Talk:Germany/Archive 11

message: Is there anything in this about the cencorship of violent video games?
Most of the censorship in germany you think of is really just some form of youth protection where advertising and selling of violent media to minors is prohibited. Adults can still buy and play the games, although it might be hard to find a shop selling them. I don't know if you want to call this censorship or not, but it it has very little impact on german society. There is also some full scale censorship in connection with the nazi heritage, the most prominent example is that selling copies of "Mein Kampf" is prohibited in germany.
:AFAIK it's allowed to sell antiquarian versions of Mein Kampf.--217.85.95.65 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not allowed to be sold, but like many censorships has only made a highly suspicious product more attractive to ceratin target groups. 84.171.91.118 00:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. "Owning and buying the book is legal. Trading in old copies is legal as well unless it is done in such a fashion as to "promote hatred or war", which is, under anti-revisionist laws, generally illegal." The only thing you can't do is sell newly printed books - because that would break Copyright Law. Lars T. 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Printing "Mein Kampf" in Germany is indeed illegal due to copyright law. The state of Bavaria has inherited Hitler's estate, including the copyright, except in countries where the rights have been explicitely secured by an act of government (this applies to the UK and the Netherlands, AFAIK). Copyright is life of author+70 years, so it expires in May 2015. Bavaria does not currently allow reprinting of the book. This is a peculiar situation, and does not, of course, apply to Neonazi creations, as they typically hold the copyright for their own works.  --Stephan Schulz 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship

message: I'm not very happy with the CIA map of Germany used in this article. For instance, why does it show the river Danube but not the Rhine which is at least as important to Germany in economics and history, probably even more important? Why does it show the rather small city of Emden in the northwest corner of the country but no city at all in the southwest corner - where Freiburg im Breisgau would be located, a city four times as large as Emden and historically very important? I have nothing against Emden, but that's an inconsistency a map in a featured article shouldn't exhibit in my opinion. Gestumblindi 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the reason is obvious: we don't have a better one (with the needed rights to free use) Lars T. 23:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope there are some people here who could draw a better one (I can't, don't have such skills) :-) Gestumblindi 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm not too fond of the CIA maps myself.. Brutannica 07:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not satisfied with the map 

message: Minor little edit needs to be made.  It says the German population is about 19% of foreign descent or at elast partially, when in fact the sources that were linked to back this statement up place the number as being somewheres along the lines of 8-9%, natural births of immigrants included.  This should probably be changed.
CorneliusStump 08:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics Section Needs Changing 

message: There is yet no section about the 2 topics. Lear 21 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were taken out during clean-up Lars T. 15:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually think that a mention of Germany's world re-known Autobahn and high-speed trains would definitely be worth a little section. Signaturebrendel 17:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Transport section was removed after the discussion about the featured article status because it is not standard in FA articles. Lars T. 22:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Do you believe that other sections such as transport, which do not appear on other FA national articles." There isn't much more — you should ask User:TSO1D, he handled the whole FA process including editing almost on his own. Lars T. 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infrastructure and Transportation needed! 

message: [ˈbʊndəsrepubliːk ˈdɔʏtʃlant] is wrong, it should be something like this: [ˈbʊndəsrepuˌblɪk ˈdɔʏtʃlant]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.88.205 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21
my bad i was talking to the article above me 21, MArch, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.242.126 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-22
:I think [repuˈblɪk] is getting more common, but I believe it is still regional, with [repuˈbli:k] being preferred. 
:Duden Aussprachewörterbuch has:
:*ˈbʊndəs
:*repuˈbliːk
:*ˈdɔytʃlant ( with tie bars linking ɔy and tʃ )
:So I would change the pronunciation to [ˈbʊndəsrepuˌb liːk ˈdɔ͜yt͜ʃlant] --
:if I could get both tie bars to work properly.
:--Boson 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The final "d" is definitely unvoiced in normal speech.--Boson 05:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definitely true. One of the main differences between English and German phonology is that there are no voiced plosives and fricatives in the final position of syllables and words at all. Written b, d, g are [p, t, k], an s is always [s], never [z]. That accounts for at least a third of pronunciation mistakes when Germans speak English: they don't differentiate between "rib" and "rip", "bed" and "bet", "log" and "lock", "fuss" and "fuzz", "lose" like "loose". "Lands" tends to sound like "lance" etc. The loss of "soft" final consonants happened when Old High German became Middle High German, at about the same time when Old English became Middle English, an it is one of the main features that began to differentiate the sound of the two closely related languages.141.91.129.2 12:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Please comment at Today's featured article for this proposal. Lear 21 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Germany-article for Today's featured article !

