Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:13, 25 June 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germany article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germany article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

	Germany is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted June 13, 2011 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lutheranism Low‑importance Germany is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Misplaced Pages. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries: Prussia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Silesia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SilesiaWikipedia:WikiProject SilesiaTemplate:WikiProject SilesiaSilesia Frisia (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Frisia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.FrisiaWikipedia:WikiProject FrisiaTemplate:WikiProject FrisiaFrisia Hanseatic League (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hanseatic League, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Hanseatic LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Hanseatic LeagueHanseatic League Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Eurovision Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eurovision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Eurovision-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EurovisionWikipedia:WikiProject EurovisionTemplate:WikiProject EurovisionEurovision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0 Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 3, 2009 and October 3, 2010.

Civilian Service

The times have changed a lot. While I was serving the Red Cross in 1998/99 it was 10 month for the guys in the army and 13 (!) for the conscientious objectors like me. Only during the very final stages of compulsory service the time you had to serve either the army or any civilian institution was the same (from 9 month down to 6).

I can't remember there was a 6 months service. I was one of the last who had to do the compulsory service and it was definitly 9 months!

Einstein's nationality

After reading the archive 5 discussion on the subject, I noticed that some technical matters about nationality have not been adressed. In the Albert Einstein article, you can read that Einstein changed six nationalities, (half of which are for states not identified as Germany) during his lifetime and that he spent a great part of his life outside Germany. The article also mentions (with source) that he "renounced his citizenship in the German Kingdom of Württemberg to avoid military service". All of the above support the view that the identification of Einstein with some legal nationality is problematic and in particular that he didn't identify himself strongly as a German (renouncing German citizenship to avoid military duty). On the other hand, saying that Einstein is a Jew is supported by his ethnicity, by his numerous statements in which he accepts his Jewish indentity, and by the fact that he was offered the position of President of Israel. In conclusion, Einstein is a very poor example of a German scientist. Popular opinion in the US might be that he is a German but this is an encyclopedia, and a more informed perspective should be adopted for its articles. Nxavar (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

In 1914, Einstein became a German citizen again - became the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics, and a professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, as well as a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1916, Einstein was appointed president of the German Physical Society. In 1917, at the height of his work on relativity, Einstein published in Physikalische Zeitschrift his Modern quantum theory. In 1921, being a German citizen, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. --77.181.80.34 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nxavar There is no doubt that Einstein changed his citizenship multiple times and voluntarily opted for a non-German citizenship when this was possible. For very understandable reasons, he had his issues with German nationality. I guess this would hold for almost all German Jews who lived or perished during this time.

However, citizenship is a fact not a feeling. Nowadays, it is quite normal to change this fact from time to time. Just look at the list of Nobel laureates, and see how many have acquired US nationality later in their lives. This doe not render their nationality problematic, it just becomes a transient aspect. So, I do not follow your argument that Einstein's nationality (I would rather say citizenship) is problematic. What 77.181.80.34 wrote is more relevant for the present article than the fact that Einstein was later offered (?) to become President of Israel (don't they elect the president there?). During his most prominent works and when receiving the Nobel price, he was citizen of Germany. This fact justifies his mentioning.

Perhaps it should be mentioned that he held (and opted for) other citizenship in his later life. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an article about Germany. When one uses an example of a German, this implicitely creates the impression to the reader that the national identity, not only the legal nationality, of the individual in question is German. I am not arguing that Einstein is not a German. From a legal perspective, he is a German, a Swiss, an Austrian, and an American. I am not arguing that from all these nationalities, the one that characterises him the most is the German. What I am saying is that he is a poor example of a German scientist.

What I am suggesting is to remove the empasis given to Einstein as German scientist. I am not suggesting that he shouldn't be mentioned at all. The grounds of my proposal is that it creates a wrong picture. It might be a favourable picture for Germany, and an acceptable picture in the U.S.A., but wikipedia is not about promoting or perpetuating some particular image (see WP:NPOV). Misplaced Pages's content should be neutral and reliable. Nxavar (talk) 12:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. I don't know what you're getting at exactly. The Einstein photo is perfectly neutral where it is. Just as any other picture of the article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Btw, we're not implying that Hitler was born in Germany by showing his picture here. Just in case you were curious... :/ -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hitler was a leader of Germany. Both in times of peace and times of war. It is a completely different case. You don't know where I'm getting at? I suggest that we replace Einstein's picture with Max Plank's picture. That's what "emphasis" was about. Nxavar (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's a matter of being identified as German, perhaps the results of a 1996 survey in England would be of interest. When asked to write down the ten most famous Germans, living or dead and not including the chancellor, those most frequently mentioned were:

1. Adolf Hitler
2. Jürgen Klinsmann
3. Boris Becker
4. Steffi Graf
5. Michael Schumacher
6. Ludwig van Beethoven
7. Lothar Matthäus
8. Albert Einstein,
9. Michael Stich
10. Joseph Goebbels
11. Hermann Göring

The contemporary sports people are more ephemeral, so might be best ignored in an encyclopaedia. --Boson (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, Misplaced Pages is about facts and neutrality, not popular impressions. Also, you cannot remove a discussion because you consider it "done", Horst-schlaemma. That's not a valid reson to delete content from Misplaced Pages. Was any of the previous discussions about Einstein removed after being considered done? Returning to the original issue, what's the big deal with replacing Einstein's picture with Max Plank's? Does anyone here think that it takes away value from the article? Nxavar (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove but archive it and it was indeed done as this is leading nowhere. Hardly anyone will agree with you here. We're not replacing Beethoven with Haydn either. We're putting the ref people in this article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It is your opinion that this is leading nowhere. Also, if there is no particular reason to replace something, you don't replace it. This is correct. However, I have presented many reasons why we should replace Einstein's picture. If there is a reason for replacement then the obvious thing to do is to replace. In anycase, there is automatic archival after a thread is inactive for 3 months, according to the policy of this page. Nxavar (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's rather obvious you're on a mission here. Dunno what it's aimed at, but it obviously is a mission impossible and non-constructive. Cheerio Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not an answer. It is a personal attack. The worst form of unconstructive criticism (see WP:PERSONAL). Nxavar (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we just leave this discussion here for a while and see if anyone agrees with the proposal? Even if there is obviously no consensus for change at present, it is a valid point, and selection of images is a matter of editorial judgement. If no-one agrees, it will die a natural death, or someone uninvolved can formally close the discussion, using {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} (sometimes called "archiving"). --Boson (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

We really don't need such a discussion again - not only people from other countries strongly "identify" Einstein as being German, but also German people themselves; e.g. → see: Unsere Besten --IIIraute (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The question is not about whether Einstein is a German or not. It is about emphasising the fact that he is a German. Such emphasis is problematic since Einstein has held many nationalities and he didn't appear to identify strongly with Germany (see above). Nxavar (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your point has been made and understood. That does not mean that others must agree with your conclusions. That he is strongly identified as German by others is also relevant. This is not a matter of gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation, where self-identification may be given more weight. If you feel that others would support your position, you are free to start an RfC. --Boson (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is not "emphasising the fact that he is a German" per se. The article section "Science and technology" puts emphasis on the fact, that "Germany's achievements in the sciences have been significant, and research and development efforts form an integral part of the economy.The Nobel Prize has been awarded to 104 German laureates. For most of the 20th century, German laureates had more awards than those of any other nation, especially in the sciences (physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine)" and that "The work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck was crucial to the foundation of modern physics ..." This article is not about Germans, but about "Germany's" achievements in the sciences, to which Einstein contributed an integral part: Einstein was "the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics, and a professor at the Humboldt University of Berlin, as well as a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. In 1916, Einstein was appointed president of the German Physical Society. In 1917, at the height of his work on relativity, Einstein published in Physikalische Zeitschrift his Modern quantum theory. In 1921, being a German citizen, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics." --IIIraute (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nxavar Your point is emphasis, as I understand it. Placing a picture of a person in this article, I agree, does emphasize. Where I do not follow you is that it emphasizes that Einstein had a strong German National identiy. I find this point a bit constructed. The emphasis I see is that Einstein's contributions to science may have been the most notable of all German scientists - and not that he was the most German-feeling scientists of all. Honestly, I am also not very concerned that most readers will be mislead in this direction.

The following analogy may illustrate what I find wrong about your point. Consider the article on Jews. It may very well be possible (currently it isn't) to show a picture of Hitler, Himmler, or Eichmann there. This would put emphasis, but not on the fact that they identified as Jews, rather that they played a crucial role in the history of Jews. Pictures of individuals emphasize their relevance to the subject, not their identification or agreement with it.

@Horst-Sch. Don't even try to defend it. A discussion that is ongoing should not be archived. Obviously, this is perceived as aggressive - certainly when done by somebody who is a partisan in the discussion. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, not everybody with a picture on some country's article is a national of that country. The pictures are always understood in the context of the acticle's nearby content. What happens in the case of Einstein's picture is that the article goes into the topic of German scientists, with the picture giving a representative example of a German scientist. If the picture was in a hypothetical section about German-Jews, this discussion would not be happening. If the description of the image mentioned that he is a German-Jew, that would still be acceptable. However, in the current state of the article, the use of Einstein's picture is problematic. Nxavar (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I would not have a problem stating that Einstein was a Jew, but is it really necessary? Two aspects: If you look at German Nobel laureates before WWII, this was quite common. Moreover, (I know this is a complex topic) Jewism is arguably a religion. For what I know, in a religious sense, Einstein's beliefs were not very Jewish. Why would we mention the religion anyway. On the other hand, Jewism is considered by many, probably Einstein himself, as more than a religion. I do not know this, but I can well imagine that he felt as part of the Jewish people in an ethical sense. What I am trying to say: putting such kind of labels on a person can be problematic as they mean different things to different people and again to the person itself. Also, not everything that is true must be stated explicitly. Some things are so ordinary that they need no mention. Having said all this, I am not completely against mentioning this here. I am sure there are sufficient sources to back it up, however it is meant. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is not about his religion. I mentioned his identification with Jews from a nationality standpoint. As of 1948, this is indeed a nationality. Also, this was one of the points I raised, not the only one. Nxavar (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Politics Section – Which parties should be classified as major?

I, German, stumbled across "Minor parties such as The Left, Free Voters and the Pirate Party are represented in some state parliaments". The Left Party is in fact the largest opposition party and the third-largest overall by Bundestag seats. In many state parliaments it doesn't have any seats which may justify the "minor" classification, but from a federal point of view this isn't a neutral assignment.

