decade, and also the immigration of more Ausslander and other immigrants from Ukraine and Russia. So who knows what will be the population of Germany by 2020.--83.35.181.133 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A population figure in 2050 depends on too many factors which are not inlcuded in this prediction. It is more sincere to tell the readers that any sci-fi movie is a better guess on future developments. Crystal balling has no place at Wikipedia. Lear 21 (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen multiple articles with scientific predictions for the future, particularly 2050—probably chosen for being a clean number. It is research from a reliable source and is clearly marked as being merely an estimation. Under your logic, should we delete all articles that relate to global warming? Isn't that theory a form of crystal balling? Heck, the article for the Sun predicts that "in about 5 billion years, it will enter a red giant phase". Hayden120 (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific predictions aren't the mere speculation that WP:CRYSTAL prohibits. You seem to believe that population predictions are inherently unscientific. Not saying that Germany's population is expected to shrink unless there is substantially more immigration is to keep silent about one of the most important facts about the demographics of Germany. Kusma (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, per WP:CRYSTAL, credible research that employs predictions is perfectly acceptable. Kusma (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The population of a nation depends on economic and political even cultural preconditions. These factors are not included in a prediction trying to foresee a reality in 40 years. Even worse, the the prediction pretends to be a fact based on a trend in certain window o time. It´s too unreliable. This article concentrates on basic facts in the present and the past. There is no place for future fantasies. Lear 21 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no future fantasy in the article, just a statement that helps to put the birth rate and population statistics into a better perspective. Please find a real argument against the inclusion of this relevant and sourced information instead of repeating that you don't like it. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no better perspective. These kind of predictions change all 5 years. In Berlin during the early 90ies most of the demographic experts predicted an increase of population from then 3.3 to almost 4-5 million in 2020. Today it is clear that the Berlin figures are rather stable. Speculation is not a reliable source of statistics. Lear 21 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it relevant for the context of many political decisions that in the 1990s, the population of Berlin was expected to grow. Similarly, it is relevant for current German politics that the population is expected to shrink (even under the assumption that immigration levels and fertility rise quite a lot). The sources by the Federal Statistics Office explain their methodology and seem to fit "credible research that employs predictions". Kusma (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there are too many "ifs" and uncalculated not even considered factors in these projections. Lear 21 (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You already said that you do not like the projections. In fact, you haven't said much else, and have not bothered to answer to any of my points. Do you have any real arguments? Kusma (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a profound reliability concerning these projections. Even more important is that any "futuristic trends" belong in sub-articles. When just scanning the main article about Germany´s Demographics I see several hard facts which are more worthy to be part of the Germany article. It doesn´t make sense to present a "projection" of whatever in the third sentence of a highly shortened text in a section like this. The projection has a low priority, or in other words, the priority of several other basic facts are much higher because they reflect reality. Lear 21 (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nivea isn't a firm

Nivea has been quoted in section Economy as one of the most important companies. But Nivea is a brand only. Please check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.203.73 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannot find where Nivea is listed as company. Please quote sentence.--Boson (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is listed in the Economy section as an important brands. It is nowhere claimed that it is a company. Kusma (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto

I would call "Land of Ideas" a current promotional slogan rather than a motto. --Boson (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed it. "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" is the only thing that comes close to a motto. Kusma (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thirded. I'm German and have never ever heard of a motto "Land of Ideas" or anything close. After a little web research, I found out "Land of Ideas" is a current national initative whose patron is Horst Köhler. 212.202.199.190 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Renewable Energy in Germany

The final paragraph of the section on the German economy is misleading. It only lists the share of renewable energy in total primary energy consumption and not the share of renewable energy in electricity consumption. Germany has a target to achieve a 27% share of renewable energy in electricity supply by 2020 and has already surpassed its old 12% target this year (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany). This development is not captured by the article as it stands. I would suggest the following insertion after the final sentence:

"However, renewable energy is one of the fastest growing energy sources in Germany. The share of renewable energy in electricity supply has increased to 14% in 2007; the German government has set a target to increase this share to 27% by 2020."

Source: German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/40791/5466/

In addition, please provide an authoriative source for the assertion that other sources of energy (which includes renewables) only contributed 3.7% to primary energy consumption since newer data seems to indicate that renewable energy alone already satisfied 8.4% of final energy consumption. (Please also see http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/40791/5466/). Otherwise newer data would need to be inserted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.schoenberg (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ref 139

is in the archive now: http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2006/08/31/gay_city_news_archives/past issues/17334472.txt (http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17334472&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=8 is not working) --WikiAnika (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

publicized is spelled wrong

In the Holy Roman Empire Section. 76.197.3.115 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid and quite common spelling in British English. It should only be corrected if the bulk of the article is in US English. --TS 04:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

British, "non-Oxford" spelling (-ise, -isation) seems to be used consistently throughout the article.--Boson (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

This article was semiprotected 16 May 2007 by Kusma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who cited "Anon vandalism" as the reason.