message: Someone replaced the previous picture of German soldiers at the Polish border with a picture of a bombed-out Potsdamer Platz from the postwar period. I think we should stick to pictures depicting events from the period in question. I don't mind another picture, but it should at least be from the Third Reich, and not showing the aftermaths of the war (which should be in the postwar section). I have therefore restored the original image.
Nellov5 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh you want to nitpick? That photo was taken 1945 July 9, over a month before WW2 ended (even if only in the Pacific). Lars T. 20:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The Potsdamer Platz pic should stay-it shoulds the devastating destruction caused WWII. Signaturebrendel 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures in Third Reich section 

message: the article says germany suffered 10 million dead in WWII, the highest I had ever heard was about 5 million. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnHistory (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: World War II casualties, apparently supported by citations, gives a gigure of 7.5 million.--Boson 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to that the 2 million who died during the Expulsion of Germans after World War II and the thousands that died of malnutrition after the war. Lars T. 14:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The actual quote from the article (my emphasis): "The war resulted in the death of several million German soldiers and civilians, in total nearly ten million". Lars T. 14:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 million dead? 

message: Why does "Allemagne" redirect here with no explanation or mention of the term in the article?--24.22.147.202 00:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea why there needs to be a redirect, but it's simply French for Germany, and so does not need mentioning in the article. Lexicon (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Germany has a different name in the Romanic languages — but then it has a different name in most other languages too (as do many other countries). See Names for Germany for more info. Hrrm, come to think of it, I'll change that redirect to go there. Lars T. 15:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Allemagne" 

message: A semiprotection for the article Germany would be much appreciated. Several unregistered users did their ongoing nonsense the last days. The upcoming appearance as Today´s FA - article on
the Main Page (07.04.) will probably provoke more of it. 7 day- protection should be fine. Thanks in advance and all the best Lear 21 11:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be at least semi-protected. I have this on my watchlist from when it was on the main page, and it is still vandalized alarmingly often. --LuigiManiac 04:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Semi-Protection 

message: Due to my recent edit, the article uses the "U.S.–German Economic Relations Factsheet" reference twice. However, I didn't and still don't know how to do that fancy thing where a reference that is used more than once is given the same footnote number. So now, ref. 22 and 23 are the same. I am very sorry for that and would be very grateful to the person who either fixes it or tells me how I can fix it (although I have to go offline now, and wouldn't be able to do it while the article is featured on the main page). Blur4760 00:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My screw-up 

message: Congratulations to all who made one of my favorites pages today featured article. Just watch out for vandalism, cuz it become pretty bad when the article is on the main page and sadly featured articles aren´t protected. Auf Wiedersehen!!! --ometzit<col> 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes great work, it 's nice to have important core topics like this high quality, really helps the credibility of the project. Trevor GH5 06:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WOOOOOOH!!! I'm a German myself, and it's extremely exciting to see this on the Main Page finally. Time to play some German patriotic songs... 
Yeah, I'll bet it's gotten lots of Nazi references from vandals by now. Brutannica 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks okay. Trevor GH5 15:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congrats!!!

message: Would anyone like to work together to add on both this article and the German Culture article on the effects of Hermann Hesse's works on western youth culture? If you go to any school in the United States, Canada, or Great Brittan and you will hear of his works among those who are choosing the slackers way through school, and it has been so for some time. Steppenwolf has also influenced the band of the same name, of which have been extremely successful musically, and applying Hesse's ideas to their own work. --Taken By Robots 04:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a great idea- Hesse has a profound impact on me as a young man!  Siddhartha and Demian were profoundly influential for me!  Perhaps even a shout out to Hesse would start that and could be added to...!  Alex Jackl 12:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just added a reference to Hesse.  (It got wiped out but I think accidentally by editors dealing with the vandalism)Alex Jackl 13:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Cultural Influence 

