body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
Featured articleGermany is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 7, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 9, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 13, 2011Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 3, 2009, and October 3, 2010.
Current status: Featured article

Validity of source[edit]

The source for the statement that "Historically, Germany has been called Das Land der Dichter und Denker ('the land of poets and thinkers') […]" doesn't explicitly state that this expression has a valid historical background, thus failing verification. In fact, I sometimes even read and hear that „Land der Dichter und Denker“ is a relatively modern self-referential term used primarily by Germans to refer to themselves, rather than a historically grown international reputation, e.g. here. Therefore, I suggest finding a better source, which supports the statement, or changing the sentence accordingly. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See references of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichter_und_Denker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.142.117.212 (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany is the third largest economy by GDP not the fourth[edit]

Should be changed in the title section. WIKI Wizard of Wales (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024[edit]

I saw wrong information and I wanted to fix it PepigeonLOL (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What wrong information specifically? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

total 17 million people were systematically murdered[edit]

This incorrectly paraphrases the linked Holocaust Wikipedia page that does not claim this bottom line and the paragraph that could be misinterpreted this way is itself debated at length in the Holocaust talk page for being a misinterpretation of sources. Even with the passive voice only insinuating that the German Government would be the one murdering entity (see the talk page of the Wikipedia Holocaust page for details), the bigger problem is the claim of 'systematic' murdering of 17 million.

The Holocaust is understood to stand out for the fact that it was premeditated and systematic. It is not a service to the victims to blur the boundaries by redefining its scope. There is a reason the word originates from 'fire sacrifice'.

The 17 million figure is three times higher, counting unconnected atrocities in. The way it is stated here is original and not claimed by anyone anywhere. That's why it doesn't have a source except pointing to the Wikipedia page. But the Holocaust page it links to also isn't phrasing it this way. 46.142.117.212 (talk) 06:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the section to more clearly reflect how the number was derived, and User:Nikkimaria was so kind to correct my source usage. The main issue with it was that it was unreliable, and the number of 17 million was derived by accounting for soviet civilian deaths, without counting any other allied civilian deaths.
The edited section now no longer refers to '17 million'; maybe somebody should include the overall death tolls of the conflict, though. (Citing a reliable source, of course...) JackTheSecond (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

world ranking of the German economy in the intro text[edit]

the world ranking of one countrys economy in its wiki page intro text is wiki standard. can I use it in the German intro text and add "world´ third biggest"? BauhausFan89 (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is at FA level thus follows WP:COUNTRYLEAD that recommends we don't duplicate data that's in the info box (no need 3 times in one article)....other examples Canada or Japan Moxy- 15:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Demographics Section[edit]

The paragraph below that is taken from the section of demographics regarding the topic of immigration in Germany illustrates the potential for confusion when the terms 'migrants' and 'refugees' are used interchangeably:

'After the United States, Germany is the second-most popular immigration destination in the world. In 2015, following the 2015 refugee crisis, the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs listed Germany as host to the second-highest number of international migrants worldwide, about 5% or 12 million of all 244 million migrants. Refugee crises have resulted in substantial population increases.'

This conflation is problematic as it does not address the distinctions between legal and humanitarian statuses of refugees and migrants, and uses them as though they signify the same concept. 78.179.1.222 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees are a subcategory of migrants; what this section seems to suggest is that this subgroup has driven an overall rise in immigration rates. Do you have sourcing to suggest otherwise? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what IP is objecting to is that the statement 'Refugee crises have resulted in substantial population increases.' is an unsourced addition, and editorializing by whomever added it in. I concur. JackTheSecond (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim appears to be supported by the following source, and could be supported by additional sources if necessary. What leads you to believe it is editorializing? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanting to insert pictures about German architecture.[edit]

I want to insert 2 pictures about German architecture; one of the Quedlingburg old town as the former ruling city of the first German kings and one of the Berlin modern architecture complexes. both sites are world heritage sites and show the the brigth spectrum of the history behind German architecture. I can use the set template which includes 2 pictures about German art. that fits totally in the site´s code and design. can I do that as described? BauhausFan89 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia articles are not repositories of images; that short section already includes two images, and adding two more overwhelms the text and displaces the images from other sections. There are main article links by which further illustrations can be accessed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but as I showed with my post the other images in the following articles dont get displaced and the text fits nicely beside the 4 images in one frame. you can see that in the old edit. BauhausFan89 (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is based on the version in your old edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn’t Bonn included in the capitals? As most government buildings are still located there even after reunification[edit]

Put Bonn

as the capital as not many people knew it was the capital of west Germany, and many government buildings are still located there Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bonn is not listed as the capital because it is not the capital - that's an official designation, not based on where government buildings are located. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Printing Press[edit]

The article, in the 'History' section, currently reads:

Johannes Gutenberg introduced moveable-type printing to Europe, laying the basis for the democratization of knowledge.[1]

The sentence reads as weirdly specific to me as Guttenberg invented the movable-type printing press, and the article on movable-type printing is about its invention in China. Also, the article on the democratization of knowledge doesn't have anything to do with the printing press at all. JackTheSecond (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The movable type article mentions both China and Gutenberg, and the democratization of knowledge article is underdeveloped. Multiple external sources elaborate on the connection between the printing press and democratization of knowledge, eg [1][2][3]. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree--gut instinct--but those sources are all written by data science people trying to give their field the veneer of historical context without referencing anyone, or even writing on exactly what happened. It kind of sounds like they heard their professor lead into the lecture with a historical context and have been using that lead-in as 'given background' ever since.
I know I'm being harsh, but even the (most serious!) source the article gives seems to me more about the communicative qualities of print. (Or at least the section is hard to identify and find, it's quite extensive work, and original research as well. Available at: https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1017/CBO9781107049963)
It mostly seems to me that 'democratised knowledge' means more (to most of these sources) than just communication. But I might very well be wrong. ~ JackTheSecond (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would you propose the article say? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked around a bit more, the discourse might have come to prominence with the digitization efforts and the internet, but that doesn't mean the statement is wrong. Probably. Just that the topic is underdeveloped. And that they're all stating things in a bit of an uncritical fashion without telling... this Wikipedian specifically (!) where they are taking their wisdom from. JackTheSecond (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STATISTA[edit]

We have a few things sourced to WP:STATISTA. Over outright deletion..let see if we can track down the real sources. Moxy🍁 20:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK the source is displayed at Statista itself if you have an account. I do not - do any other watchers? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is the sites layout?[edit]

the right side of the text is clearly set for the use of images. how can I not use most or all of the right side? the part about modern Germany needs at least one picture to represent the modern times. and why not 2? and the historic Paulskirche picture also fitted in nicely. why was it removed. and please state more then "layout issues". Would you be so kind to explain the term. what can I do to fit an image on the right side. BauhausFan89 (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb (from my pov).... is one image for about three or four paragraphs... this is what is best seen on PCs (as in images fitting nicely in a section without overlap into another section). I suggest reviewing what things look like on a PC and mobile before any additions. Please take note how other FA level articles are not overwhelmed with images like Canada or Japan. An article like History of Germany is simply overwhelmed with images sandwiching text and images overlapping into other sections making accessibility hard for those with reading impairments. Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts has some basics with links to more information. Moxy🍁 16:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - the proposed additions created a lot of unnecessary white space. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are not image repositories, and just because an image exists for something does not mean it needs to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah, thats totally fair. can I add the Reichstag in the third paragraph of the history of modern Germany then? BauhausFan89 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Eisenstein, Elizabeth (1980). The printing press as an agent of change. Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–43. ISBN 978-0-521-29955-8.
Categories