If anyone were to explore this subject in detail I'd say there are four levels of party size: 1.) The "Volksparteien" CDU and SPD, 2.) other parties in the Bundestag, 3.) other parties in some Landtagen, the state parliaments, and 4.) the rest. 1.) and 2.) shouldn't be designated "minor" in my opinion due to the high vote threshold in Germany, at least not currently where there are no parties in the Bundestag significantly below 10%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.101.27.244 (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 POPULATION ESTIMATE According to the statistics of Germany, the population already reached 80,716,000, and last October it increased by another 45,000 more. The "2014 estimate" refers to the population in 2011. The estimation has been done in 2014 but it refers to population in 2011. So, the 2014 population estimate should say 80,716,000.-- It would be easier if there was a link to the "List of coutnries by population" to know the population estimate83.63.225.149 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Demographics, migrant background

Could Sdg198, or someone else, explain exactly where the (new) data for the so-called ethnic groups came from? The page number (189) given for the Migration Report does not appear to be correct, and there are unexplained discrepancies with some of the figures if I use the table on page 138. By the way, I believe the usual English term is "migrant background" (not the "literal" translation migration background).

"Ethnic groups" is also not correct, of course. The figures, presumably, apply to the present or former nationality (not ethnicity) of the persons concerned (or their parents). --Boson (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the page number, it appears that the migration report has changed since I last saw it, and thus page 189 is indeed incorrect. The same information is on page 138. What exactly are these discrepancies on page 138?

I'll change the term to migrant background if that sounds better. Regarding ethnicity vs nationality, you are right on that, although it's worth noting that "former nationality" is the only statistic that the German government records, so any previous statistics alluding to ethnicity will have in fact been actually nationality (of course given the main countries Germany has received migrants from are relatively homogenous nationality and ethnicity will be highly correlated in this case, but I still concede your point). What do you think the statistics should be described as? Sdg198 (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your reply. I am still trying to work out exactly how you arrived at you figures. So far, I find some figures in your table agree with the source document (either page 136 or 138)

From page 136:

• Total population: 81,913,000
• Germans without migrant background: 65,570,000

From page 138:

• Turkish: 2,998,000
• Europeans (EU): 5,167,000
• Africans:577,000
• Other (ohne Angabe): 1,208,000

The following figures need some explanation:

• Americans: 418,000. Source has 416,000.

I can't find anywhere you have explained your maths, but you seem to have deducted the "ethnic Germans" ((Spät-)aussiedler) from the Asians.

• Asians, Australians, and Pacific Islanders:2,034,000. Source has 2,601,000. You appear to have subtracted your figure for ethnic Germans from Kazackstan)
• Europeans (non-EU): 3,377,000. Source has 6,375,000. I presume your formula is 6,375,000 (non-EU) minus 3,219 ((Spät-)aussiedler) plus 567 (to avoid counting Kazackstan in Europe and Asia). Which comes to 3,723,000, leaving a discrepancy of 386,000, which I haven't worked out yet..

I don't think we can draw any reliable conclusions about ethnicity.

--Boson (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: I see that the figures add up to 100%, which means that "Europeans (non-EU) must exclude Turkey, which could explain why the figure for "European (non-EU)" is wrong (or wrongly labeled), but it still doesn't seem to add up. We definitely need an explanation of the calculations, and I think we have exceeded the bounds of WP:NOR. I think we should report the actual figures on migration and population with a migrant background presented by the German authorities (or other reliable sources), avoiding any talk of ethnicity, which is not documented. This all belongs in the article Demographics of Germany, which should be briefly summarized here. --Boson (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Weimar Republic and the Third Reich

I re-wrote the last paragraph in this section and it was reverted by IIIraute. There were several problems with the paragraph that related to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view:

1- It gave only the numbers of German soldiers and civilians killed and not the far higher numbers for the millions of other people who were killed by the Germans during the world's largest genocide in modern history (specifically it stated, "several million Jews, Romani people, Slavic people, Soviet POWs, people with mental and/or physical disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and members of the political and religious opposition.... war casualties for Germany are estimated at 5.3 million German soldiers, millions of German civilians"). I re-wrote this to include numbers for all of the peoples killed, not just German soldiers.

2- The figure given for German soldiers was ONLY the highest estimate ever made, provided by a German academic, like the person who reverted my edits (IIIraute). The West German Government's estimate was only 4 million (See German casualties in World War II) so I corrected this by including the lower estimates while still including the higher 5.3 million figure in order to keep a NPOV.

3-Other problems included a clear bias toward Germany sympathies, citing what it termed the "mass rape of German Woman" and the "destruction of German cities" by allied bombing. While this did happen, and I did not remove this information, the major historical event of the Third Reich Era (topic of the section) is not the rape or bombing that occurred from 1940-1945 but the world's largest genocide. And since most of the paragraph is about that genocide I included a picture of that and not a picture of a building destroyed in a German city.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There does appear to be a certain David Irving-esque bias to that section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record: The previous version did not include any specific civilian casualties numbers - also not for German civilians.

  Also, the specific figure for German soldiers provided in the text, is not by a German academic, but by the German military historian Rüdiger Overmans, who is regarded as the expert on this subject. The Overmans study put the total German military war dead at 5.3 million. Overmans found that the wartime casualty figures compiled by German High Command were incomplete because the reporting system broke down during the chaos of the war.

  Please note that the new, lower figure Monopoly31121993 has added, is not 4 million (the figure of the West German military search service Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt)), but 3,25 million here - a 1946 estimate provided by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. - an American insurance company - definitely a huge authority on this subject. --IIIraute (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • IIIraute, the text previously gave one number and it was for the number of German soliders killed in the war. I stated in 5.3 million soldiers killed, nothing more, nothing less as if Overmans study were pure truth. Like I said, I kept that number and added the lowest estimate for balance, the German government's estimate was around 4 million and I just read that there are estimates in the 4.5 million range as well. so I think saying 3.25 as a low estimate and 5.3 as a high is fair almost perfectly splits the difference and provides balance which in this article is badly needed.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The Buchenwald concentation camp photograph: really necessary on an overview page for Germany?

I am opposed to Monopoly31121993's edit introducing a photograph of dead Buchenwald prisoners into the article. The image is, I would argue, unnecessarily graphic for inclusion on this particular page. (Of course, in articles dealing specifically with the topic of the Holocaust, this sort of photograph is much more relevant)

I also question the need for an additional image in this part of the article, irrespective of its nature.

Ilraute thanked me for reverting this edit - so I'm going to assume there is at least some opposition to this photo.

Surlyduff50 (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

And I'm opposed to removing the image. The Holocaust is an important part of history, whether it was "graphic" or not. I'm not seeing a policy relevant reason for removal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I support replacement of the picture. We should restore the image of Berlin in ruins, showing the "after" picture for Nazi Germany. It better illustrates that section. I also think we need an extremely good rationale before we introduce pictures of dead people, weighing up the (very rare) need to depict such horrors and the dignity of those portrayed. --Boson (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As the picture shows what took place it should be kept.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Re Boson, I don't know. Removing a picture which illustrates the Holocaust and replacing it by a picture of Berlin in ruins... smacks of Third Reich apologetics. I'm not saying that's what it is, just that's what it sort of looks like. I could see having both pictures in there, as they illustrate different things, but if we're going to go with only one, it's got to be the Buchenwald one. The Holocaust is THE important part of history here, that's how the text is organized, and that's what the image should illustrate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't prevaricate - it was the "Berlin in ruins" picture that got replaced. --IIIraute (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how the Holocaust picture is irrelevant in the page about Germany. The Holocaust is a major event of the 20th century. Since the Nazi Germany was responsible for planning and execution, it seems natural to put focus on the Holocaust in the article on Germany. Nxavar (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody said the photo is "irrelevant". It is a question of whether or not such a photo is appropriate on the overview page for Germany. Surlyduff50 (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Or, in other words, what is the policy based reason for removal, other than your own WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• In reply to the section above → Problems with Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, and the current discussion:

  A short history, (hitherto) regarding the editors involved at the last two talk page topics - as well as my two pennies worth:

  Monopoly31121993 (a recently created account), rewrites parts of the long-standing and stable "Weimar Republic and the Third Reich" section, criticising that this part of the "Germany" article has too much German perspective in it. Also, the "Berlin in ruins" picture gets replaced with the "Buchenwald" picture.

  Then, Nxavar, rewrites part of the "‎Science and technology" section, and adds a "citation needed" tag to the part below, because now (after this edit) this part of the paragraph doesn't make sense anymore. Additionally, some more emphasis on Nazis and the Holocaust is added.

  Surlyduff50 removes the "Buchenwald" image, stating: "I have a moral objection to the graphic nature of this image."

  Volunteer Marek joins the edit warring and the talk page discussion.

  IMHO, neither the new content that was added, nor the picture, will remain in this article for very long - therefore I don't think that the changes will help to maintain a stable article. This article only includes a brief summary of the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich/WWII, while more information on the individual topics is available at the relevant articles, containing accurately described content that was discussed thoroughly. For all of the editors involved, it might be interesting to note, that even for the Nazi Germany article, it was decided to separate the details of the "Racial politics" from the "History" section.

  In my opinion it is certainly worth having a look at the the Russia article, or the Japan article, which is one of the "Featured articles in Misplaced Pages; see Japan#Modern era. Some orientation on the Encyclopædia Britannica article on Germany also could be useful. --IIIraute (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS part, which is irrelevant, I'm having trouble understanding your comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Surlyduff50: What do you mean by saying "appropriate"? The image gives some visual information on the Holocaust, which is a major even in the history of World War II, specifically in Germany's actions in World War II. I must also note that the previous picture with Berlin in ruins was used in this section when the reference to the Holocaust was minimal. You can possibly say it was not "appropriate" for the previous state of the section, I don't see how you can say it for the current one. Nxavar (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

user:IIIraute basically is saying that the article was fine and should have been left that way. That's NOT TRUE, see the section I added above this one detailing all the things wrong with the one paragraph i edited. The picture of a bombed Germany city was replaced with one of the Holocaust since that's the major topic in the section not bombing which didn't even take up a full sentence. The picture I chose was one from another page which shows what was found at a concentration camp IN GERMANY after liberation. I'm sorry if it disturbs some people. Perhaps it should as it seemed disturb most of the Western World when it became public in 1945.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

user:IIIraute's stated reason for removing the image is that 1) the article was fine before (That's clearly not true, see my whole section above) and 2) other pages don't have such images (also not true because that's where I found the image and there were lots of extremely violent images to choose from which I choose to not pick. I choose one that showed what the allies and Western publics found and saw when they first encountered the Holocaust. user:Surlyduff50's reason is that it offends his/her moral sensibilities, that clearly falls under the WP:IDONTLIKEIT so can't be taken seriously. This addresses all of the pro-removal arguments stated above.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like my most recent edit to be considered as an alternative; one photograph relating to the Weimar Republic, and one photograph relating to the Nazis. Surlyduff50 (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And as far as I can see most editors would like to see the Buchenwald picture to remain in the article.--Catflap08 (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this is a featured article, I think we should open this up to a wider discussion. I propose holding an RfC.