message: In this edit, Slavs are removed from the list of peoples persecuted by the Third Reich regime, with the reason that it "implies that Slavs were persecuted to the same extent as Jews", while leaving every other group that also suffered to some extent, though I'd have thought all not to the same level as Jews, and probably in most cases, not even as much as Slavs. I didn't change it back, as there may be reasoning either way, and I'm not entirely sure if what I'm saying is right, but my personal opinion is that they either didn't read it properly, which is probably most likely, or they have some personal bias for Jews, or against Slavs. --86.130.29.170 10:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the Slavic peoples reference  not because I have a strong opinion about it or any statistics either way but that the removal seemed somewhat arbitrary- there are many races/cultures/types of people listed on the list there of people who were persecuted and killed  by the Third Reich.  Who knows how many of each and what order of precedence.  Frankly, even if I knew, I wouldn't add that information- I think that that is too much detail for a general article like this. If someone feels strongly about the Slav/no-Slav deal let's talk about it on the talk page.  I think given the article's public prominence right now it is even more important that we be conservative in our editing.  Danke!! Alex Jackl 12:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Slavs?

message: I can't believe this wasn't mentioned in the post-Weimar/pre-WWII section. BipolarBear 15:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria and the Anschluss? 

message: Germany was classified as a "great power" in 1871-1918 — when the term was widely used to describe France, Germany, Britain, Russia, the U.S. and, arguably Italy and Austria-Hungary. I suppose Germany was again briefly a "great power" during the Nazi nightmare, but I don't believe it's applicable to today's Germany in the context of present-day politics. Very few contemporary Germans would choose to describe their country as a Grossmacht, as their grandparents or great-grandparents would have.
Today, the "great powers" (the term is no longer widely used) are the U.S., Russia, China and, arguably, the U.K. Sca 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See article on great power. It´s a standard term in Wikipedia country articles. Lear 21 15:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw it, and disagree with what it says. The term "great power" is outmoded, archaic — and basically has been since the end of WWII. Sca 15:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sca, "great power" is subjective and should not be used in country article intro's. Perhap's "The Federal Republic of Germany, with Europe's largest economy, is an economic power" would be better. --A.Garnet 17:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I understand the POV sound of the term, I actually disagree. The World Wars wrecked Germany and it's not what it once was, sure, but it's still Europe's largest economy, the world's third largest, and one of the three main powers in the EU. Plus there's a chance at a permanent UN Security Council seat (maybe??). I think it deserves the status, and I don't think the term is outdated, either, just not used as much. ("Great powers" have existed throughout history, really, as have superpowers in my opinion.) Brutannica 07:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right. "Great power" isn't outdated - but it certainly is debatable. Personally I would say there is one super power in the world since 1991 (the United States, obviously) and a handful or so of great powers: Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and China (arguably on its way to becoming a super power). --dllu 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Great Power"

message: Shouldn't there at least be an obvious link to the Sonderweg page considering that it is considered crucial by many historians (refer to actual article for more info) to understanding the influence that germany has undeniably had on western history in the 20th century? its probably to big to have a large explanation in this article, but i still think that it should be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movingpictures100@hotmail.com (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sonderweg? 

message: If somebody point to the internet high resolution scans - thanks . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.244.169 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the oldest text in German Language? 

message: WikiCharts — Top 1000 (Out of 1.72 Million) ! Germany article in March : Views per day 11 032 (rank 112.)
Germany article in April so far : Views per day 23 143 (rank 38.)  Lear 21 15:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: who cares? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.226.66.70 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Results for Today's featured article & Happy Easter!

message: Please use Transport in Germany for new content. All modes of transportion should be mentioned. Lear 21 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Infrastructure needs Expansion!

message: Under the "Education" heading this is a picture of the Transrapid in Shanghai. Is there a legitimate reason for its existence, or should it be deleted? Britney-Boy 03:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Transrapid is genuinely produced and invented by several German firms and cooperations with German universities. Lear 21 14:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transrapid in Shanghai?