As it's been over two years I'd like to gather opinions on whether the semiprotection is still necessary. It might now be worth unprotecting to see if the level of vandalism is either very low or managable. It not then we'll have learned something and we can reprotect. I'm also contacting Kusma. --TS 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of FA country articles are protected. The high user traffic at these articles always involves high percentages of unregistered vandalism. The semi-protection has proofed to be a valuable tool. Lear 21 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Whenever it was unprotected in the past it had to be re-protected again within days, and a lot of time was wasted checking for and reverting vandalism. Look at the logs and the edits following previous unprotects. I do not recommend unprotecting. --Boson (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the current rate of editing, the amount of change in the article in any recent week has been quite low, so if the article were kept unprotected for, say, two days as a test, the amount of harm likely to be done by vandals would be minimal and I am quite happy to go through all the edits for that period ensuring that no good edits are lost. Would that kind of test meet your concerns about the time wasted? Of course if extensive vandalism took place I'd cut the experiment short because there would be no point continuing. --TS 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be OK by me, if you stay around for a couple of weeks. The amount of vandalism in a given period varies, probably depending on something like the school holidays in the USA and how fast word spreads.--Boson (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The last thing I want to see is this or any other article messed up by vandals or an excessive burden placed on other editors by IP vandalism. I watch hundreds or articles routinely and (since I started commenting here) this is one of them. If there are no serious objections I'll probably ask for the article to be unprotected soon and I'll watch it like a hawk. --TS 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

After 24 hours following the removal of semiprotection 4 vandalism acts from 4 different IP´s have been conducted. It is enough proof that this article provokes constantly vandalists to pursue their methods. Because the Germany article is one of the most read articles in Wikipedia (Top 200) I request semiprotection to be reinstalled as soon as possible. Lear 21 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Four incidents of vandalism in one day doesn't amount to extensive vandalism in my opinion--certainly not enough to merit semiprotection on an article as closely watched as this. --TS 12:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No IP vandalism on 10th, just one up to noon GMT on 11th. So it seems to vary from day to day and is easy to revert when it happens. This is preferable to semiprotecting because it better fulfils Wikipedia's principle that anybody should be able to edit. --TS 12:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Status as at 2009-09-11 15:17:

Since semi-protection removed:

• 18 edits in total, of which:
• 1 bot edit (Interwiki)
• 0 productive edits (not reverts and not reverted) by people

--Boson (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't require that every edit made be productive, only that it should be made in good faith. This edit made by 155.101.178.88 yesterday is an example. I reverted it because the editor had confused the verb uses of "breakfast" and "lunch" with the noun forms--perhaps someone whose first language is not English. --TS 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And here is a more representative sample of the edits:

• " got there [sic] ass kicked in the war"
• " [The Judiciary of Germany] is the independent arse crack . . . for killing your mum "
• "[ most states] suck their own balls".
• replaced paragraph by " tesdfgsffffffffffffffffggggggggggggggggggggg"
• added " I FRICKING LOVE HAIRY BUSHY SWEATY MOIST PUSSY"
• added " HEIL HITLER"
• Replaced whole article by "Germany is a dirty nazi jew hole and should be nuked"
• added "the poster master has struck again"

--Boson (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The outcome is as follows:

• Semiprotection removed: 09:51, 9 September 2009
• Semiprotection restored: 20:40, 16 September 2009

Diff between start and finish: [1]

Changed to the article in just over a week:

• 1. "The country's news is provided in English by..." -> "The country's news is provided for English speakers by..."

This was an edit made by me in response by an edit by a non-vandal IP edit.

• 2. "Hinduism has some 90,000 adherents (0.1%) and Sikhism 75,000 (0.9%)." -> "Hinduism has some 90,000 adherents (0.1%) and Sikhism 75,000 (0.09%). "

A significant error was fixed by an IP editor.

Vandalism: there were dozens of vandalism edits, all reverted.

How does this compare to a normal week on this article?

Semiprotection, so no vandalism.

• First edit: 15:16, 31 August 2009
• Semiprotection lifted: 09:51, 9 September 2009

Diff between start and finish: [2]

Here there is a lot of textual change due to the extensive use of automated tools to reformat references.

The following text was added: "and Sikhism 75,000(0.9%)." (this was the incorrect calculation that was later fixed by an IP edit).

The dead URL of a reference to Gay City News was updated.

I don't think it's particularly conclusive. If you absolutely cannot stand the idea that people will vandalize an article on a Wiki, and you or someone else will have to click a button to remove it, then semiprotection is the way to go. But for most of us it's a bit more nuanced than that. Perhaps there's an acceptable level of vandalism that brings in benefits.

Well if there is such a level, I don't think we've demonstrated that here. Granted, both changes in the past week were the result of IP edits, but the period of the experiment was too brief to be conclusive. And perhaps, it has to be said, the incidence of vandalism--however reliably it is removed--does freak some latterday Wikipedians out in a way that it didnt in the early days. --TS 21:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Who's freaked out? I expect most people who have a lot of Germany-related articles on their watchlist are just a little fed up with spending too much time working on articles where something like 95 percent of all edits are made by people with no interest in producing an encyclopaedia (and people repairing the damage). Now that some of the kids are apparently back to school, I for one am glad that the article is semi-protected again. --Boson (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it's significant that the article improved twice during the week, on both occasions due to IP edits. There is also a good argument, which you have expressed well, against allowing anybody to edit. But this is a wiki. The reason we have an article now is because anybody can edit. --TS 23:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest that people who find the presence of articles on their watchlists to be a burden should feel free to adjust their watchlists. Wikipedia is not obliged to adjust its activities so as to avoid annoying people who have watchlists. I write as one who is watching many hundreds of articles and intervenes several times a day. --TS 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Germany article is one of the few FA rated articles at Wikipedia. It is mature, accurate and extensive. Believing that some random IP editor is able to add significant content is possible but highly unlikely. On the other side the article is much more likely to draw vandalism from unregistered IP´s because of its prominent issue and its high user/reader traffic. This preconditions are to my eyes so obvious, that is was naive to remove the semiprotection in the first place. Lear 21 (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

GDP typographical error

Country data indicates that nominal GDP is over 3000 trillion. A comma was used instead or a period.

Then replace said comma with a fullstop? --Île_flottante~Floating island ^Talk 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sports in Germany

The Allianz Arena in Munich is not only used by FC Bayern München but also by TSV 1860 München Mbs z (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

German Defense Secretary

The name of the current defence secretary neds to be actualized. It's not Franz Joseph Jung anymore but von Guttenberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.69.102 (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And check te numbers nof how many german soldiers are located abroad actually. The article talks about about 2006, and we are three years ahead now.

This needs to be corrected, especially because we are on Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.69.102 (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Boson (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There´s a citation of a statement of the actual defence secretary, that is wrong. The actual break is: "In 2009, Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg stated that conditions in Afghanistan were "like a war",(...)."

Actually he said, that he can understand if there are soldiers, who experience the condistions in Afgahnistan as a war. The difference is, that he quotes the soldiers in order to avoid an own statement. So the english translation of his speech, that is quoted in the newspaper that is linked at the wiki-article (No. 59, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/1104/1224258027039.html) nearly got it right. So if this statement is that important that it has to be quoted, consider a revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.125.227 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. He did say he understood soldiers who said there is a war in Afghanistan [my emhasis].

He also said what was quoted in translation in the Irish Times (the footnote provides the exact quote). I have added an additional reference with the exact quotation in German to show that the translation in the Irish Times is correct. Here is an excerpt from the verbatim report of the interview, showing both statements:

zu Guttenberg: Ich will ganz offen sein. In Teilen Afghanistans gibt es fraglos kriegsähnliche Zustände. Zwar ist das Völkerrecht eindeutig und sagt: Nein, ein Krieg kann nur zwischen Staaten stattfinden. Aber glauben Sie, auch nur ein Soldat hat Verständnis für notwendige juristische, akademische oder semantische Feinsinnigkeiten? Und: Manche herkömmliche Wortwahl passt für die Bedrohung von heute nicht mehr wirklich. Ich selbst verstehe jeden Soldaten, der sagt: In Afghanistan ist Krieg . . .[my emphasis].

--Boson (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Biodiversity

Someone should replace the first citation in the Biodiversity section. Thank you. –Radu Gherasimdiscussion 20:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found another ur on the same website that lists the ecoregions. However, I was forced to change the content as well. It's weird that I cannot find the information apparently hosted by the WWF previously. Anyway, now it is sound again. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

World War II

No Section for germany in world war 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.129.127 (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be the section Third Reich (1933–1945). If it were split into two sub-sections, the first would only be one short paragraph.

--Boson (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Amendments to the constitution

{{editsemiprotected}} In the section about the government and the constitution (Basic Law) the article says, that "the articles guaranteeing fundamental rights, the separation of powers, the federal structure, and the right to resist attempts to overthrow the constitution are valid in perpetuity and cannot be amended". This is only partly true, as the perpetuity extends only to the principles laid down in article 1, guaranteeing that human dignity is inviolable, and in article 20, guaranteeing democracy, republicanism, social responsibility, federalism, rule of law and the right of resistance. The fundamental rights can be changed in their contents and most of them could even be deleted from the constitution, unless they are absolutely necessary to keep the other principles that cannot be amended. The fundamental right to seek asylum (article 16) for example has been amended, same as the fundamental right to privacy in one's home (article 13). Furthermore, the rule of law as one of the unchangeable principles of state is missing. I propose to change the aforesaid sentence to the following:

"the articles guaranteeing human dignity, the separation of powers, the federal structure, rule of law and the right to resist attempts to overthrow the constitution are valid in perpetuity and cannot be amended"

The reference (currently #42) given is correct, it needs not to be changed. The article about the Basic Law does not contain this mistake, maybe it can count as a reference... 134.245.163.45 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for improving the accuracy of this article. Celestra (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DM in infobox

The infobox should not include old currencies. As far as I know, the mark is not legal tender in any Germanan territory. I do not see the relevance of WP:MOSNUM, so I think the DM should be removed. --Boson (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proper rank of exporters in dispute

Almost all of German exports are to other EU nations which use the Euro, are a short distance away, face no import/export duty and as such most of its "exports" are really more like domestic internal trade. The existence of the EU as a new kind of entity makes internal EU trade a bit hard to define as "exports" in the traditional sense because many of the economic realities of traditional exports (lack of different currencies especially) are no longer apparent in the EU.

I propose adding in addition to the current ranking, an alternative ranking of Germany's exports be added showing it's exports to non-EU states, which is the only valid comparison to the exports of other nations (China/USA/India) which are not in the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.77.79 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source comparing countries on that basis? --Boson (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The WTO has a ranking excluding intra-EU trade, which, naturally, treats the EU as a single economy and shows the EU as the largest exporter, ahead of China and the USA. --Boson (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If ths article was about the EU, that ranking might be relevant. According to the German government, the majority of German "exports" are to other European states:

"About three quarters of exports of goods “made in Germany” were shipped to European countries." http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/EN/Navigation/Statistics/Aussenhandel/Handelspartner/Handelspartner.psml Why don't we include at least that quote/information? ...which I think is relevant since no trade rules/duty/currency exchange need take place as is the case with trade between non-EU member states which is much more similar to domestic trade in a geographically large country than it is to ocean-going trade, duty-due trade and different-currency trade involed in trade elsewhere... Germman trade with Austria is much simpler than even China/Brazilian/Australian/American domestic trade and it's relevant to see how much German trade (relatively little) is to outside the EU.

Furthermore, there is another statistical exaggeration of German "trade"; namely exports and imports through European nations with sea ports (e.g. Hamburg) are "recorded at the frontier country where the goods are placed under the customs procedures." http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/EN/ext_base.htm ...meaning that...

"a car from Japan which pays import duty on arrival in Germany can be shipped to Belgium or Poland and sold there in the same way as a German car. No further duty is charged"

http://europa.eu/pol/comm/overview_en.htm ...even though this is rather deceptively recorded as GERMAN trade.

all this is relevant because Germany, while happy to promote whatever possible trade they can as German "exports", is in fact by world standards NOT exporting as much as they claim in the traditional sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.77.79 (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the cited source or similar should be used to update and expand the information on Germany's trading partners. I would suggest putting the details in the sub-article Economy of Germany and summarizing them to the extent of stating the proportion of exports to EU countries in the appropriate section. --Boson (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see you agree which is nice, I'd like to research this issue a little more when I have the time. I'm not clear at the moment whether, say, a car built in France but exported through Hamburg is counted as a German export and likewise whether all imports through Haburg count as German imports whether or not their final destination is somewhere else in the EU. I'll put something together when I have the time... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.77.79 (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually due to the Common Market counting imports/exports of individual EU member states doesn`t make sense anymore. Germany is nevetheless a big export nation. --77.181.234.106 (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

German cities

Wouldn´t it be interesting to have a table of the largest German cities ? Several other country articles have introduced such a table. Friedrichshainer (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, many cities are already represented in several sections, so the need of an extra table seems not very urgent. The German Lander table also lists all capitals. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I still believe, a new table could be a usefull thing. Friedrichshainer (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the top 5 at least would be nice. --77.181.234.106 (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The DM

I think that the DM should be at least a subheading, as it was OUR Currency until 2001, All the other European Countries have there old currencies, The DM Was the strongest Currency in Europe Until the Euro Came in, can someone please put the DM In the Subheading ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigzomack (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

DM, Reichsmark and stuff are things of the past. --77.181.234.106 (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation for External Relations

The ^[48] note is dead. Please insert a new link. – Radudiscussion 13:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. – Radudiscussion 14:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation in Demographics

^[62] reference should be verified. I can find were it says: ″The largest group (2.7 million) is from Turkey, and a majority of the rest are from European states such as Italy, Serbia, Greece, Poland, and Croatia.″ — Radudiscussion 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

 Not done No need, it's a well known fact that Turkish people are the largest immigrant group, and that they are a fairly significant proportion of the populace. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 14:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, recently I heard on the radio that now more people in Germany speak Russian as native language than Turkish. About 6 million people (Russian as a 2nd language not counted). This also coincides with this article on German wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russischsprachige_Bevölkerungsgruppen_in_Deutschland

There has been a strong influx from Russia and Kazakhstan since the early 1990s. Most of them ethnic Germans (though not speaking German anymore) and Jews and their Russian husbands or wives. Living in Düsseldorf close to a big new Russian supermarket CONTINENT I wasn`t astonished. --77.181.234.106 (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Society

beside the mentioned people, the foreign ministry "guido westerwelle" ist another openly gay person 87.78.192.77 (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source (which should not be hard), feel free to mention him in the sentence (maybe as "the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (FDP) and current foreign minister"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP cannot edit this semi-protected article.

Also, I am not sure what to do about this homosexual information. Shall we really keep on adding every VIP that is openly gay?

We started by Wowereit and then, of course, we had to include Beust as well, because major of Berlin and Hamburg are comparable positions. Now, we have Westerwelle, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, arguably more important than the other positions. I agree, that we cannot mention the former two while omitting the latter. My proposition would be to make a generic statement without any names.

Another argument against listing people is that we do not list the politicians that are openly heterosexual. I know that is much more common, but still. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware about the semi. What is somewhat interesting is that Wowereit, Westerwelle, and Beust represent the three most "traditional" (for lack of a better word) political parties - social, liberal, and Christian democrats, respectively, and hence illustrate how much acceptance homosexuality has gained in mainstream society. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Green Party, you have Volker Beck. Nobody of the Left comes to my mind. If we find someone, we might say something along the line homosexuality is widely accepted in the German society; in every major political party, there are key figures who are open about their homosexuality. It still sounds rough (and of course the CSU will be missing), but at least we get lost of the name dropping. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sabine Jünger is openly homosexual, but I have to admit that I did not know here, which compromises key figures.

And yes, the term traditional political parties referring to CDU, SPD, and FDP is contentious and should be avoided. Also, we should not forget about the CSU, and I am afraid it would be difficult to find someone there. Perhaps parts of the society are not as tolerant as we are trying to picture here. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The CSU is actually rather known for homophobic members of parliament like Norbert Geis. --93.130.240.178 (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That was actually rather my point. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Westerwelle as the new foreign minister and vice-chancellor would fit in the line of the mentioned two mayors. Friedrichshainer (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I find it kind of stupid to keep extending this name dropping list. I would prefer a generic statement that German politicians admit publically to be homosexual. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Map

There is a new map in the division and reunification history part. I don´t think it is usefull to have a map showing several allied sectors. After all, there were 2 independent German nations after the second World War. That is what should be shown. Friedrichshainer (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Map was exhaustively discussed already, see the archives. The majority favored it, the only (but very stubborn) opposition came from the currently blocked (6 months) sockpuppeteer Lear 21 (talk · contribs) (to some extent aided by a completely separate sockpuppeteer Molobo (talk · contribs)(6 months remaining of 1 year block and on parole from an indef. block)) --Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true what Stor is writing. I vividly remember the discussion. There was a strong majority favoring the detailed map. At one point we just all gave up, because Lear reverted again and again even though he was alone with his opinion.

My point of view is that, in addition to showing the borders of the GDR and the FRG, the detailed map shows the destiny of all territories that were German in 1937. We do not have a visualization for this elsewhere in the article, not even do we have Germany in the borders of the 20's and 30's. Introducing the detailed map with the appropriate caption solves all problems with one shot. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In my eyes, the new map looses the focus on what really happened. Now it looks like that during 1945-1990 Germany was divided in four (even 5) territories. That was not the case (to my knowledge;). After all two more or less souvereign states existed in this time. The new map also doesn´t show the East/West division which is also more important in my eyes. Friedrichshainer (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the focus of this map, and hence the GDR-FRG division is not so obvious. However, the information is in there ad together with the caption, the reader gets this information. Perhaps we could work on the file to make the two states show up more clearly and identifiable. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is a difference from what is shown and what is written in the caption. At the moment we have a map that tries to implicate that for the whole period (1945-1990) 5 different sectors (5 different Germanies?) existed. I find this misleading. I checked our German site. They use the 5 sectors map only the period 1945-1949 which makes sense. The East/West map on the other side is used to show the division and the 2 states, which should be used here as well. By the way, what are the arguments for the new map anyway ? Friedrichshainer (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just thought you might want to know that Friedrichshainer (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a suspected sock and sockmaster Lear 21 (talk · contribs) is now indefinitely blocked. KJohansson (talk · contribs) is another confirmed egregious puppet who has edited these same articles and needlessly wasted so much of our time. I would suggest that you keep a close eye for any future sanction evasion since some of you seem to know some of his predilections. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Cuisine again

Same opinion here. I would even say, that there is no true typical cusine for private festivities in germany. If you really want to chose something special for _private_ parties, chose potato salad with sausages. And I totally miss the typical bavarian food, knuckle of prok, fried potatoes and "Currywurst" - sausage with curry sauce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.180.18.131 (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Potato salad is very common at private partys. Currywurst is normally not served at private partys, but it is the most eaten food in cafeterias and takeaways. The most "german" food is bread. No other country has such a variety (truly noteworthy) and eats so much of it. LennStar(ger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.46.157 (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hitler picture

Having a random portrait of Hitler in the history section which is meant to outline the history of Germany as a whole in a few sections, when there are no other portrait photos except for Martin Luther, is POV and UNDUE. Sections on other eras use maps to explain the territorial situation, the main purpose of this summary of the history of Germany as a nation-state. A random portrait photo is less informative than a map explaining German territorial conquests, which affected millions of people. Urban XII (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The section displays the 2 significant images in order to portray a 12 year era. Dictatorship and war were at its core. The recently introduced map of axis powers and their territory spread have have neither proofed sustainable historic impact, nor does it examplify the era in terms inner german developments. Lear 21 (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How is this particular portrait photo (which could have been taken anywhere, anytime) one of the "the 2 most significant images"? Your claim that the territorial situation did not have an "historical impact" is hilarious. It had a much larger historical impact than a random portrait of a politician. Actually, other sections, like "Division and reunification", have one map and one picture as well. The fact remains that only including portraits of Luther and Hitler in this particular summary of German history, the first section in the main Germany article, is POV, UNDUE and even possibly racist, as it deliberately attempts to associate German history primarily with Hitler (who only ruled for 12 years out the 2000 years of history covered by the section). There are a number of other historical figures that are equally important, but generally, a brief summary of Germany as a nation-state should avoid the use of portrait photos, which are seldomly informative in this context. The section simply is too short for portrait photos. Urban XII (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the people who don't have a portrait, even if they had a more lasting influence:

• Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor
• Henry the Lion
• Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor
• Frederick II of Prussia
• Wilhelm II, German Emperor
• Otto von Bismarck (founded the German nation-state)
• Konrad Adenauer (rebuilt Germany)
• Helmut Kohl (reunited Germany)

Urban XII (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Russia does not have a portrait of Joseph Stalin, even though Stalin had a much more lasting influence, ruling the country for a much longer period of time and still being considered a hero by many Russians. And Serbia does not start with a portrait of Slobodan Milosevic. Cambodia does not have a portrait of Pol Pot. And so on and so forth. Urban XII (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The section Third Reich exist only because of an individually focused dictatorship (Führerkult). The period spans the beginning and the end (because of death) of a single persons reign, namely Adolf Hitler. A varying set of implications on Germany even after the period (until 1990) have been crucially caused by this dictatorship, lead by Hitler. The recently introduced map ofs conquests led by the regime was one among many implications but have no longlasting impact on Germany as a state and can be considered of minor value. In fact, the conquests (the war) were the cause of the opposite, a divided country and a loss of territories. After all Hitler is arguably the most influential figure of the 20th century, thats why an image in this section is justified. BTW, Bismarck IS visually represented in the section German Empire. Lear 21 (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the map is an improvement; given the choice between the two, I would definitely choose the Hitler picture.

I think we want something that is emblematic of the Third Reich, not a map that has to be viewed in full resolution to mean anything.

Perhaps we should widen the discussion and ask: what picture do we really want to illustrate the Third Reich? Hitler is obviously on the short list, in my book.--Boson (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article about the Third Reich. This is a section outlining the history of Germany as a nation-state, of which the Third Reich is a very short period. Having a portrait only of Hitler, except Luther, in the history section in the main Germany article is clearly racist, POV and UNDUE, and a deliberate attempt to associate the main Germany article primarily with Hitler. It's also against standard applied to other articles and sections. A section on a 12-year period out of 2000 ought to be very short, and it already has a picture. Other sections have a picture and a map, hence, a picture and a map is a good solution. A portrait carries no real information value. Urban XII (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The question is not "what picture do we really want to illustrate the Third Reich?". The question is: Which pictures are appropriate in the history overview section covering German history in the past 2000 years at the top of the main Germany article? Hitler is not on my short list (especially considering the fact that there are no other portraits except Luther, who founded Protestantism and has had a lasting religious, cultural and political influence over 500 years in half of the continent). Besides, there are a number of other pictures that could illustrate the Third Reich much better than a random portrait of one person. Urban XII (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I came across this discussion randomly, by checking out an edit in "Recent changes" for vandalism. After reading the discussion and looking at the article, I would vote for a picture of Hitler - Hitler was clearly the central figure of the Nazi years, and he is emblematic of this period in which Germany was affecting the world in many ways. Unless you click on the map, the image is too small to convey any information; Hitler's image is iconic of the era and has immediate impact. Brianyoumans (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't have votes at Wikipedia. You simply keep ignoring the fact that there are no other portraits except Luther. It's irrelevant whether he was "central" during the Nazi years. Helmut Kohl was central during the Cold War and the German Reunification, yet, he has no portrait in the history section. Urban XII (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is quite common on talk pages to take polls to see what to do with an article. Obviously, editors are not bound by the results, but if a large majority of editors - especially those closely involved with the article - favor one option, it is certainly a good idea for the minority party to reconsider. No one likes an edit war. If those closely involved can't come to a decision, you can ask for outside help. As a reasonably experienced editor, I was just giving you my opinion, for what it is worth. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is misleading to say that "there are no other portraits except Luther". There are pictures of Luther, Bismarck, Horst Köhler, Angela Merkel, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Beethoven, Kant, Michael Schumacher, and Claudia Schiffer. Speaking historically, I think Hitler is perhaps just a teeny weeny bit more important than Claudia Schiffer. --Boson (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You certainly don't need to click on the map to get the picture. An alternative solution is to remove the second image altogether and just keep the other one. After all, one picture is enough for such a short period in this section. Urban XII (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Propose one, perhaps another on ethan the territories occupied during WWII.

As to the 12 years out of 2000. You shold not forget that years weigh differntly as concerns historical impact. History is always seen from today. So, twelve years in the 20th century are more important for us than in the 7th century. Moreover, is the weight not just a function of the time passed since. The 12 Nazi years are more important to write about than the years between 1952 and 1964. I am sorry for this reasoning, which is probably all too obvious, but I just do not like to see fabricated arguments like 12 years out of 2000 must result in a shorter section.

As to the question of having Hitler on display, I think we woud have talk page sections started over and over again if excluded him, with the criticism that we are trying to hide something. Unfortunately, he just is the face that comes to peoples mind when they think about Germany, not just Nazi Germany. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. So can we put a picture of Stalin on the Russia article, or Mao Zedong on the China article? After all, their faces come to mind when I think of Russia and China. And not just the Soviet Union and Communist China. Mkemper331 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about the Third Reich section of the article on Germany here, so this is somewhat off topic. I suppose the equivalent section would be Soviet Russia in the article on Russia, and I am quite happy to have a picture of Lenin there. Since Hitler was Reichskanzler and Führer of Germany and Stalin was Premier of the Soviet Union, it might be more appropriate to depict Hitler in the article on Germany and Stalin in the article on the Soviet Union (in the appropriate historical sections, of course). What would be your suggested picture for the Third Reich section? --Boson (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend, as suggested before, a map, possibly showing the greatest extent of German control in Europe, or an animated one showing its growth and then its destruction. An animated timeline, of sorts. Mkemper331 (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By Urban's arguments, this map refers to one year, or arguably six years. Hitler stands for the national-socialist period in a whole.

We won't get this article stable by showing almost a dozen Germans while leaving out the most famous/notorious one. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"This is not an article about the Third Reich. This is a section outlining the history of Germany as a nation-state, of which the Third Reich is a very short period. " — Odd to chose a map of even more temporary territory gains and losses during a war then. How about some heaps of dead Jews if you don't like Hitler? Lars T. (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This argument is utter nonsense. The significance of which parts of Europe which were under German control during WWII cannot be underestimated and are of much greater importance than a random portrait of a single person. The main issue, however, is the question: Which portraits should be used in the history section of the main Germany article. Using only Hitler and Luther is racist and clearly motivated by Germanophobia. I will continue to oppose Germanophobia in this article. The fact that other sections have pictures of Claudia Schiffer (which doesnt quite make sense to me anyway) is irrelevant, this is about the history section. Urban XII (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is Germanophobic about having a picture of Hitler in the section on the Third Reich? --Boson (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may just say; as a German Citizen. I am not at all offended by the use of an image of Hitler on wikipedia. If anything, I would be digusted if this disgraceful period of time were censored...

Also, I don't think an image of the following two is at all needed, considering the fact that if you asked one random person on the street, "Do you know who Hitler was?", 999/1000 would know at least the out line of his crimes. Whereas the following two; you may find Germans who don't know who them...

• Henry the Lion
• Konrad Adenauer (rebuilt Germany)

--Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 17:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, Konrad Adenauer is THE key figure in the history of the Federal Republic. Pretty much like Charles de Gaulle for modern France. Henry the Lion, even though very important in his time, is actually really without any importance for modern Germany. --77.181.234.106 (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the photo of Hitler is defended as a defining image of Nazi Germany, but some fear that it will be considered offensive, why not replace his photo with an image of the Swastika? I think we can all agree that it is as iconic of that era, if not more so, than Hitler's image. Also, Urban XII makes a good point in his argument that images of other German leaders be incorporated into the article. I feel that at least that of Otto von Bismarck, who is regarded by many as the founder of modern Germany, should be incorporated.--Alang pennstate '13 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitler picture consensus

The Third Reich / Nazi Germany section had a picture of Hitler when the article achieved Featured-Article status. It has had a picture of Hitler since 2006. The editor who removed it recently and has been resisting all attempts to replace it is the one who needs to establish a new consensus, not the people who are restoring it. The picture should be replaced restored and remain until a new consensus is reached. --Boson (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler is arguably the defining "politician" of a German state in the 20th century. No matter what "good" or "bad" influences this individual exerted it was relevant to European and world history. The image of Hitler has to be a part of a decent and comprehensive history of Germany. Lear 21 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, Lear 21l. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a photo of Hitler, because he was the defining figure of Nazi Germany, is appropriate. However, Urban XII made an interesting suggestion that I also agree with. A photo of Otto Von Bismarck, earlier in the history section, would be appropriate, as he is known as the founder of modern Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alang pennstate '13 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that a photo of Hitler would be appropriate. But if including it is considered racist or "Germaniphobic", then let me reiterate my suggestion of replacing Hitler's photo with an image of the Swastika. In my belief, it would be as recognizable as Hitler's photo.--Alang pennstate '13 (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I only know of one person who claims to consider the image Germanophobic. The use of the swastika is considered "offensive", even illegal in Germany, its display or publication being extremely restricted. We already have a picture of Bismarck, shown at an appropriate moment, in the appropriate section. Perhaps we should make the picture larger. --Boson (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

An image of Hitler rather than the swastika please, the swastika is an offensive ideology, whereas the picture of Hitler is just a photo of a chancellor. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 21:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will retract that suggestion then. I looked it up and found out that information about the swastika being illegal. I'm not an expert on German history, and was just floating a suggestion.--Alang pennstate '13 (talk) 09:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should not place the swastika on the article, but I do not think that we were not allowed to do so. In the context we are discussing, swastikas may well be displayed. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

For documentation purposes it is allowed. However, I would not recommend using it. The Hitler photo is not one of the widely known ones, so there should be no specific problem with "ideologically burdened". LennStar(ger) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.46.157 (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

I see semi-protection expired, and the protection template was removed today. I also see several cases of vandalism in a few hours. Time to re-install semi-protection? --Boson (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Kusma ^talk 12:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondary education includes three traditional types of schools based on a pupil's ability as determined by teacher recommendations

While this sentence is true in some cases I do not think it is whole the truth. In all German Bundesländer it is possible to enroll a student who was recommend for the Gymnasium in a Hauptschule or Realschule and in case of some Bundesländer and Gymnasien it is also possible for a student who was not recommended for a Gymnasium to be admitted into one. Admssion procedure vary very much by Bundesland and Gymnasium. Some Gymnasien do not want the Lehrerempfehlung, but have interviews. Some (very few) admit their students on basis of entrance exams or IQ-tests. It's also not true that the Gymnasien only serve "the most gifted kids". Few do. Most serve the ones who did well in primary school no matter what their IQ might be.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

See also: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehrerempfehlung --Greatgreenwhale (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So i think this should be changed.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I do not understand why my chages has been reverted. Unfortunately the article makes wrong statement, which I corrected.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In order to be verifiable, your contributions must cite reliable sources. If you make a change without citing such a source, it stands a good chance of being reverted, irrespective of whether you know it is true. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 00:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

But actually I just deleted unsourced statements that were wrong. So how could I have a source for that? How I know they are wrong? See, because I attended a Gymnasium and I was never tested for IQ. It is not a school for the gifted.... but it is hard finding a source stating that it is not, because the vast majority of Germans knows it is not, so why would anone write an article about this. I do not understand, why this is okay to make an unsourced statement about Gymnasium being a school for the gifted, but not okay to delete it without citing sources.

Also the German article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehrerempfehlung, which has sources states that "teacher recommendations" are necessary only in some German states. This article states the same.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I am going to changes this again.

I would also change "catering mostly for students from immigrant families, inner-city Hauptschulen were increasingly considered dysfunctional" to "having low standards of achievement and catering mostly for students from non asian immigrant families, inner-city Hauptschulen were increasingly considered dysfunctional", because the fact that a school caters for immigrants does not neccessarily make it a bad school. Only if it also has low standards it is a bad school. Asian immigrants are less likely than ethnic Germans to attend a Hauptschule and the are more likely than ethnic Germans to attend schools that have high standards of achievement. So some of Germanys best schools actually serve lots of (asian) immigrants. So I'll change "immigrant families" to "non asian immigrant families". (see: http://www.zeit.de/2009/05/B-Vietnamesen )--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I would like to write:

Responsibility for educational oversight in Germany lies primarily with the federal states individually, whilst the federal government only has a minor role. Optional kindergarten education is provided for all children between three and six years old, after which school attendance is compulsory for at least nine years. Primary education usually lasts for four years and public schools are not stratified at this stage. There are several types of secondary schools such as the Hauptschule (a school preparing students for vocational education), the Realschule (a school preparing students for technical education and Gymnasium), the Gymnasium (college preparatory school) and several types of comprehenesive schools. In some States of Germany those wishing to attend a Realschule or a Gymnasium need a so called "Lehrerempfehlung" (a letter written by their teacher stating that the student will be able to make a successful transistion into that type of school) in others they do not need that kind of letter. Gymnasien tend to be the most academically selective schools. However it was ruled that in the State of Berlin Gymnasien should be able to pick only 70 % to 65 % of their students, the other places at the Gymnasien are to be allocated by lottery. Every child will be able to enter the lottery, no matter how he or she performed in primary school. It is hoped that this policy will increase the number of working class students atteding a Gymnasium.