RfC: Image to illustrate the Third Reich period in the main Germany article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which image should we use (in addition to an image of Adolf Hitler) to illustrate the Third Reich? --Boson (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A: This is the picture that the article contained on 12 June 2011 when it passed FAR:

B: In May 2013, it was replaced with this edit and this picture remained till 8 June 2014:

C: On 8 June 2014 it was replaced with these edits by this picture:

Should we use picture A, B, C, or none of the above? Under Survey. please indicate, for example, Support none of the above, with a brief rationale. --Boson (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Boson Here is the actual text with highlights on sections which relate to the Holocaust:

In what later became known as The Holocaust, the Nazi regime enacted policies which directly persecuted many dissidents and minorities. Over 10 million civilians were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, including six million Jews, between 220,000 and 1,500,000 Romani people, 275,000 persons with mental and/or physical disabilities, thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses, thousands of homosexuals, and hundreds of thousands of members of the political and religious opposition. 6 million Ukrainians and Poles and an estimated 2.8 million Soviet war prisoners were also killed by the Nazi regime and in total World War II was responsible for around 40 million deaths in Europe. After World War II, Nazis, former Nazis and others were tried for war crimes, including crimes related to the the Holocaust, at the Nuremberg trials.

Now here is the text that relates to the destruction of German cities:

Germany suffered mass rape of German women and the destruction of numerous major cities due to allied bombing during the war.

Your attempt to place huge, unrealistically sized pictures on this page is clear POV pushing. The text clearly supports an image of the Holocaust, that's the only image that is supported by content. I'm sorry if you find the image disturbing as it seems IIIraute and user:Surlyduff50 also do but so does just about everyone else. That doesn't change history or the fact that it happened. Just as importantly that's what the world saw in Germany after WWII, that's the image of the Holocaust taken from a concentration camp IN GERMANY. And as I said above, it's an image of dead people, not even killing people or violence just the result.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assumption of good faith. I shall never cease to be amazed at Wikipedians' mind-reading abilities. Since it is a matter of evaluating the pictures, I thought it best to show the greatest detail possible, so I chose the largest size that permitted two pictures to be displayed together (though I suppose that depends on your resolution); that made it easy to compare both the older picture and the newer picture with the long-standing picture in the middle. What triggered that was that the two pictures of the Berlin ruins looked very similar on my screen, but the editor who put in the "new" picture in 2013 (until it was replaced a few days ago) claimed to be doing so because the new picture was of better quality. When I saw the higher resolution picture, I agreed. Of course, reviewers can, and should, click to see a higher resolution picture, but that makes it difficult to compare the higher-resolution pictures, since they are not displayed simultaneously. Just to clarify: the pictures don't disturb me personally, but I have been around a while longer than the many youngsters that will - hopefully - read this article. The picture would, in my opinion, be appropriate in the article on the holocaust, but here the barrier is higher. There is no need to add pictures expected and meant to shock to every high-level summary article that has a handful of lines on the holocaust. --Boson (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Boson, I've taken your concerns about younger viewers seriously so please see the new image I've suggested below. Thanks for your comments.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

C--Catflap08 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

C The ideology of the Third Reich was nazism in which racism is a prominent feature. The Holocaust represents nazism, as well as the actions of the Thrid Reich in World War II. On a general note, the history of the Third Reich, although short, is so rich in events that cannot be summarized with a single picture. For example, a picture of Germans parading in Paris, a symbol for the quick expansion of the Third Reich in Europe in the beginning of World War II, is one I would add to this section. However, since the focus is on damages, I choose the picture on Holocaust. Nxavar (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

B Millions of Germans died in the bombings of major cities, so the argument that "this part of the article focuses on damages" applies just as much to the Berlin photo as it does to the Holocaust photo. There is no direct need for an image this shocking on the overview article for Germany, either - just as there is no need for photos of the victims of the USSR on the overview article for Russia, or for photos of the victims of Imperial Japan on the overview article for Japan.

It is also worth noting that a very large chunk of text in this article focuses on the Weimar Republic. The argument that "because a large chunk of text describes the Holocaust, a Holocaust image needs to be used" could also be applied to the multiple paragraphs on Weimar Germany. Would it not make more sense to use the second image to address the Weimar Republic in some way? My earlier edit features a homeless German war veteran begging on the streets of Berlin; perhaps this could be used instead? Surlyduff50 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The article German casualties in World War II gives the following numbers for German casualties due to bombing:

• Government of West Germany (1956): 635,000
• German Red Cross (2005): 500,000
• Richard Overy (2013): 353,000

All of these figures are below one million. Compare this to the 10 milion victims of the Holocaust. Both are damages, but the Holocaust victims are an order of maginitude more than the German bombing casualties. Nxavar (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a German national and the issue brought up by user Surlyduff50 is to my mind ridiculous to say the least. Some people still are unable to differentiate between cause and effect. Some like to hint at the high amount of unemployment which is utter B.S. to say the least as the Weimar Republic was on the way of economic recovery – I guess this is why he wanted to include the image of that beggar. Nazi Germany caused World War II and eliminated a large portion of its own population by sending them to the gas chambers. This is by all means one of the most distinct facts about Nazi Germany … the ruins of Berlin ... any image of Germany at the time are a result of Germany's own actions. Actions that were committed not by a regime that fell out of the skies but a regime that was brought into power via an election. So the icon of Nazi-Germany is not a Berlin in ruins but the atrocities that were committed by this regime of which the Buchenwald image is a testimony. I am of bi-national descent and at least my British grandfather fraught for the right cause. What pisses me off (excuse my language) is that not that the user in question wanted to add the ruin picture but wanted to replace the Buchenwald picture! --Catflap08 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

33.09% --IIIraute (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't prevaricate - it was the long-standing "Berlin in ruins" picture that got replaced first, here --IIIraute (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

IIIraute, we heard you the first time when you wrote "Don't prevaricate..." It's still useful to remove it for the reasons I already stated (read above) and which you continue to blatantly ignore. And please try to be respectful and not tell other users that they are manipulating facts. The only people acting to deceive here have been you and Surlyduff50. Both pro-image removal advocates I might add.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Catflap08: "What pisses me off (excuse my language) is that not that the user in question wanted to add the ruin picture but wanted to replace the Buchenwald picture!" here so again, please don't prevaricate - it was the long-standing "Berlin in ruins" picture that got replaced first, here --IIIraute (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

C for all of the reasons I've already stated (the body of the text overwhelmingly relates to it, it's historically the most important element not the bombed out building which were in just about every country after the war, it's an image specifically chosen because it's from a camp in Germany, and because it's an image that is identical to how the world's population discovered the Holocaust for the first time as they liberated Germany.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@ IIIraute the picture of Buchenwald is EXACTLY where it should be any endeavours to question that do PISS ME OFF and I do not care if that is regarded a POV. Any attempts to portray Germany as a victim of World War II are dubious to say the least. Get back to your history books.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the "Berlin in ruins" picture is used in an attempt to portray Germany as a victim of World War II - it's a classic pair of pictures, to first use a picture of Hitler; i.e. the beginning - and a picture of Germany's capital in ruins; i.e. how it ended, the zero hour, etc. It's a classic combo. The capture of the Reichstag, the destroyed capital, the bombed out Pariser Platz with the Brandenburg Gate, often are seen (and used) as the key event; i.e. the epitome of the collapse of Nazi Germany, the end of the war, the defeated Germany, and a dead Hitler. --IIIraute (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

C Holocaust is the most important part of German history.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

B Estonian national here. If the bombed out Berlin image was there first then I think it should stay. No matter how bad the Nazis are, this article is supposed to remain neutral. I agree with "Surlyduff50's" point about the Weimar Republic. The Holocaust was terrible, but a lot of this segment of the article is talking about pre-Nazi Germany. It would be wrong to neglect this aspect of history (it was very important to the rise of the Nazis anyhow).84.52.53.169 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

C - and this choice is only reinforced by some of the comments above which appear to mean that IT IS in fact the purpose here to whitewash a part of history. That and the pedantry which is beside the point. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The Holocaust is undoubtly a very important part of German history, and therefore should covered in in relevant details. There is already a large part dedicated to the 12 years of Nazi Rule (out of 2000 years of German/Germanic history), including a description of this event. I personally however dont think a graphic picture of a pile of dead bodies is necessary in a general country article. It seems to me such a graphic picture is only there to reinforce stereotypes, prejudices and strong emotions, while adding nothing to the article (as the information is already in the text). None of the WP country articles features such pictures for a good reason, there are no pictures of massacred Chinese in the Japan article, no pictures of the Gulags or related massacres in the Russia/SU article, no pictures of Serbian massacres in the Bosnia/Serbia article and so on.
The problem with such discussion is always, that some people have some axe to grind when it comes to such sensisitve topics, and any arguing for a rational solution is sadly always labeled as "white-whashing". As if people, who dont want offensive pictures of a pile of dead bodies in a General country outline, are Nazi whitewhashers (this is the Germany, not the Nazi Germany article)... If a picture about the Holocaust should be added, then why not use a more moderate image, like lets say about a holocaust memorial site, an iconic picture of the Gates of Auschwitz or something similar... StoneProphet (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hear, hear! I think it is disgraceful - my grandfather gave his life in the fight against National Socialism, yet judging by some of these posts - I might as well be a neo-Nazi! There is no direct need for an image this shocking on the overview article for Germany - just as there is no need for photos of the victims of the USSR on the overview article for Russia, or for photos of the victims of Imperial Japan on the overview article for Japan.Surlyduff50 (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Surlyduff50, your argument has changed how many times now? Now, it's because you find it offensive... Before, it was you arguing to remove it because MILLIONS of people were killed by allied bombing (a misconception perhaps), then it was that there wasn't a photo of a wounded WWI German veteran begging on the streets of Wiemar Germany (yeah, that seemed a little strange and pushing some kind of German victim agenda). Now it's because you find it offensive? Also, no one called you a neo-nazi, you may feel that way but no one here except you has made reference to that. ], thank you for your original comments but I don't think they really make sense. For example, how does the image "reinforce stereotypes, prejudices"? What stereotype or form of prejudice does this image perpetuate? The image may make people feel strong emotions but that's not against wikipedia policy and it's pretty normal that any human with empathy would feel that way when faced with mass murder. I just don't see that as a valid argument for removing it. As discussed already, the image, shows the significant and unique historical event of Nazi Geramny which is discussed in a very brief amount of text (5 paragraphs) dedicated to the most violent period in modern human history. It's a image of people who were murdered, yes, but also an image of what happened (mass murder). It's how the world first saw the Holocaust, as the allies liberated concentration camps, in Germany. Please try to see the picture as an accurate, poignant, non-violent image, which allows anyone, in one image, to see and understand the horrible purpose and result of the Holocaust.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993 has, in the past hour or two, removed a comment in favour of keeping Image B. Monopoly31121993 appears to be accusing the comment maker of sock puppetry. I am reinstating the comment for now; I do not believe it's fair to remove opposing views like this. Here is the comment that was removed:

B (or A), certainly not C. Picture B was the image kept for the last few years. I think it is in bad taste to shock people with naked dead corpses with male genitals visible. An article like this is also read by children... For example, there are no corpse pictures in featured Rwanda (had a huge genocide compared to its size). I know that its proponents here want to make a political message but Hitler leading to bombed German cities is as educating as Hitler leading to dead bodies. The former is more relevant to Germany and its cities, which is what the article should be about. (Unsigned)

Surlyduff50 (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Surlyduff50, I removed it because the IP address of the unsigned user matched the IP of a user who already voted.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

They don't match. One is "85.183.206.139", and the other is "84.52.53.169". Surlyduff50 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

They appear to be in different countries. If those are the IPs in question, I think the contribution should be restored to its original position. --Boson (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User Volunteer Marek is on a constant mission to butcher Germany-related articles. It really shouldn't matter what he has to say on the topic. We should go back to Photo B, there was a reason I included it here: best quality illustration on the related topic. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

One more comment like that and off to WP:AE we go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please give a reason why picture B is more relevant to a section on Nazi Germany? --Catflap08 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the Holocaust is a horrifing event does not mean it should be suppressed. If the intensity of the picture is the problem, here is another picture for the Holocaust, Jews arriving in Auswitch. Note that nothing is said about what Auswitch means to the fate of its inmates:

There are several problems with this image. First, this is a picture of Hungarians (the other), at Auschwitz (in Poland) and as you mentioned, it gives no indication at all of what these people are doing there and since Auschwitz is not in the article currently, it's not appropriate. The image currently there is of Buchenwald concentration camp, IN GERMANY, where thousands of germans were imprisoned and killed. The image was taken when the camp was liberated, which is a "we" not a "them"/Other experience.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Liberated?! This explains the happy faces. The description of the image in the Commons is completely wrong. Nxavar (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this addresses the concerns of StoneProphet. I also said that if the picture of the Holocaust seems to add undue weight, we can always add another picture. The fact that the history of the Third Reich was short, has little to do with its importance. It is common ground in history to give extensive coverage for years that are rich in important events. Nxavar (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposed edit. Surlyduff50 (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Another possibility:

Surlyduff50 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? An image from 1938 showing a fat Jew? I'm starting to see why you might think people would think you were advocating like a neo-Nazi.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no problem with the illustration of this article for years. Suddenly everyone comes out and gets at it like there's no tomorrow. I have to agree with Illraute. The pair of Hitler<>destroyed Germany is a far better choice. It illustrates how devastating the results of his dictatorship were for the country. There's extensive articles on the holocaust and they should be richly illustrated. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Horst-schlaemma, you're late to this debate so don't just start saying everything was fine before. There were major problems you can read about them if you read through this page and its comments over the last few days. The reason why no images of bombed out Germany are being considered is that the text clearly focuses on the Holocaust and doesn't even have a full sentence discussing bombing.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If there were any major problems with an image of Berlin in ruins, they did not surface at the Featured Article Review - or they were resolved there. I believe there were concerns about the excessive number of images at the time, but they were successfully addressed. --Boson (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The template for the FA class, found in the top of this page, clearly says: "(...)if you can update or improve it, please do so." Nxavar (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Boson, I meant that they were discussed here. I showed above that there was insufficient text to support the image.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment I do think the newly suggested image below is a slight improvement. Since we shouldn't change the original question in mid-stream, as far as the RfC is concerned, I would suggest that those who prefer an image not shown in the original RfC change their !vote above to "Support none of the above". I would let the Rfc run its course with the original long-standing image in place (since there is, as yet, no consensus to change it) and then change the image or not, according to how the RfC is closed, preferably by an admin. If there is a lot of support for "none of the above", we could have a further discussion on alternative images. Personally, I still prefer the long-standing image. Images can be used for different purposes: they can be used to show what something looks like (e.g. a picture of a dog in Dalmatian (dog) or a picture of particular mountains in a geography section) or to show an emblem (e.g. an imperial crown to represent the empire). They can also be used to elicit emotions and motivate, as in a picture of dead and suffering people in an appeal for donations or a call to arms. In this case, in a history section, I think they can best be used to tell a story: the period started with the rise of Hitler and ended with total destruction. That is why I think the long-standing image is best --Boson (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Boson, the image of a bombed Germany city is also designed to elicit emotions and motivate so don't pretend that it's somehow a neutral image. In the text above I showed in bold all of the text the related to the Holocaust and the less than half of a sentence that related to bombing or the "total destruction of Germany" as you put it. The image which Horst-schlaemma has now placed into the page is not supported by the content of the page. A picture of the Holocaust is.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is a perfectly valid standpoint, but opinions obviously differ, which is why we are having this RfC. Since the image that Horst-schlaemma "has now placed into the page" was there for over a year before being very recently removed, and is very similar (but of slightly better quality photographically) to the one that was there since 2011 when the article passed FAR, I think your claim is at least open to some doubt. Perhaps you could correct your verbatim quote of what I wrote. --Boson (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In the interest or reaching a resolution to this I'm going to suggest a new image:

The image shows living persons so this should address the repeated concerns of having an image of a dead person and the shock that this might cause some younger viewers of the page. This image is still of the liberation of a German concentration camp (the same one as the other image). Can we get votes for or against below:Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

For- I think this clearly shows the Holocaust subject matter, addresses concerns about being too explicit for younger viewers of the page and still clearly conveys the horrifying nature of the event.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree- It is indeed milder. Showing people exhausted from famine is by no means an issue, advertisements from charitable organizations frequently show kids in this condition. Nxavar (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What a daunting monologue. Please, give it a rest. Thank you. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Thank YOU, Horst-schlaemma, for your valuable contributions and one-sided statements like "everything was just fine before." They really have helped us.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Your knee-jerk reactions only tell me how I'm right about the monologue part. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That way we're not getting anywhere here. As I said, the former pair of Hitler<>destroyed city (cause<>result, beginning<>end) was long established in the article and served its purpose very well. And I pointed this out. The current image selection wasn't put in question during the FA-process either. The change of the photo was a purposeful provocation to the main editors of the Germany article including me, as it wasn't even attempted to discuss it. You had to expect this and you're not getting anywhere that way. Reckon it already. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is evident that you are the one with the monologue here. Please note that this is a discussion and you don't have any right or authority to demand that it ends. Nxavar (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't demand this discussion to end. I'm demaning you to acknowledge the wrong way was chosen to change this very sensible section of the Germany article. There's more than enough illustration and text coverage on the topic throughout Wiki and in several media. For the scope of the Germany article, it just doesn't really comply. Or do we have Gulag pictures in the Russia article? I can't see any. They're not even mentioned in the text. Napalm and Atomic bombs in the US article? None. Germans admit the crimes that happened on their soil and it's part of their history. But, for the country itself, that this article represents, the destruction of most of their cities was the very result of the war and the main trigger for feelings of German guilt and the fallacy of war. It was the most striking event in the past century for the country. Holocaust images would reduce this whole effect to a minority group that suffered badly in particular, but isn't representative enough of the whole scope. And I'm saying that with having a partial Ashkenazi background. -- All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many here that do not agree with you. Nxavar (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Many profiles, not users. It's no coincidence we see so many similar posts in such short time spans. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Horst-schlaemma, there is not enough text to support that image. That's clearly been established already. You decided you were going to disrupt this whole discussion by reverting the image and placing it in there and your reasons which you provide here are completely original to this discussion (e.g. that the image best exemplifies German sufferings). Your clearly POV pushing. I don't care how many times or how long you've kept this article in its sad current state, and your claim to Ashkenazi background doesn't change a thing. You're disrupting the decision making process here and attempting to take matters into your own hands.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There initially was enough text about the bombing raids and fires in Germany cities during and following the war. It was trimmed out when the article was brought into the current very reduced shape. I suppose not enough care was put into balancing this, as all focus went into other aspects of the war. This article is often treated politically as we just experience again. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It is true that the passage on German losses has been trimmed down; the passage was proportionally larger in earlier revisions - and thus the image of Berlin was more appropriate. Perhaps we could restore the original passage? (I'm not seeing any major improvement in the new passage) Surlyduff50 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is about how the article is now. Your arguments are no longer relevant. Nxavar (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Surlyduff50, please do not append a new comment to an existing one, after a reply has been made. Nxavar (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It can and should be restored. Oh and let me quote yourself here: "Please note that this is a discussion and you don't have any right or authority to demand that it ends." -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You intentionally misinterpret my comment. I just said that some arguments are irrelevant, I did not say that the discussion should stop. Nxavar (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The photo of Hungarian Jews arriving in Auschwitz is obviously not appropriate for this article - about Germany. The image of the survivors from Buchenwald is a possibility, particularly since that photo is sort of famous (Elie Weisel is in it). The photo of Jews at Dachau is just not a good substitute for the photo of Buchenwald victims.

Look, the Holocaust was shocking, disturbing, etc etc etc. Part of the reason to include the photo of the victims is precisely to illustrate that very important (some would say central) aspect of the phenomenon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think its about time to get the admins involved --Catflap08 (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

German-descended USA born person responding to RfC here. First, it really, really, really would have helped if whoever started this RfC also included a separate discussion section. Taking into account the numerous additional photos proposed since this RfC started, I believe it would be preferable to have one of the images of victims, either the living or dead ones, included, because they provide, in a sense, a better example of what Germany did, rather than what was done to Germany, like the bombing photos, and on that basis I think they are probably more appropriate. Not to say that keeping one of the bombing pictures in might not also be reasonable, but I definitely support the inclusion of one of the victim pictures regardless of the presence or absence of other photos. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Mea maxima culpa. --Boson (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done worse, of course. John Carter (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

For Buchenwald survivor picture and None of the above (original rfc survey response). I support the inclusion of a Holocaust-related picture instead of a picture of a bombed city because I think it better reflects Germany's role and actions during the war. However, I do not support the original Holocaust-related picture proposed as option C because, from my perspective, it adds more shock than encyclopaedic value to this particular article. The Buchenwald survivor picture is a good compromise and I support its inclusion. --Ca2james (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's ridiculous how "various" users around here try to re-establish photo C within the article without a common ground reached at this discussion! Stop it already! The page might get blocked due to your idiocy, people. Thanks for all the recent fuss. Your attempt on destroying this article or its authors' motivation won't come to fruition, though. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with StoneProphet, Ca2james, John Carter and others. My own contribution has been to highlight the arguments why it was needed and supported by the actual content in the text of the article and then move back from my support of the original photo for the sake of protecting younger viewers. The Holocaust is the major event for Germany in WWII and the text shows this. There's a long history of German attempts to portray themselves as victims during WWII and the allied bombing as well as rapes of German woman are the two strongest examples of this that I have seen. Not only does the bombed out Berlin image play right into this victim narrative but it gives undue weight to a topic not supported by the text. Horst-schlaemma's argument was that the war destroyed Germany and that picture shows it (see above). In reality the picture can just as easily be viewed as evidence of just how victimized German civilians were at the hands of the allies. I'm not saying Horst-schlaemma has an agenda but he is working really hard to keep that picture and prevent any changes to the article. He says that he's a long time member of the editors of the page and that it's Featured Aritcle status grants it certain immunity to editing. His behavior reverting the images, threatening anyone who carries out future edits, and not allowing the discussion here to take place have been clearly disruptive and he doesn't seem to be assuming or acting in good faith.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Just to sum up this part of the discussion, we have:

5 explicit supports for C

2 explicit supports for B (one of these by an IP address, with this being their only edit) +1 more or less implicit support for B by Boson (best as I can make it out Surlyduff50 voted twice)

A conditional support for the Elie Weisel ("Buchenwald survivors") picture as an alternative/compromise to C, by Monopoly31121993, Nxvar, myself, John Carter (along with what looks like a strong opposition to B), Ca2James (along with what looks like a strong opposition to B) and PointsofNoreturn (either C or the survivors, but does not oppose B)

StoneProphet appears to support the inclusion of a Holocaust related but "less-graphic" image.

Mjolnirpants doesn't care if B (or A) is included but supports inclusion of C.

Hence, there's a pretty clear consensus of inclusion of a Holocaust related image, either C or the "survivors". There does not appear to be consensus on inclusion of B (and no one really mentions A).

Pending further discussion, I will put in the "survivors" image as that appears to be a compromise version which is agreeable to most, and at the same time reflects the consensus that a Holocaust related image needs to be included. If further discussion or relevant policy reasons are presented, we could go back to putting C back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the discussion on additional images was subsequently added to an RfC originally based on the choice between three images, and can therefore be viewed as flawed, I would suggest that we formuate a new RfC with all the images that have been proposed to date. We should allow the normal 30 days and request closure of that RfC by an admin/editor with appropriate experience. Until consensus has been established by an univolved party, we should retain the status quo ante bellum editorum, rather than edit in parallel, depending on the state of the discussion. The status quo with the image of Berlin in ruins has been there for several years. It won't hurt to wait another month to see if there is consensus to replace it. --Boson (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I see some opinions have got a bit lost in the confusion (partly my fault for not including a discussion header in the RfC), so I will continue here with the survey. I would still prefer a new RfC, as I suggested elsewhere, but I haven't had much feedback on that.
Support image B The theme of this summary section is the rise and fall of Hitler and National Socialism in the aftermath of World War I and the resulting World War II, leading to Germany's complete and utter defeat. This is quite well illustrated or symbolized by a picure of Hitler and a picture of a German city in ruins. This section is a summary of a summary, so we need to keep it short. Two images is already pushing it. --Boson (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: To explain my last comment a bit, for instance IIIraute and Horst-schlaemma have clearly indicated support for image B, even if they have not written Support image B in bold type at the beginning of their contribution. Horst-schlaemma, for instance, wrote "We should go back to Photo B." This is why we should do a new RfC and ask for someone uninvolved to assess the consensus. --Boson (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I support image B. I also support a more comprehensive RfC. --IIIraute (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Same here, support for image B, and please do it right. The forner process is seriously flawed. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Could we please refrain from edit-warring? I think we should await the results of a new RfC, which I am in the process of drafting for approval (see below), and until such time, retain the last unequivocal consensus version (i.e. the version before this edit, which started a succession of BR cycles (to put it diplomatically). Any claim of a new consensus should be left to an uninvolved admin/experienced editor (or unambiguous agreement on the talk page). Just to update the above statistics to avoid unnecessary confusion in the meantime: by my count, the following supported Image B:

• Horst-schlaemma
• IIIraute
• Surlyduff50
• Boson
• 84.52.53.169 (Hamburg IP)
• 85.183.206.139 (Tallinn IP)

--Boson (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Current discussion is flawed and chaotic

The survey was obv too hastened, given the very diverse opinions and discussions here; including the proposal of various more pictures. If there is consensus to change the picture (step #1), then at first an array of pictures should be selected (step #2), and then a new survey or straw poll should be created (step #3). Currently it is just chaotic including lots of attacks between people. We should also remember that this is a stable FA article, so everything should be conducted orderly with a consensus. StoneProphet (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you here StoneProphet. If people really would have a genuine interest in changing a pic for whatever reason here in this very sensible section, then they should do it right. Nothing should be changed here so far. If done again, I'll ask an admin to block the article. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think there's already a consensus that the image should be changed. Horst-schlaemma is the only editor adamantly arguing not including any Holocaust image. The majority of editors here clearly support a Holocaust related image whether it be in place of the current image or addition to it.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You obviously are unable to filter the discussion then, as I'm not the only opposing. And btw I'm not opposing to including any such image either. But I'm against having a holocaust photo instead of a bombing photo. And anyway, there shouldn't be more than 2 pics per section in this trimmed FA-class article. So if you want to replace Hitler, go ahead. We surely won't miss him. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

When is Consensus reached? When enough Schlämmer like minded are gathered? I have not the faintest clue why there is even a discussion on the fact that a picture like the Buchenwald one is included as it describes what the article or rather the article's section is about. The effect of the Nazi regime which Germans brought on themselves is not Berlin in ruins but the atrocities committed by a regime brought into power with the support of the then German population – pictures of that are even published in German textbooks on history. If Misplaced Pages is in support of revisionist views its okay, but it should be made public. Certainly if the State of Virginia legally supports the denial of the Holocaust then there is a problem. In the light of this I will also delete the Berlin in Ruins picture until CONCENSUS is reached. I do also wonder how openly gay living German Comedian Harald Kerkling might react to the fact that his Horst Schlämmer character is in a somewhat alienated version used to edit Misplaced Pages with a revisionist agenda. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh man... again such "you dont want an extreme picture of dead bodies in the article, therefore you are a Nazi revisionist". How is this even an argument? Thats why I usually never engage in WP discussions. Insults, insults, insults. Lots of people have no problem with a picture about the Holocaust, it is just that the picture in this survey is a bad choice. This is neither the Holocaust nor the Nazi Germany article, it is an article about a current country which has been stable for a long time and has FA status. As explained above pictures should therefore be chosen carefully and not with the intention to just cause emotions or judgement in hastened edit wars. StoneProphet (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Stop politicising this matter Catflap08, you're being ridiculous. I didn't say any of that sort. I just said that I feel both this photo is inappropriate and that it shouldn't replace a picture of WW2 destructions. There's nothing revisionist about that. But we're still talking about the main article on Germany as a whole here. Its history doesn't span just merely a decade, get over it. Again, there's no Gulags in the Russian article, no Atomic bombs and Napalm victims in the US article, no corpses from the Mao-regime in China, etc.pp. - why don't you complain there? The German guilt cult is what's bugging really. If you're to include a holocaust photo, go for an appropriate one for a country's FA-class article. This is NOT the holocaust article. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Horst whatever we are Talking about THIS article not Gulags. Its more than obvious where you are coming from--Catflap08 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where I'm coming from and frankly you can't have a clue. It matters what's relevant to this article's scope and what's not. I agree the holocaust is relevant and I don't oppose adding a picture, but not corpses. We owe some respect to the victims of these horrid events. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The way forward

Ok, Everyone let's take a break. Can we all agree to vote on which 2 images we would like in the section? I propose that we agree to accept however the vote turns out, even if we didn't vote that way. The vote should last at least 4 days and have at least 5 editors voting. Agreed?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC) AgreedMonopoly31121993 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer to stick to the normal procedure in contentious cases: we ask for closure by an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin. Unless there is a clear outcome before that, the RfC should last about 30 days, before closure is requested). Since I must take some blame for the chaos, an alternative would be for me, as the original poster, to withdraw the RfC, and replace it with a new one which, for instance

• has a separate discussion section, with discussion (apart from a short rationale) prohibited in the survey section
• assumes that the picture of Hitler stays and asks two separate questions
  1. Should the section include a picture illustrating widespread destruction (such as a picture of Berlin in ruins)? If so, which picture (specify a letter, A, B or other (together with the suggested picture)).
  2. Should the section include a picture illustrating the holocaust (such as a picture of a concentration camp)? If so, which picture (specify a letter, C, D, E, F or other (together with the suggested picture)).

If both questions are answered in the affirmative, that is equivalent to supporting an increase in the number of images from 2 to 3. --Boson (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Pro - I support this procedure Boson. That's how it should be done. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. However, if there are concerns that editors who seem to be coming up out of nowhere (like me) come to this discussion and potentially cause the results to be lopsided, that editors involved could, politely, remark on that in response to their comments as a bit of a heads-up to the closing admin. Comments like, "hey, Bill, good to see you back after being gone so long" and similar are perfectly acceptable comments. If the number of surprising editors proves to be so many as to possibly overbalance the other editors, it would always be possible to start a second-stage RfC on the most widely supported images. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion of both kinds of images. Considering the comparatively huge number of casualties on both sides, ugly as the image is, maybe we might consider File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-08778-0001, Dresden, Tote nach Bombenangriff.jpg or similar for the domestic damage image particularly is the Jewish corpses image is used. Otherwise, one of the bombed-out Berlin images would be fine. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement that the RfC is flawed and some support for my suggestion of starting a new RfC with more options. I therefore think the best way forward is to withdraw my RfC and start a new one, as suggested. --Boson (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC) PS: That would also include and replace the images suggested by walkee in the separate proposal if they are in agreement. --Boson (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

Jesus Christt this sectiion is not about German history over all but exactly on the time span these crimes took place !!!! --Catflap08 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm commenting here just so someone might read it. I say yes to both of the questions above, with the further answers of "it doesn't matter to me" and C, respectively. Which picture of a bombed-out German city is used is immaterial IMHO, however, an image illustrating the Holocaust must contain certain elements. In this case, emaciated bodies stacked like firewood conveys the essential inhumanity of the Holocaust quite well, whereas (for instance) an overweight Jewish man in a German Ghetto near the beginning of the Third Reich doesn't. Even the emaciated prisoners doesn't convey it all.MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement that the photo showing emaciated prisoners "doesn't convey (the inhumanity) of it at all". I think that the photo does convey the inhumanity of the Holocaust.

There is no direct need for an image of this sort on the overview article for Germany - just as there is no need for photos of the victims of the USSR on the overview article for Russia, or for photos of the victims of Imperial Japan on the overview article for Japan. Surlyduff50 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a direct need to include an image of the Holocaust, though perhaps not as graphic as this one. Maybe an image of the survivors would be more appropriate. The image of bombed Berlin is still important, so maybe it could be used too. However, if I had to choose between A, B, or C, I would choose C. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Scientists preceeding the introduction of quantum mechanics

In the subsection "Science and Technology" a number of scientists are presented as preceeding Albert Einstein and Max Plank in the introduction of quantum mechanics. In the lead of History of quantum mechanics the ones that are mentioned to begin the history of quantum mechanics are Michael Faraday, Gustav Kircchoff, Ludwig Bolztman, and Heinrich Hertz. Kircchoff and Hertz are Germans. However they are not included in the list that this article gives. I seriously doubt the factual accuracy of this list and I placed a "citation needed" next to it. An alternate solution is to mention just Kircchoff and Hertz and ommit the rest, until references are provided. Nxavar (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not necessary, if you choose to revert your recent changes The long-standing paragraph (how it was) perfectly made sense:

"The work of Albert Einstein and Max Planck was crucial to the foundation of modern physics, which Werner Heisenberg and Max Born developed further. They were preceded by such key physicists as Hermann von Helmholtz, Joseph von Fraunhofer and Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit, among others. Wilhelm Röntgen discovered X-rays and was the first winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901." here

Another textbook example of WP:AINT. --IIIraute (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a problem of making sense. It is a problem about whether the list contains verifiable information. In both cases the list is the same. Also, you can suggest a better wording if you find mine confusing. Nxavar (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

First you narrow the scope from "modern physics" to "quantum mechanics" in your edit, leaving the list of names unaltered, and now you use that as a reason to "doubt the factual accuracy" of this list? Is this a joke? 93.209.108.232 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If what was meant is chronological order we can do something like this:

In the 19th century, scientists as such Hermann von Helmholtz, Joseph von Fraunhofer, and Gabriel Daniel Fahrenheit made key contributions to physics. Wilhelm Röntgen discovered X-rays and was the first winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901. In the 20th century, Albert Einstein introduced the relativity theories for light and gravity in 1905 and 1915 respectively, which remain mainstream theories in physics to this day. Along with Max Planck, he was instrumental in the introduction of quantum mechanics, in which Werner Heisenberg and Max Born later made major contributions.

I think this makes things clear. Nxavar (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Sorbian and Romani should be added as official languages (acknowledged minority langugages) in Germany

2003:4D:2E48:9B01:38D2:A3C6:13F3:9497 (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well the problem is that as far as I know not even German is per law the official language of Germany. It is the language of courts and so forth and that is about it. Please note the difference between official and acknowledged language. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 June 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The GDP value is given in trillion, nut it should be in billion as per source. See also - List of countries by GDP (PPP) I withdraw the edit request. Anton 02:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Replacement of images of "Weimar Republic and the Third Reich"

Weimar Republic and the Third Reich

At the beginning of the German Revolution in November 1918, Germany was declared a republic. However, the struggle for power continued, with radical-left Communists seizing power in Bavaria. The revolution came to an end on 11 August 1919, when the democratic Weimar Constitution was signed by President Friedrich Ebert. An era of increasing national confidence, a very liberal cultural life and decade of economic prosperity followed - known as the Golden Twenties. Suffering from the Great Depression of 1929, the peace conditions dictated by the Treaty of Versailles, and a long succession of unstable governments, Germans increasingly lacked identification with the government in the early 1930s. This was exacerbated by a widespread right-wing Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), or stab-in-the-back legend, which argued that Germany had lost World War I because of those who wanted to overthrow the government. The Weimar government was accused of betraying Germany by signing the Versailles Treaty.

By 1932, the German Communist Party and the Nazi Party controlled the majority of Parliament, fuelled by discontent with the Weimar government. After a series of unsuccessful cabinets, President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933. On 27 February 1933 the Reichstag building went up in flames, and a consequent emergency decree abrogated basic citizens' rights. An enabling act passed in parliament gave Hitler unrestricted legislative power. Only the Social Democratic Party voted against it, while Communist MPs had already been imprisoned. Using his powers to crush any actual or potential resistance, Hitler established a centralised totalitarian state within months. Industry was revitalised with a focus on military rearmament.

In 1935, Germany reacquired control of the Saar and in 1936 military control of the Rhineland, both of which had been lost in the Treaty of Versailles. In 1938, Austria was annexed, and in 1939, Czechoslovakia was brought under German control. The invasion of Poland was prepared through the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and Operation Himmler. On 1 September 1939 the German Wehrmacht launched a blitzkrieg on Poland, which was swiftly occupied by Germany and by the Soviet Red Army. The UK and France declared war on Germany, marking the beginning of World War II. As the war progressed, Germany and its allies quickly gained control of most of continental Europe and North Africa, though plans to force the United Kingdom to an armistice or surrender failed. On 22 June 1941, Germany broke the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and invaded the Soviet Union. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor led Germany to declare war on the United States. The Battle of Stalingrad forced the German army to retreat on the Eastern front.

In September 1943, Germany's ally Italy surrendered, and German troops were forced to defend an additional front in Italy. D-Day opened a Western front, as Allied forces advanced towards German territory. On 8 May 1945, the German armed forces surrendered after the Red Army occupied Berlin.

In what later became known as The Holocaust, the Nazi regime enacted policies which directly persecuted many dissidents and minorities. Over 10 million civilians were murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust, including six million Jews, between 220,000 and 1,500,000 Romani people, 275,000 persons with mental and/or physical disabilities, thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses, thousands of homosexuals, and hundreds of thousands of members of the political and religious opposition. 6 million Ukrainians and Poles and an estimated 2.8 million Soviet war prisoners were also killed by the Nazi regime and in total World War II was responsible for around 40 million deaths in Europe.

German army war casualties were between 3.25 million and 5.3 million soldiers, and between 1 and 3 million German civilians were killed. Losing the war resulted in large territorial losses for Germany, the expulsion of about 15 million ethnic Germans from the former eastern territories of Germany and other formerly occupied countries. Germany suffered mass rape of German women and the destruction of numerous major cities due to allied bombing during the war. After World War II, Nazis, former Nazis and others were tried for war crimes, including crimes related to the Holocaust, at the Nuremberg trials.

Above is my compromise attempt. It has a picture for the Weimar Republic, one for the Holocaust and one for World War 2 and architecture/infrastructure changes. I propose the replacement of the section with this one. The remaining text is the same.--walkee 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Support

• --walkee 18:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• support- it would certainly be better than what we currently have but my remarks about using pictures that relate to things already in the text stands. Any editor would be correct to remove the first image since it addresses nothing that is currently in the text and the video of bombed out Berlin is also addressed only marginally.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• Not "voting" yet, but shouldn't the section have a picture of Adolf in there? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What I thought was that there might be too many pictures in there and not a single one of the longer Weimar era. But perhaps one of him at the right-hand side? --walkee 18:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Also, not really sure if a picture of destroyed Berlin is really appropriate, for two reasons. First, there is the usual concern over apologetics. But even putting that aside, Berlin was actually one of major German cities which experienced relatively (note the underlining) little destruction, with maybe a third of it destroyed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your Nazi apologetics perspective. Cities got bombed during WW2 - all sides employed strategic bombing. The Nazis more or less ruined central London. If the Nazis hadn't bombed cities themselves, then I could understand the point you're making, but the Nazis bombed just as much to smitherines as did the Allies, so it's not like the image is saying "look at what the evil Allies did to Germany", since the Germans did the same to the Allies. Second point: agreed, Berlin wasn't the worst hit German city - why the image has to be Berlin, I don't know. I propose the following image as an alternative:

I'm assuming the above comment is from Surlyduff50. I think you're sort of making the point for me. Lots of cities got bombed, or worse - systematically destroyed. The Nazis did do much worse. But without that context (and since we're not about to include photos of bombed out London or completely destroyed Warsaw in this article it's going to be missing) the inclusion of Berlin, or Hamburg photos actually DOES look a lot like "look at what the evil Allies did to Germany". Especially when it's being used in place of images of Adolf Hitler or Buchenwald concentration camp victims. That's sort of what a number editors have been trying to get through.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying that, despite this being a supposedly neutral article, only photos that clearly depict the Nazis as evil are acceptable? A photo of a bombed out Hamburg could only really be alright if there's an accompanying "context" image of a bombed out London? Surlyduff50 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. And what, are we supposed to "balance" the article with photos which depict Nazis as the good guys? Do such photos even exist?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Before I !vote, a comment: I don't mind the changes but I think the images should be placed so that they accompany the text they illustrate. Therefore the Buchenwald picture belongs where the ruins video is currently located and the ruins pic/video, if one is included, belongs with the last paragraph rather than the paragraph on the Holocaust. --Ca2james (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I second Ca2james point about the location of the images. Also the photo of Buchenwald should have the word "Hitler's" removed (since he was not the owner). I still don't think the half-sentence of text describing allied bombing of Germany supports having a picture of a bombed out German city but I think the same argument can be made for the proposed image of Weimar (whose content is not mentioned at all in the current text). That said I think this is at least a compromise which moves us in the right direction. I will vote in the next couple of days after more discussion.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think there should be an image with the Nazi symbol, because it stands for the actions outlined in the content related to the Third Reich. (Also see below discussion regarding the split up of sections.) The image is banned in Germany though. prokaryotes (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't banned for educational purposes - only if it is being used to glorify the era. Have a look at this (German) page: https://de.wikipedia.org/Deutsches_Reich_1933_bis_1945 Surlyduff50 (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think a picture of Hitler is needed, though perhaps not as big as in the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• RfC comment For the Hitler picture, I'd suggest one from the end of the Weimar republic before the take over, perhaps one where he was using an aircraft to travel across Germany in the 1932 election campaign? For the third reich part, I think a picture of Hamburg (because of the fire-storm) or Cologne some other Ruhr city which were both extensively bombed and saw intense street-fighting would be most appropriate, because this an article on Germany and the images should illustrate the impact of WWII/3rdR on Germany in the broadest possible sense. victor falk 17:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment on the purpose of country articles: While the Holocaust was horrid and devastating, as well as the Gulag and other politically driven crimes of the USSR or Mao China, or nuclear and napalm bombing etc. of the US army - these cruelties should still not be pictured in their respective country's articles. They're undeniably part of a country's history, though you have to keep in mind the force of such things pictured. What the war really meant to Germans and the whole country, the totally devastating destruction especially of its cities caused by the Nazi regime's and many people's unlimited will to dominate, that's what's called Zero Hour for a reason. It was the time of casualties and guilt on all sites, but of course especially on the German, thus its near total destruction. I know that's exactly what you want to depict, the guilt and cruelty of war. And it was also the time of a new beginning. In that way a picture of destroyed Germany is perfectly leading over to the post-war era described in the text. And that's what the FA consensus of several Wiki authors with some reputation was based on. That's what encyclopedic illustration should deliver, contextual bridges joining the passages together and adding a visual information. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Split Weimar and Third Reich?

This is just a suggestion, and I'm guessing it might have been considered before, but wouldn't it make sense to split the Weimar Republic period from the Third Reich period? I realize that all together the time span is not that long but conceptually there's an obvious break/change/watershed there. Otherwise if the two periods are kept together, and there is a need to keep the material at a reasonable length then the "Weimar part" would be/should be essentially about how it led up to the Third Reich period.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Support- I know users in the past have done this and it's the way that it's done on the German language version of the page. The number of years is not important, what happened is.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Support- I don't see a reason to mix both. prokaryotes (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Support - greater clarity and differentiation and less ambiguity if separated. John Carter (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Support This will allow greater detail towards the Weimar Republic and the Nazis. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Seems much more accurate...Modernist (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Comment. The problem is that the history section is far too long. If the history section were a more appropriate size, there would be no reason to create more sections. The summary in the history section is supposed to be "similar" to the lead section of the article History of Germany. It is supposed to be written in summary style. The history section is still much longer than in other featured country articles. For the reader interested in that period of history we do need more detail about the Weimar Republic, but not here – we should not fall into the trap of thinking that we need everything (information and images) in this article, rather than in the article Weimar Republic. A reader looking for basic information on the economy or the population should not be presented with loads of information on the Weimar Republic and the holocaust. In the case of Germany, the history section links to a whole hierarchy of articles, each of which has sections that are supposed to summarize articles at a lower level:

• Germany
  • History of Germany
    • Weimar Republic
    • Nazi Germany
      • Holocaust.

So we should be careful not to repeat the same detailled information and images contained at the next lower level. --Boson (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually don't think it's "far too long". Just eyeballing it really quick, it seems to be comparable in length to the History section in the article on France, England, Italy, etc. And there probably is some text that could be cut in OTHER parts of the history section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the proper articles for comparison are other featured articles, because it is usually in the FAC and FAR processes that the article is checked against the relevant guidelines and other recommendations. Articles tend to get bloated and wander away from good practice until they are reviewed.

The featured article criteria specify:

• " stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style."

The history section does not properly adhere to summary style, which would make it much shorter, with less sections.

Another recommendation is to have about 1 image per section. This section has 12 images (this is partly because it has too many sub-sections, but it still has 2 images per sub-section), far more than comparable articles (i.e. other featured country articles).

Compared with the average and maximum figures for the history sections of the other featured country articles, the history section of the Germany article is 74% longer than the average and 22% longer than the maximum (word count). It also has two-and-a half times the average and twice the maximum number of images. I think we can – temporarily – live with what we have now, but any changes should be aimed at merging content (including images) into appropriate sub-articles. Sub-articles and featured article criteria both exist for a purpose. --Boson (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the history section is probably too long, and we should be careful about making it much longer. Surlyduff50 (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

These comments seem to assume that the Weimar section is going to be the same length as the Nazi Regime and WWII section. It won't be. It can, and probably should, only be one paragraph. The important thing is not to lump the two together since the historical importance of the Nazi period and the overview of that is important to view by itself.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Weimar Republic deserves a separate section – in the article History of Germany. But here the topic is Germany as a whole and the section is meant to be a summary of a summary, where it merits a separate paragraph, as do Nazi Germany, World War I, and the Reformation. History is being given too much weight for a top-level article. We don't need a separate sub-section on each short period, however important. Similarly, we don't need (and don't have) a sub-section on any of the states in the geography section. Some editors (or even readers!) may be more interested in the history than in the geography or politics, but we have a whole article on the subject. The culture section is another section that is given undue weight by the number of sub-sections. --Boson (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose split, fully agree with Boson. We should rather aim to reduce the number of subsections and summarise further, avoiding the temptation to go into detail. —Kusma (t·c) 15:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose split, I agree with Boson's points. Surlyduff50 (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose split, concur with Boson - that's what I was trying to say at the beginning of this discussion. I agree that we should aim to reduce the number of subsections and also summarize further. --IIIraute (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose split, also agreeing with Boson here. This article was condenses to bring it to FA status and there was an agreement for the current compact history structure. We should keep it, else we also need to split other sections to stay in line. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if the outcome of this discussion is NOT to split, then obviously, per the discussions above the image of Hitler and the image of Buchenwald prisoners (possible the one of survivors, possible the one of corpses) needs to be in this combined section, as these illustrate the most important aspects of this period; the rise of Nazis, and the Holocaust. Whether or not the image of bombed Berlin is included can still be discussed with editors needing to keep in mind that we need to worry about aesthetics here, and the section becoming cramped with images.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear, Volunteer Marek. While the Holocaust was horrid and devastating, as well as the Gulag and other political victims of the USSR or Mao China, or nuclear and napalm bombing etc. of the US army - these cruelties should still not be pictured in their respective country's articles. They're undeniably part of a country's history, though you have to keep in mind the force of such things pictured.

What the war really meant to Germans and the whole country, the totally devastating destruction especially of its cities caused by the Nazi regime's and many people's unlimited will to dominate, that's what's called Zero Hour for a reason. It was the time of casualties and guilt on all sites, but of course especially on the German, thus its near total destruction. I know that's exactly what you want to depict, the guilt and cruelty of war. And it was also the time of a new beginning. In that way a picture of destroyed Germany is perfectly leading over to the post-war era described in the text. And that's what the FA consensus of several Wiki authors with some reputation was based on. That's what encyclopedic illustration should deliver, contextual bridges joining the passages together. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

New RfC

In the light of the discussion so far and the renewed edit warring, and in an attempt to make sure the RfC is efficient this time, I would suggest the following points for a new improved RfC to replace all other discussions about the images in this section.

1. a gallery showing all the images that have been suggested so far
2. no option to add new images once the RfC has started, but a delay of a few days before starting the RfC, enabling prior discussion of the draft RfC and possibly addition of images.
3. a question asking each editor what he/she thinks the number of images for this section should be.
4. a separate question asking each editor to support or oppose each image, indicating, for instance "Oppose" or "Choice 1", "Choice 2", etc. For instance, an editor wishing to retain the old consensus could answer
   • 2 images
   • Choice 1: Adolf Hitler
   • Choice 2: Berlin ruins
   • Oppose Paramilitaries
   • Oppose Hamburg ruins
   • Oppose Holocaust bodies
   • Oppose Hungarian Jews
   • Oppose Dachau
   • Oppose Buchenwald
   • Oppose 1945 Film
5. After approx. 3 weeks, we first assess the consensus for how many pictures and then select the image with the most support as Choice 1 (currently Hitler) , followed by the image with the most support as Choice 2, and so on until the number decided by the qestion "how many pictures?" is reached.
6. For the picture of the Berlin ruins, there seems no support for A over B, so I would remove image A.
7. If the assessment is unanimously accepted, the results are implemented. If not, we request formal closure by an uninvolved admin/experienced RfC closer.

I will propose a draft shortly. --Boson (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: Since this is not, strictly, a vote some arguments may be given greater weight than others, but this discretion should be reserved to an uninvolved closer. --Boson (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

So this is my draft: --Boson (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. The draft has been here a couple of days, so I'm taking it live. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New improved RfC: Images to illustrate the section Weimar Republic and the Third Reich in the main Germany article

How many and which images should we use to illustrate the Weimar Republic and Third Reich section? --Boson (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Instructions (new RfC)

In the survey section please answer the two questions (number of images and image preference), adding a short rationale. Please support a maximum of 1 image from each group (e.g. do not select 2 pictures of ruins) Discussion should be kept to the discussion section and may be moved there by any editor.

Choice of images (new RfC)

• 
  • Paramilitaries
  • Communist Party of Germany's paramilitary RFB meeting in Berlin, May 1928. The young Weimar Republic was dominated by political unrest.

• 
  • Hitler
  • Adolf Hitler, Führer of Nazi Germany

• 
  • Berlin ruins
  • Berlin in ruins after World War II
• 
  • Hamburg ruins
  • Aerial photograph of Hamburg after the 1943 Allied bombing
• • 1945 film
  • A film shot by the US Air Force in July 1945 at the end of World War II, showing the destruction in central Berlin
• 
  • Brandenburger Tor
  • Brandenburg Gate, June 1945
• 
  • Reichstag
  • Ruins of the Reichstag in Berlin, 3 June 1945
• Red Army soldiers hoisting Soviet flag Red Army soldiers hoist the Soviet flag following the fall of Berlin, May 1945.
  • Red Army soldiers hoisting Soviet flag
  • Red Army soldiers hoist the Soviet flag following the fall of Berlin, May 1945.

• 
  • Holocaust bodies
  • The bodies of Holocaust victims who were prisoners at Buchenwald Concentration Camp.
• 
  • Hungarian Jews
  • Hungarian Jews arrive at the concentration camp in Auswitch.
• 
  • Dachau
  • Jewish prisoners at Dachau concentration camp
• 
  • Buchenwald
  • Survivors of the Buchenwald concentration camp following their liberation.