message: Last paragraph states "Many Germans (formerly displaced persons, and NO NEO NAZIS!) still see These areas as German, and fight for there restitution."
As an outsider to Germany, this seems a little ambiguous and I was wondering if it would be possibly to go in more detail.  As well the "NO NEO NAZIS!" remark seems a little emotional... seeing as it is in caps.  Could it be re-stated in a manner more fitting of an encyclopedia?
Normgibson 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it, as well as the grammar and spelling in that section, I'm not sure if I should just get rid of the section, because that section was all done by the same person. I don't know if the rest is true. Can anyone with more knowledge in this area check that section over for truth and verifiability? --LuigiManiac 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last paragraph, comment RE "NEO NAZI" 

message: I thought this was a semi-credible site, i guess not. 207.6.113.119 06:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was vandalism, and it has been fixed.  It's unfortunately one thing wikipedia has to deal with from time to time.  Jpp42 10:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The german flag and emblem are pictured as the old nazi ones, and have been for a while 

message: Why is the emigration on the highest rate since end of WW II if the economy is the 3rd biggest inn the world? I can`t see any "problem" section, so, is everything ok over there or are there maybe some discussions about this (school concept, see UN) and that (unemployment)? Aren`t there any major problems in this cunttry or is everything just fine and all of the folks are fat and happy?
This whole article is just advertising. I wonder why its a "featured article". Let me guess it - Its just what it reads like: A media offensive from some gouvernment/ economy paid propaganda institute. P.juka 12:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boo-hoo-hoo. Anyway, the biggest reason is unemployment. Lars T. 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Germans first of all have a disturbed self conception and are wailing at a high stage. In fact this part of the real existent problems, too. The article includes problems like unemployment, stagnation of wages in contrast to general economical recreation respectively growth and demographic problems. What more?: Maybe demographic implications on the social systems are missing. Geo-Loge 10:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Emigration

message: It should be mentioned that the film Nowhere in Africa (original title in German: Nirgendwo in Afrika) won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2002. Furthermore it would be nice to add the original title of the film The Lives of Others which is Das Leben der Anderen. -- 217.233.160.231 09:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot that the German film Die Blechtrommel (The Tin Drum) won an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, too. See here: Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. Anyway what I think is: If one is mentioned the other two should also be mentioned. -- 217.233.160.231 09:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cinema 

message: I just had the idea of a series of articles about tourism in Germany. There could be a series about the 16 states. I thought to include major cultural events/festivals, national parks, class-A sites, sports and recreation, cities, waters, etc. of each individual state. Perhaps here would be a good place to collect some ideas and thoughts about this idea. There sure is sooooo much to see in all the different parts of Germany that it could be hard to decide what to mention in those articles and what not. I would be willing to start the article about my home state Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Likedeeler 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is called "football" in the article and is mentioned under Sports, with a reference to the main article Sport in Germany.--Boson 06:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism in Germany (series) 

