Talk:Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleGermany is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 13, 2011Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 3, 2009, and October 3, 2010.
Current status: Featured article

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020[edit]

"The highest temperature ever recorded in Germany was 42.6 °C on 25 July, 2020 in Lingen and the lowest was -37.8 °C on 12 February, 1929 in Wolznach." Change 2020 to 2019. 91.96.84.25 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK Talk 22:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Two Germanies[edit]

The text says: "After the end of World War II in Europe and a period of Allied occupation, two new German states were founded [...]" This is not right and just the easy explanation; but too easy for a source like Wikipedia. Interesting is the exeption Germany and Germanies what is another y/ie-topic. The GDR (DDR) was a "Völkerrechtssubjekt" and not a state but it was a state to itself and the Sovjetunion including their partners. This Völkerrechtssubjekt was almost treated like a state. In some understanding it was the SBZ (Sovjetisch besetzte Zone); sovjetic occupied zone. Okay, my English is not that good and I just wanna say that the term "two states" is not correct, maybe for kindergartenkids with mentening "Emagine a state, kind of state" in order of a better basic understanding. Later this basic needs to be filled with additional facts because the world is more comlex than much to easy fairytales. Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.240.82 (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The GDR was a state, as it had a population, a territory and a government and interacted with other states. Statehood does not depend on recognition by other states. For more details, you can look at Staat and Völkerrechtssubjekt for details, or at the GDR article at the appropriate section.
I hope I could help clear your misconception. --Yhdwww (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Fully agree with Yhdwww. From 1973 onwards, the GDR was universally recognised in the forum of international relations as being a sovereign state - as in being admitted to the United Nations, and in participating, alongside the Federal Republic, in the Helsinki Accords. Moreover, the West German Federal Constitutional Court, in its 1973 decision approving the Basic Treaty, 1972 between the Federal Republic and the GDR, confirmed that, from the perspective of the constitution of the Federal Republic, the GDR had been a de-jure German state from its foundation in 1949; and hence that the GDR's actions in international relations - specifically the 1950 Treaty of Zgorzelec between the GDR and Poland on their mutual boundary - had been constitutionally valid. TomHennell (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

BRD[edit]

I changed the last edit because, as I mentioned in the edit summary, I don't think the statement that something might be contentious belongs in the article like that. As for the matter itself: I am German myself, I have studied the history of Germany and the two states to some extent, and I believe this is the first time that I hear somebody say that "BRD" as an abbreviation was contentious. Furthermore, even if it had been, it is now certainly uncontended, so the article can, in my opinion, use "BRD" in any case. Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree that it's probably not the best place to have the material on the abbreviation issue
While the article could potentially include material somewhere on how different abbreviations were used at different times, and in a historical context, it shouldn't simply state "BRD" as if it were an official and uncontentious, and the only, abbreviation. In this case the text referred to West Germany within the timeframe of the Cold War, when the abbreviation was a very contentious issue (BRD (Germany) and de:BRD). During the Cold War about half a dozen different abbreviations (see e.g. de:BRD#Konsentierte bundesdeutsche Abkürzungen) were used at various times, some by West Germany and others by East Germany; during the early Cold War East Germany would insist on calling West Germany DBR (Deutsche Bundesrepublik); when East Germany started using BRD West German authorities strongly rejected the abbreviation, and for the last decades of the Cold War use of the BRD abbreviation was highly politicized. --Tataral (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
"BRD" should be kept as the standard and predominant abbreviation of West Germany in both parts of germany. Yes, its usage had a political connotation and was contentious. Nevertheless it was used frequently, whereas the other abbreviations mentioned are rather exotical. Since the use of BRD can be sourced easily be qualified sourced it should stay in the article. An explanation of its policial connotation is appreciated.Nillurcheier (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. --Yhdwww (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Clearly it should be mentioned somewhere, as should the other and official abbreviations used in West Germany, but the article should in no way claim that it was "the standard and predominant abbreviation of West Germany in both parts of germany" which is incorrect. Not even East Germany considered it "the standard and predominant abbreviation of West Germany" within the timeframe referred to, since they for the first twenty years objected to the very name the abbreviation stood for. It's not true that "abbreviations mentioned are rather exotical"; as mentioned in the German article the standard short name in West German usage was probably simply "Bundesrepublik" rather than the contentious abbreviation BRD; often it was sufficient to use "Deutschland" as a short name, and the standard and by far most widely used abbreviation was simply "DE" (the ISO standard abbreviation, used in transportation, postal contexts, and numerous other situations). BRD on the other hand was explicitly rejected by the government of the federal republic, so a discussion of it should indicate its status as contentious, and that it wasn't the only abbreviation used. --Tataral (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Religion in Germany[edit]

Religion could be added to the infobox. Since the 2011 census is quite outdated – and also not entirely accurate, as 17.4% of the population refused to answer –, information from a reliable source such as "Religionszugehörigkeiten 2019". Forschungsgruppe Weltanschauungen in Deutschland [de]. 2020-08-12. could be added. Now, there seem to be some disagreements about which groups to include. I propose the following, which is strictly from the table the source provides:

The source does not provide a figure for Christianity altogether. An alternative could be "52,0% Catholic or Evangelical", which is also mentioned in the source, though I prefer the former. intforce (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have changed the source.Meganpeltz (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Meganpeltz is a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user.VR talk 01:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You've changed it to the 2011 census, which as above is quite outdated - it's unclear why this dated information would warrant such a prominent position in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I would support changing it to the 2019 estimations, though I see no problem with the 2011 census remaining in the infobox. It is the latest available official data after all, with the next census being scheduled for 2022. intforce (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
And is better discussed and contextualized in the relevant section of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
We should work on removing this type of thing for all country infoboxs....so odd it needs to be in articles 3 times.--Moxy 🍁 16:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
With that, you could argue against the inclusion of religion in any infobox. But this discussion is not about religion in country infoboxes in general (Template talk:Infobox country is). As I've said, I support the 2019 figures, which are more meaningful. Ironically, they might even be more accurate than the official 2011 census data, as back then many households refuse to answer, especially those of minority religions. intforce (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the 2019 figures may be more meaningful versus the 2011 figures. But as I said, that discussion is best provided in context. And as you note, what might or might not be appropriate for other articles is best discussed elsewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
What context do you need for the figures? Like population, those are just demographic numbers. The Religion section of the article adds little context, beyond a prose description of the data. By your argument, we might as well remove population numbers from the infobox, because the data is better "provided in context". intforce (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
To begin, there's the context you yourself pointed out: the contrast between the official census figures and what's provided in other sources, and the nonresponse rate in the census figures. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that that particular context is needed for a brief overview in the infobox (especially if the 2019 figures are used), and I see that this discussion is going nowhere. Let us hear opinions from other editors. If there is no consensus here, I'm open for a RfC. intforce (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This data is pretty good, but not perfect. Its origin is mixed. For the 2 large churches, it is church data, which are prezise, however refer to church members, which is not necessarily the same as adherents. Secondly, the muslim data is disputed, since FOWID (=source) introduced the term "religionsgebundene Muslime" (Muslims tied to their religion) which is their OR and other sources come up with higher data (eg PEW >6%). Nevertheless let us keep this solution and be open to add other sources. Nillurcheier (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with intforce. Also ethnicity & religion related data is an important aspect of a country's identity and deserves to be included in the infobox. We already have relevant sections for economy, population, languages too but that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention that data in the infobox.Meganpeltz (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, In this discussion I also want to propose restoration/inclusion of ethnicity data in the infobox of this article which has been missing for quite some time after Nikkimaria removed it [1]. Other country articles such United States, United Kingdom, Canada etc all have ethnicity data in their infoboxes. Why not Germany? Meganpeltz (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What parameters to include or not is decided at an article level, not based on what other articles do or don't have. What specifically are you proposing to include and what is your rationale for wanting to overload the infobox on this particular article? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria how's adding ethnicity & religion related data amount to overloading the infobox especially when it was removed without discussion in the first place by you [2]. Seems like your own POV about what this article should contain or not.Meganpeltz (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, deciding that adding religion to an infobox constitutes "overloading" is your opinion, not a fact. Since it was you who removed religion from the infobox, and as far as I can see in the archives, without seeking discussion first, the removed section should be restored until a new consensus is reached. intforce (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Your objection that "What parameters to include or not is decided at an article level, not based on what other articles do or don't have." doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's like saying capital of Germany can't be mentioned in the infobox because editors here have decided not to. Doesn't matter if other country articles mention their capitals in the infobox or not.