Some States of Germany such as Berlin and Hamburg abolished the Hauptschule and the Realschule and students can attend only comprehensive schools or the Gymnasium.

Mediocre scores in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), first published in 2001, prompted a nation-wide debate about the school system, and in particular about the social selectivity of early stratification[108];

Equality of scholastic outcomes is seen as desirable goal in Germany, yet this goal has not been reached. Middleclass children are more likely than working class children to attend a Gymnasium (college preperatory school) and children from non-east-asian immigrant families are less likely than ethnic Germans to attend one, while children from east asian immigrant families are more likely then ethnic Germans to attend one

• 1. Some have demanded Hauptschulen to be abolished. Having low standards of achievement and catering mostly for students from non-asian immigrant families, inner-city Hauptschulen were increasingly considered dysfunctional
• 2. Others have demanded that highperforming schools such as the Gymnasium should be closed down, because they mostly serve children from middleclass and upperclass families.
• 3. Still others want quotas to be established to help to help working class children who did not do well in school gain access to a Gymnasium (University-preparatory school). It has also been demanded that universities should employ affirmative action in order to help non-asian immigrants gain access to universities.

Outside the metropoles, the population is shrinking, so that according to some people it becomes increasingly unpractical to maintain a three- or four-tier school system.

How do you think about this? May be it is to long and immigrants and inner city Hauptschulen should not be mentioned at all, but if they are mentioned I think that whole topic of equlaity of outcome should be mentioned. How do you think about this?--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Nobody answered. So does this mean you all appreciate this? If you don't please object, because if you don't I am likely to insert this into the article.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is rather long; that is why it uses "summary style" with "sub-articles". This section is only supposed to contain a summary of the sub-article Education in Germany; so I think it is much too long and detailled for here, and you want to first alter Education in Germany. You might also want to consult and cite

• Brigitte Lohmar (2008). "Das Bildungswesen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2007" (pdf) (in German). Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Retrieved 2009-12-31. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

--Boson (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thanks for your answer. Still the article contains inaccurate information and should be altered. If it is supposed to be a short summary, it could be like this:

Responsibility for educational oversight in Germany lies primarily with the federal states individually, whilst the federal government only has a minor role. Optional kindergarten education is provided for all children between three and six years old, after which school attendance is compulsory for at least nine years. Primary education usually lasts for four years and public schools are not stratified at this stage. There are several types of secondary schools such as the Hauptschule (a school preparing students for vocational education), the Realschule (a school preparing students for technical education and Gymnasium), the Gymnasium (college preparatory school) and several types of comprehenesive schools. The Hauptschule and the German comprehensive schools are open to every student, while the Realschule and the Gymnasium are selective schools. In some States of Germany students wishing to apply for a Realschule or a Gymnasium need a so called "Lehrerempfehlung" (a letter written by their teacher stating that the student will be able to make a successful transistion into that type of school) in others they do not need that kind of letter. It was ruled that in the State of Berlin Gymnasien should be able to pick only 70 % to 65 % of their students, the other places at the Gymnasien are to be allocated by lottery. Every child will be able to enter the lottery, no matter how he or she performed in primary school. It is hoped that this policy will increase the number of working class students atteding a Gymnasium.

The States of Hamburg and Berlin have abolished the Hauptschule and the Realschule and have only Gymmnasien and comprehensive schools.

Comment: I think the lottery should be mentioned, because all ways to gain access to a Gymnasium should be mentioned.

Mediocre scores in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), first published in 2001, prompted a nation-wide debate about the school system, and in particular about the social selectivity of early stratification[109];Having low standards of acheivement and catering mostly for students from non East-Asian immigrant families, inner-city Hauptschulen were increasingly considered dysfunctional; outside the metropoles, the population is shrinking, so that according to some people it becomes increasingly unpractical to maintain a three- or four-tier school system.

Comment: I am not sure if that should be mentioned. While it is definetly true, that some people want to abolish Hauptschule, because they think it promotes social inequality, others want to abolish Gymnasium or enforce quotas. The article as it is now mentions only abolishing Hauptschule, so I think that is slightly POV.

If it is mentioned I think "immigrant families" should be changed to "non East Asian immigrant families".

I am anot sure if the shrinking population shopuld be mentioned in this article. It is not mentioned in Education in Germany. If we want to keep thsi sentences to my mind we should change "so that it becomes increasingly unpractical to maintain a three- or four-tier school system." to "so that according to some people it becomes increasingly unpractical to maintain a three- or four-tier school system."

A special system of apprenticeship called Duale Ausbildung ("dual education") allows pupils in vocational training to learn in a company as well as in a state-run vocational school.[108]To enter a university in Germany, high school students are generally required to take the Abitur examination, which is similar to A-levels in the UK and typically done at the age of 18 or 19. However, students possessing a diploma from a vocational school may also apply for matriculation in certain subjects. Germany's universities are recognised internationally, indicating the high education standards in the country. In the ARWU ranking for 2008, six of the top 100 universities in the world are in Germany, and 18 in the top 200.[110] Nearly all German universities are public (i.e. non-private) institutions, charging tuition fees ranging from €50–500 per semester for each student.

Comment: I think this should stay like this.--Greatgreenwhale (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I would like to hear opinions on that. If nobody answers that will make me believe everybody is pleased with the changes.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me know, if you disagree, because otherwise I will write this.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give that a try.-- Greatgreenwhale (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)