message: I'm a german people and the anthem is wrong.
The "Lied der Deutschen" was the Nazi anthem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.177.177.39 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hymn is known by both names, but the original title is "Das Lied der Deutschen", as can be seen on this  of the handwritten text by Hoffmann von Fallersleben — Nazi-Germany only used the first stanza (as well as the Horst-Wessel-Lied) as their Anthem, the FRG only uses the third stanza. And no, the first stanza is not called Lied der Deutschen, nor is the third called Deutschlandlied. Lars T. 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is confirmation from the German Ministry of the Interior:Nationalhymne Das Deutschlandlied geht auf die liberale Nationalbewegung des 19. Jahrhunderts zurück. Den Text verfasste Heinrich Hoffmann, der seinen Namen mit dem Zusatz "von Fallersleben" versah, ein nationalliberaler Dichter, der 1842 wegen seiner Werke seine Professur in Preußen verlor. Das "Lied der Deutschen" schrieb er am 26. August 1841 bei einem Aufenthalt auf der damals britischen Insel Helgoland. . . . Die junge Bundesrepublik tat sich mit der Entscheidung über eine Nationalhymne schwer. Im Gegensatz zur Bundesflagge wurde im Grundgesetz hierzu keine Festlegung getroffen. Eine Regelung erfolgte erst 1952. Bundeskanzler Dr. Konrad Adenauer bat den Bundespräsidenten in einem Schreiben vom 29. April 1952, "das Hoffmann-Haydn´sche Lied als Nationalhymne anzuerkennen. Bei staatlichen Veranstaltungen soll die dritte Strophe gesungen werden." Prof. Dr. Theodor Heuss gab hierzu mit seinem Antwortschreiben vom 2. Mai 1952 seine Zustimmung. . . . Nach der Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands erklärten Bundespräsident Dr. Richard von Weizsäcker und Bundeskanzler Dr. Helmut Kohl in einem Briefwechsel vom August 1991 die dritte Strophe des Deutschlandlieds zur Nationalhymne. So, strictly speaking, following the exchange of notes between the President and the Chancellor, the national anthem is actually the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied, and the rest of the song forms no part of the anthem (before that the whole song was the anthem, but only one verse was sung at official ceremonies).--Boson 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Strictly speaking"? -- Calling it "Deutschlandlied" instead of "Lied der Deutschen" is the first mistake; calling this the anthem is just plainly wrong. It is not. The third stanza is for it own the anthem. And the first exchange of notes that defined this was 1952. --84.144.196.218 10:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be agreeing with me that the third stanza is the anthem (I wrote the national anthem is actually the third stanza of the Deutschlandlied ). As regards the name of the whole thing, you will note from my German government quotation that the German government calls it the Deutschlandlied. On their Web site they do refer to the original by Heinrich Hoffmann as "Lied der Deutschen" (in inverted commas), but throughout the text they refer to it as das Deutschlandlied. You can't get much more explicit than Nach der Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands erklärten Bundespräsident Dr. Richard von Weizsäcker und Bundeskanzler Dr. Helmut Kohl in einem Briefwechsel vom August 1991 die dritte Strophe des Deutschlandlieds zur Nationalhymne. So the official anthem is: Third stanza of the Deutschlandlied.--Boson 15:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You said it yourself: the third stanza of the "Lied der Deutschen" is now the text being sung to the national anthem, instead of the first one. The stanza itself doesn't have a name. --dllu 11:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right; thanks for changing the title. It is not only about being sung; the Lied der Deutschen is not in any way the anthem; only the third stanza, named or not, is. For me the brackets don't work, they mislead. Instead it should be somehing like "Anthem - Third stanza of the "Lied der Deutschen"". --84.144.196.218 11:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if people click on the link they will get the explanation and can form their own opinion about the weirdness of this decision... --dllu 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hej. It's ok as it is, in the german WP it's not different. For me it would be much clearer at the spot if it was written differently, without the need to look up just on suspicion. No need to force someone to build up an opinion on historical details if he just want's to know what Germany's anthem is. May I ask why you think the decision is weird? --212.7.145.178 12:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  anthem is wrong 

message: "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit"
-Union and Justice and Freedom
I think that you should add an english translation. In every other article concerning a nation, you have the Motto both in english and in the national language. I can't see why it should be different in the case of germany.
:Since this version of Wikipedia specialized in conveying information through the English language, yes-a translation should be added. Signaturebrendel 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Einigkeit" bedeutet auf Englisch nicht "Union" sondern unity. "Union" zu deutsch ist Verein. Sca 01:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: Why is there nothing in the article on the Spanish Civil War in this article? I'd put some in, however my knowledge towards that event aren't really that great. Can someone maybe add a little information on it what they get the chance?
:because this article was made by germanophiles IMHO. Cliché Online 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the German Luftwaffe aided Franco in several bombing raids, basically training for WW2. Lars T. 07:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Civil War? 

message: I think it is wrong to say that Germany joined the European Union in 1957, since the EU didn't exist then. Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg were the founder states of the European Economic Community (Rome treaties of 1957, implemented 1958), which was quite different from the EU in that it was by no means anything like a political Union but little more than a trade zone. Of course, the EEC is the root of the EU, but nevertheless: writing that Germany joined the EU in 1957 creates the definitely wrong impression that something like the EU existed back then. The entry should be altered.141.91.129.5 11:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Entry into European Union wrong

message: why is half of this section dedicated to the US-germany relationship and there is not so much about the euro nations, nothing about the east and asia for example? i think the world doesn't revolve around the US. Cliché Online 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign relations

message: Mozart was Austrian, not German.  This is a glaring error.
:This has already been discussed on this page at length. Have a look at the section 'Is Mozart "German" ?' Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All Austrians during Mozart's time (and until very recently) were recognised by themselves and by others as Germans. Any arguments against that are anachronisms. Miskin 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture