Talk:Germany

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). Wikipedia'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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia; 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

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:

Berlin in ruins after World War II

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

Berlin in ruins after World War II

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

The bodies of Holocaust victims who were prisoners at Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

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)

[53.36%, you forgot to count their allies.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:08, 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. [User:StoneProphet|StoneProphet]], thank you for your original comments but I don't think they really make sense. For example, how does the image "reinforce stereotypes, [or] 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:

Hungarian Jews arrive at the concentration camp in Auswitch.

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:

Jewish prisoners at Dachau concentration camp

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:

Survivors of the Buchenwald concentration camp following their liberation.

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia with a revisionist agenda. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:03, 13 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

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)