Discussion on the draft RfC

This section may be collapsed after the RfC starts

I think this is a very reasonable proposal that could help us find consensus about this image problem. —Kusma (t·c) 10:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey Question 1 (new RfC)

How many pictures should this section contain? Please give a number between 1 and 4 and a rationale and sign your post.

Responses to Question 1

2 images. This is the long-standing status. There is a recommendation for 1 image per section, and the history section is already rather long for summary style. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey Question 2 (new RfC)

Which of the above pictures would you choose. Please give answers for each picture, in the form

• Choice 1: designation of picture
• Choice 2: designation of picture
• Oppose: Designations of picture(s).

Please also give a rationale (if you wish) and sign your post. . . .

Responses to Question 2

• Choice 1: Adolf Hitler. Long-standing consensus. Symbolizes rise of Hitler and Nazism.--Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Choice 2: Berlin ruins. Long-standing consensus. Illustrates defeat of Germany, without excessive emotionality of dead or suffering people.--Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weakly Oppose Paramilitaries. If there is a consensus for more than 2 pictures, this would be a possibility, because it illustrates the Weimar period.--Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose Hamburg ruins, because Berlin ruins are more symbolic, and on the basis of photographic quality. But would be OK if others prefer.--Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Very strongly oppose Holocaust bodies. Insufficient justification in this article for degrading and possibly offensive depiction of dead bodies. Too emotional.--Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Hungarian Jews. Not sufficiently relevant to this high-level article. Does not sufficiently symbolize defeat. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Dachau. Not sufficiently relevant to this high-level article. Does not sufficiently symbolize defeat. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC) --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Buchenwald. Not sufficiently relevant to this high-level article. Does not sufficiently symbolize defeat. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose 1945 Film. On the positive side, it contains a lot of information, but the image before clicking is visually unappealing. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Brandenburger Tor. Not sufficiently symbolic. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose Reichstag. Other pictures are better. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose Red Army soldiers hoisting Soviet flag. On the positive side, it symbolizes German defeat, but it gives undue weight to the Soviets. --Boson (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the images (not the RfC structure)

I think the article should stay the way it is. Perhaps with another image for Weimar but not necesarily the Weimar picture above. I think i know where the opposition to the bombing picture is coming from. There are almost no English documentaries on bombing Germany and in those that exist you mainly see the bombers and their peril and little of the bombed. Today every visitor of Bremen seems surprised of the bombings of Germany and just about all its cities. "Oh, Bremen was destroyed too?" Ask them how many bombs were dropped on Germany and you'll find estimates between 500 and 10,000 bombs on Germany. But little Bremen alone, for example, received around a million bombs. Germany received an absolutely unprecedented 1.6 million TONS of bombs (=more than 16 thousand times the infamous bombing of Rotterdam, which was 97 tons). Every day some 15 still unexploded bombs are found and some 100,000 bombs remain (http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/luftmine-bei-koblenz-killer-im-schlick-a-801397.html). Cleaning off the 400 million cubic meters of rubble took many years. Because of the bombed cities hundreds of thousands more died in the hunger winter of 1946-47 (http://www.ndr.de/kultur/geschichte/Hungerwinter-194647,hungerwinter166.html), the white death, but the Allies helped provide food and aid for the population. Berlin wasn't fully rebuilt until the 80's (http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/berlin-end-war-1945/). Cleaning Germany of the bombs will take some 50 years more and cleaning the North sea will take some 60 years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic5Nc0cRNmQ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.102.115.111 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear misunderstanding of cause and effect here. Any pictures of bombings during World War II are an effect of the war that Germany at the time started. Pictures of concentration camps show atrocities that took place during the time the regime was in power. Could anyone enlighten me that the atrocities that took place in German concentration camps are in any causal connection to the war? They were considered to be a crime against humanity and are therefore a distinct icon of the Nazi regime – on which this section of the article is about. Keep the Buchenwald picture. As an alternative simply show BOTH pictures--Catflap08 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the IP address user - though Berlin wasn't actually the worst hit city; cities such as Hamburg, Bochum and Mainz came off worse. In my opinion, any illustration showing the aftermath of the air raids should feature one of these cities. Surlyduff50 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Again one picture shows Berlin in ruins the other Buchenwald victims. What has one to do with other if the section is about the subject of concentration camps ??? --Catflap08 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Showing a picture of destroyed Berlin is in my eyes unappropriate when looking at the article’s (sections) content. Even when we look at the statistics the result of the Nazi regime was not so much Germany’s destruction, but the number of victims. If one looks at the victims of allied bombings and German soldiers that were killed one gets a number of roughly 6.8 Million (3.2 Million German soldiers and 3.6 Million German civilians). If we look at the Holocaust there were between 5.0 and 6.0 million murdered Jews. Keeping this in mind the total number of victims of Nazi mass murder is about 13.0 Million victims which includes Jews, Sinti and Roma, mentally handicapped, Homosexuals, political imprisoned, etc. etc. As a result of World War II there were about 50.0 Million victims world wide. So in my opinion the picture of Berlin in ruins does not reflect the sections content, but the victims of mass murder does. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The main theme of this summary section (which still needs pruning) is the rise and fall of Hitler and National Socialism in the aftermath of World War I and the resulting World War II, leading to Germany's complete and utter defeat. The concentration camps are a sub-topic of that, dealt with in sub-articles. If the concentration camps are given undue weight for this top-level article that should be dealt with. The image of Hitler symbolizes all the things associated with Nazism (including the concentration camps). The image of the ruins symbolizes the war and the defeat of Nazi Germany. Pictures illustrating or symbolizing individual aspects of this period (such as the invasion of other countries , Stalingrad, concentration camps, the alliance with Italy and Japan, motorways, etc.) belong in the sub-articles. --Boson (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I find this rather disturbing given that all together 13 Million victims carry less weight that than a few rubbles. The most destructive outcome of the Nazi Regime, and that’s what we are talking about as this is not the article on World War II , is the mass murder of what was also partly the country’s own population. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Lobbying Editors to Participate in this Discussion for a Specific Reason

I just saw that Surlyduff50 has been lobbying at least one other user (IIIraute) to participate in this discussion in order to exclude a Holocaust related image from the article. Lobbying which promotes a specific view is prohibited by Misplaced Pages. Users should remember that any talk page comments should not be attempts at drawing in editors to a conversation who support your point of view. Below is Surlyduff50 comment: Hello,

If you are opposed to the introduction of the Bunchenwald image on the article for Germany, please say so on the Talk page (I've added a new section).

Surlyduff50 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC) -Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, do not prevaricate - you are very aware of the fact, that I did revert your changes almost two days before Surlyduff50 did post this message on my talk page. --IIIraute (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If the final goal is to victimise Germany during the period between 1933 and 1945 by displaying an image of Hitler and some rubbles then this is to my mind irritating and a cause for worry. Furthermore as an editor previously argued about the amount of bombs dropped on Germany during World War II in this discussion – this is disturbing to say the least. If the discussion continues this whole issue is bound to be brought to a higher level of attention. Even within Germany this era is not so much referred to as a “dark era” because of the destruction that took place but because of the atrocities that were committed. Also as those atrocities were committed by Germans against Germans who happened to have another faith, disability, sexual orientation or political opinion. It is my honest fear that revisionist views are given a platform that is unseen on the German Misplaced Pages. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled by your reference to German Misplaced Pages. Their article on Germany seems to manage without any harrowing pictures of dead or starving victims, even though the German article is almost twice as long and contains well over twice the number of images (German Misplaced Pages has different views on summary style and images). --Boson (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

1. Niewyk, Donald L.; Nicosia, Francis R. (2000). The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust. Columbia University Press. pp. 45–52. ISBN 978-0-231-11200-0.
2. "Leaders mourn Soviet wartime dead". BBC News. 9 May 2005. Retrieved 18 March 2011.
3. Overy, Richard (17 February 2011). "Nuremberg: Nazis on Trial". BBC History. Retrieved 25 March 2011.
4. Beevor, Antony (2003) . Berlin: The downfall 1945. Penguin. pp. 31–32, 409–412. ISBN 978-0-14-028696-0.
5. Fulbrook 1991, pp. 156–160.
6. Fulbrook 1991, pp. 155–158, 172–177.
7. "Das Ermächtigungsgesetz 1933" (in German). Deutsches Historisches Museum. Retrieved 25 March 2011.
8. Stackelberg, Roderick (1999). Hitler's Germany: Origins, interpretations, legacies. Routledge. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-415-20115-5.
9. "Industrie und Wirtschaft" (in German). Deutsches Historisches Museum. Retrieved 25 March 2011.
10. Fulbrook 1991, pp. 188–189.
11. ^ Fulbrook 1991, pp. 190–195.
12. Steinberg, Heinz Günter (1991). Die Bevölkerungsentwicklung in Deutschland im Zweiten Weltkrieg: mit einem Überblick über die Entwicklung von 1945 bis 1990 (in German). Kulturstiftung der dt. Vertriebenen. ISBN 978-3-88557-089-9.
13. Niewyk, Donald L.; Nicosia, Francis R. (2000). The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust. Columbia University Press. pp. 45–52. ISBN 978-0-231-11200-0.
14. "Leaders mourn Soviet wartime dead". BBC News. 9 May 2005. Retrieved 18 March 2011.
15. Rüdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1
16. Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Bd. 9/1, ISBN 3-421-06236-6. Page 460 (This study was prepared by the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office, an agency of the German government)
17. Bonn : Kulturstiftung der Deutschen Vertriebenen, Vertreibung und Vertreibungsverbrechen, 1945–1948 : Bericht des Bundesarchivs vom 28. Mai 1974 : Archivalien und ausgewählte Erlebnisberichte / . Bonn :1989 ISBN 3-88557-067-X. (This is a study of German expulsion casualties due to "war crimes" prepared by the German government Archives)
18. Beevor, Antony (2003) . Berlin: The downfall 1945. Penguin. pp. 31–32, 409–412. ISBN 978-0-14-028696-0.
19. Overy, Richard (17 February 2011). "Nuremberg: Nazis on Trial". BBC History. Retrieved 25 March 2011.

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Germany articles
• Top-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• FA-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• FA-Class Lutheranism articles
• Low-importance Lutheranism articles
• FA-Class Christianity articles
• WikiProject Lutheranism articles
• FA-Class former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• FA-Class Eurovision articles
• Low-importance Eurovision articles
• All WikiProject Eurovision pages
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Selected anniversaries (October 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2010)