Either you should remove ethnicity data from the infobox of United States or shouldn't object to its inclusion in this article too. Meganpeltz (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I have restorated the well sourced ethnicity and religion data that Nikkimaria removed without discussion until consensus here is reached.Meganpeltz (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
And I have removed it. Please don't continue to add it until there is consensus to do so. It was removed a year ago already, so it can be assumed to be the stable version and the status quo to be maintained during discussion. I see at least two issues: one is the overall length of the infobox. There is no "standard" that requires listing religion and ethnicity there, and what happens in other articles stays in other articles. Though to some extent consistency is helpful, it's an editorial decision for each article. Secondly, and more important, is the accuracy and verifiability of the numbers. If there are several different sets of figures, each from a reliable source, but differing significantly, choosing just one set to display in the infobox may not adhere to the neutral point of view policy. We represent the significant viewpoints of reliable sources, in proportion to the presence of that viewpoint in the sources. That may require a more complex explanation and context given in the text of the article, rather than a bullet point in the infobox. The article has been without them for a year, so there's no rush to change it. If the dispute is stalled after a reasonable period of discussion and proposed solutions, then dispute resolution is the way forward, not repeated edits... --IamNotU (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. See also MOS:INFOBOXUSE: "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". The content of the infobox at United States has no relevance to the content of the infobox here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
You know, it's quite ironic that you quote that, as it was you who removed established content from the infobox, without seeking consensus first. Anyway. Let's wait to hear what others have to say. intforce (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria don't you see the irony here? You talk about consensus and discussion among editors yet you remove well sourced valuable data without any of it & now you are objecting to its re-addition just because only YOU think it will be "overloading" of the infobox. What makes an article say Canada different from Germany in this regard, can you please explain? The former has well sourced ethnic & religion related data in its infobox yet no one has removed it for "overloading". If that's how Wikipedia community is supposed to work with one user "Trimming" massive contributions from other editors than I don't know what to say.Meganpeltz (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
[If you're not interested in a civics lecture, skip to the next paragraph] It's a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that editors are encouraged to be bold and make changes to improve an article, and that they don't require permission, discussion, or consensus prior to doing so. If nobody objects, then consensus is assumed. If someone does object, the customary (though not mandatory) practice is to restore the article to the previous stable version, that is, the version before any recent changes that are disputed, while discussion is in progress. Nikkimaria is a very experienced editor who has put in a significant amount of work improving article in the past year, much of which has been to trim it down to a manageable size, removing unnecessary detail from this general article that belongs in sub-articles, as is suggested in the guidelines. Not everyone has agreed with every edit, and indeed some have been undone. But overall this is a valuable goal. Her changes to the infobox a year ago were bold edits, they didn't require prior consensus or discussion. After all this time, it's not really reasonable to undo those changes and say there was no consensus. There was, and there has been for a year, and they have become part of the stable version. The recent changes, adding demographics content back to the infobox, are also bold edits, and didn't require prior approval. However, they have been objected to, and thus far, consensus hasn't been established. The usual practice would be to remove them until decisions are made. Most importantly though, it doesn't really matter. The content is not hugely controversial, so it could probably stay in, or not, while discussion is going on, and it won't make a big difference to anything. Getting your preferred version online right now is not a useful objective. Soon there will be a consensus, and that's the version that will stay. So please, let's stop pointing fingers, and get to the necessary work of calmly discussing the pros and cons, in order to come to an agreement. [end of lecture]
The fact that many other major country articles have these demographics in the infobox is reasonable to point out. It doesn't guarantee that it should be included, and the reasoning that "this other article has this, so this one must too, or else it has to be removed from the other one" is a well-known argument that has been generally rejected by the community. Nevertheless, one may ask "why?", and expect a convincing answer. In the end, it's the best argument that is carried. Questions of style, and how much detail to include, can be difficult because they are editorial judgements, and though we have some guidelines and can look at common practice, it does involve personal opinions of the editors. All the more reason for calm discussion and listening to what everyone has to say.
The question of whether presenting one particular set of figures in the infobox adheres to the neutral point of view policy is based more on actual evidence, but still there is a certain amount of editorial judgement. It needs to be determined separately for the list of ethnic groups and the list of religions. Meganpeltz has proposed to include a list of ethnic groups: Germans, Turks, Poles, Russians, and Other. The first source cited doesn't have this information, only Germans and Foreigners. The second source doesn't give a figure for Germans, and the rest of the numbers don't match. It's also unclear what the list represents, German citizens with a migration background? Foreign-born citizens, non-citizen residents, or what? These problems already rule out including this in the proposed form. If the sourcing and accuracy can be improved, I would still have questions about the particular list of countries for example, with such a large number in "other". Also, none of this is actually covered in the corresponding text in the Demographics section, and so really should not be in the infobox, since that should be only a summary of the article proper (though it can be argued that this should be in the article proper - for example, the fact that the words "Turkey" and "Turkish" occur only once each in the entire article seems implausible). Similar concerns have already been raised about the religions list. So I would say that there's a fair amount of work to be done before we can really consider adding any of it. --IamNotU (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@IamNotU thanks for your valuable input. My conclusion from reading your perspective is that you as well as all other editors involved in this discussion above except Nikkimaria are not opposed to addition of ethnic and religion related data in the infobox just because it will "OVERLOAD" it. Instead you have genuine concerns about the validity of ethnicity data depending on the sources provided which is understandable. This also means that the religion related data that Nikkimaria removed is well sourced and valid & it's removal was undue.
In summary, any editor should be able to add religion and ethnicity data in the infobox just like other wiki articles without the fear of it being deleted by Nikkimaria, but the prerequisite is that it should be well sourced and not contradictory. Nikkimaria may have contributed a lot to this article but this doesn't give him/her right to impose their views on others about what this article should look like or not, especially if the other editor isn't breaking any wiki rules. Regards Meganpeltz (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I indented your reply, hope that's ok. Actually, I haven't formed an opinion as to whether the value of either of these lists is worth the prominent space they take up in the infobox. I'm not necessarily opposed to the argument of keeping it more concise. That also depends in part on assessing the actual value of the lists: whether they are accurate and contribute to a good understanding of the subject, or whether they may present complex things in an overly simplistic way, or show ambiguous data with false precision or selectivity of sources. The topics of race and religion tend to be sensitive everywhere, certainly no less so in Germany. Wikipedia encourages change and evolution; perhaps this will be the start of a trend of people saying, you know, maybe we don't really need to foreground ethnicity and religion so prominently at the very top of country infoboxes. Or maybe not.
I didn't go into detail about the problems with the religious data, because some were already addressed above, and I'm already writing a lot. But as I mentioned, there are similar issues, for example about presenting only one set of figures in Wikipedia's voice if there are multiple reliable sources that differ significantly. Something I've taken issue with in the past is the presentation of about 40% as irreligious or "no religion". This figure is heavily skewed for example by many who consider themselves Christian but don't attend church, don't want to pay the substantial church tax, and so don't register as such. I see that in a later version it was changed to "unaffiliated", and there's an explanatory footnote attached - that's actually something I wrote [3] to try to ameliorate the problem. Being hidden behind a footnote may not really accomplish it, and again maybe the situation is more complex than can be adequately represented in the infobox. I was aware that it was removed last March, and I didn't object. (PS, if you're going to copy content from past versions, please be sure to give attribution in the edit summary, see WP:COPYWITHIN.)
Finally, I'd ask again that this talk page be used for the purpose of making improvements to the article, and discussing edits, not editors. Meganpeltz, if you feel there's a problem with Nikkimaria's behavior (which I can say is not the case as far as I'm aware), you can address it on her talk page or with an admin. Bringing it up here makes the conversation more difficult and impedes its resolution. Any editor can add things to the infobox, but there's no guarantee that it won't be challenged. If so, each side is obligated to make rational arguments and consider the others' in good faith. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is decided on the strength of the arguments, and how well they correspond with general consensus as documented in the policies and guidelines. If editors reach an impasse, there are procedures for dispute resolution, but we're not there yet. --IamNotU (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@IamNotU thanks for your comprehensive & polite response. Looks like Nikkimaria who reverted my edits & asked to take it to the talk page has herself become uninterested in this conversation.
As you rightly said "The topics of race and religion tend to be sensitive everywhere, certainly no less so in Germany." That's exactly what makes their mention in the infobox important & perfectly reasonable provided that they are well sourced!
You said "Something I've taken issue with in the past is the presentation of about 40% as irreligious or "no religion". This figure is heavily skewed for example by many who consider themselves Christian but don't attend church, don't want to pay the substantial church tax, and so don't register as such" I don't think that's valid objection against my contribution to be honest. Western Europe has a large non-religious population ranging from 25-40% in various countries. Also this goes both ways. There are many people who remain registered with the Church for cultural reasons but don't believe in God. The statistics might differ slightly depending on the source but most give an estimate 55-65% for Christians, 30-40% Non-religious and 5% for Muslims and others. Furthermore, the 2011 statistic that Nikkimaria removed was based on the personal self identification instead of church membership.
You said "If so, each side is obligated to make rational arguments and consider the others' in good faith. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is decided on the strength of the arguments, and how well they correspond with general consensus as documented in the policies and guidelines" Thankyou! So far the only argument the other side has come up with aganist my edits is that it will "overload" the infobox! That's not a very sound argument.
In summary, my suggestion is that the religion related data (56% Christian, 38% Non-religious, 5% Muslim) based on 2018 source that was deleted in March should be added now. And when someone comes up with a well sourced ethnicity data in the future, they should be able to add it in the infobox too without the threat of Nikkimaria "trimming" it. Regards Meganpeltz (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'd like to hear more from Nikkimaria. But I think I've presented some arguments beyond the "overloading" one. You said: I don't think that's valid objection against my contribution - well, considering your contribution regarding that item in the list was to copy my contribution back to the article, it's a bit hard for me to argue against! But if someone (including me) can give a good reason to remove it, I don't object.
Regarding "There are many people who remain registered with the Church for cultural reasons but don't believe in God", I'm not sure that believing in God is a requirement for being Christian - certainly Gretta Vosper doesn't think so. But that too should be explained. When there are multiple sources that give widely different figures, depending on the method of calculating or the questions asked, and when its a "depends how you look at it" sort of situation, prominently presenting a single set of numbers as fact is usually not neutral enough. When it's presented in the article text, it can say "according to source abc, the numbers are this, but according to survey xyz, they're that". The policy that we "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each" is one of the most central and non-optional concepts of Wikipedia. --IamNotU (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
There are multiple reasons not to give such prominence to these figures - WEIGHT, datedness (for the 2011), accuracy, level of detail. I haven't seen an argument here that would counterbalance these factors. I have seen a lot of personal commentary that makes me reluctant to engage here - thanks IamNotU for trying to temper that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, that's about what I thought. Those are all good points, thanks... --IamNotU (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria & IamNotU sorry for the late reply. I wish to respond to your concerns in detail however my uni exams are very close & I am busy because of that. However, my request is to not archive this discussion so that I can resume discussion as soon as I am free. Meanwhile, I am going to put a link in the infobox pointing towards the Religion in Germany article so that readers can open it if they are interested. This is a very reasonable & middle ground solution as for now as it avoids mentioning overt statistics which were a cause of concern for IamNotU meanwhile giving the topic its due importance. Regards Meganpeltz (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

A literal translation of Deutschland[edit]

So "deutsch" means "german", whileas "land" means "country". Therefore, it would be either German country or Germanland. Was it worth mentioning? LucianoTheWindowsFan (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germany&oldid=1008491119"