Talk:Germany/Archive 5

message: I believe the Zionist needs to be banned from editing this page. Or what do you say, Gustav and Heimdal? Should we go to the Israel article and make it primarily an article about the Jewish ethnic cleansing, occupation and genocide of the Palestinians? Perhaps the United States should mostly deal with the genocide on native Americans, Africans and Abu Ghraib, preferably with a lot of the well-known pictures from the camp?	 
anonymous comment by User:83.109.147.244	 
		 
This is just silly (I just came here for wondering about the protection notice). Nobody can say WP is trying to hush up the holocaust. We have Nazi Germany, Holocaust, why, we have :Category:Holocaust, containing six subcategories, and more than 100 individual articles. This, however is the article on Germany, the present-day state and its history. The Nazis dominated, what, 12 years of the 1200 years treated in the history section. that's 1%. already, the "Third Reich" section takes up about 20% of the history section, which is arguably pov, but obviously, it's not about any old 1% of German history, but a very decisive 1%, plus it's relatively recent history, so I'd say its fine to blow it out of (strictly temporal) proportion by a factor 10 or 20. And of course the Third Reich section should mention the holocaust. And guess what - that's it. The rest of the article should be allowed to treat lots of unrelated things in peace. dab (ᛏ) 11:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article has been vandalized for months by anti-German POV pushers

message: I see -- I didn't follow the discussion, and was distracted by the anonymous holocaust rant. Now correct me, but the article seems to have been protected by an admin involved in editing disputes here, and he seems to have reverted before protecting. I consider this rather bad form, admins involved in disputes should ask for protection on RfP like everyone else. I think I can take it upon myself to unprotect the article. Of course, if the edit war continues, it will have to be protected again, blindly, i.e. all parties have an interest to reach some sort of compromise rather than keeping reverting. dab (ᛏ) 15:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: unprotection

message: Part I
I'm currently making a list of the major deletions and changes which Gidonb has made on May 6th. This is very tiresome, because it appears that Gidonb has made more than 50 edits in one single evening. Anyway, here is the first batch.
* 19:49, 6 May 2005. In the "Social issues" section, Gidonb deletes the following final sentence by User:Reboot:
:1. This being said, such problems are not unique to Germany and the incidence of the more severe of these problems are relatively rare in perspective.
* 19:51, 6 May 2005. In the "Culture" section, Gidonb deletes the following:
:2. Also Dutch belongs to the Low German languages, and English was developed from Old Low German.
* 20:49, 6 May 2005. In the subsection on the "Holy Roman Empire", the previous version said:
:3. the Germans expanded their influence successfully with the help of the Catholic Church Gidonb deletes the word "successfully" (edit summary reads:"by default").
* 21:50, 6 May 2005. Gidonbs starts to delete indiscriminately throughout the page.
** In the "Military" section, Gidonb deletes the following:
:4. Critics of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's government have argued that Germany's defence budget of about €24 billion is too small. Nevertheless, Defence Minister Peter Struck has said the defence budget will remain roughly unchanged until 2006.
** In "Religion", Gidonb deletes the following paragraph about Jewish immigrants in Germany:
:5. About half joined a settled Jewish community, of which there are now more than 100, with a total of 100,000 members—up from 30,000 before unification. Some German cities have seen a revival of Jewish culture, particularly in Berlin, where 3,000 Israelis also live.
* 21:56, 6 May 2005. In the "Geography" section, Gidonb deletes the following sentence/paragraph:
:6. Since reunification of the two parts of the country Germany has resumed its traditional role as the major centre between Scandinavia in the north and the Mediterranean region in the south, as well as between the Atlantic west and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. (Edit summary by Gidonb reads: "exaggeration")
* 22:17, 6 May 2005. In the "Culture" section, Gidonb deletes the following paragraph:
:7. Many historical figures, though not citizens of Germany in the modern sense, were nevertheless seen as "Germans" in the sense that they were immersed in the German culture, for example Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Franz Kafka and Stefan Zweig.
In the same "Culture" section, Gidonb also deletes the following:
:8. Whilst High German was subject to the so-called consonant shift, Low German was not.
So this is the first batch of Gidonb's deletions which I've put on my list. More of the same tomorrow. - Heimdal 15:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm absolutely sure that the things that you removed from the article don't matter to *you*. Because the only thing that seems to bother you about Germany is the Holocaust. But perhaps the things that I mentioned above and which you deleted do matter to other people. Ever thought about it, you little "PhD student", you? - Heimdal 16:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heimdal can you please stop making personal insults? They are unpleasant for everybody. I took the freedom to number the deletions by Gidonb to facilitate talking about them. I oppose to deletion 7. and I think that the wording of nr. 6 is exaggerated and can be re-added after toning it down (it is true that Germany is an important bridge between "Eastern Europe" and Western Europe.)  Andries 16:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: RIGHT, WOULD YOU PLEASE BOTH STOP IT.  I have three small children who sometimes argue like this, but they can't keep it up for so long.  You are each trying to show the other as unreasonable, but you are both doing the same things.  You are negatively profiling each other, you are ascribing motives to each other which obviously are not correct, you are falsely presenting stylistic questions as NPOV questions in order to make your cases sound less trivial, you are not listening to each other or really trying to address where the other is coming from, and above all you have both dug your heels in so deeply that you have no way of compromising left.  I would like to make a suggestion: why don't you both withdraw from editing this article for a month and let people who haven't been involved in this thing try to sort the article out.  And meanwhile, there are heaps of other things on Wiki which you could usefully be doing.  Vast swathes of German history, culture and political life has still barely been commented on.  Go and find something to work on, and try to avoid each other until things have cooled down a bit.  And if it makes you feel better to flame me for being patronising, go right ahead.  --Doric Loon 18:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, would someone who knows how to do it archive nine tenths of this talk page, please?  It takes ages to download. --Doric Loon 18:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't say you weren't trying to do your best for the article, Heimdal.  I just said you have both got yourselves into a position where neither of you can win.  So let's just try to lower the tension level here.  --Doric Loon 19:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt at shortening the article

message: Why do people in America consider people like Albert Einstein German? There is no such thing as a German-Jew, it's just a feel good term invented by Moses Mendelssohn. I propose a vote to forbid the use of the term German-Jew, one cannot be both German and Jewish.
:What would you propose calling him? Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: why the hell should you not be Jewish and German at the same time? Just like you can be Polish, or USian, or Israeli, and Jewish, at the same time. You are German if you have a German passport, and you are Jewish if your Mother was Jewish. What's the problem? "German" is a nationality. "Jewish" is somewhere between an ethnicity and a religion. Arguably, you cannot be both "Germanic" or "Teutonic" and "Jewish", but even that is a possibility if your father is a convert. dab (ᛏ) 09:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

text: of course, singling out "the Jews" over "the Saxons", "the Protestants", "the Armenians", "the Alamanni" etc. would be racist or religious discrimination, regardless if it is intended as "positive" or "negative" discrimination. If Einstein is a "Jewish German" scientist, Euler is an "Alamannic Protestant Swiss" mathematician. dab (ᛏ) 10:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I see, I didn't realize the original comment was just an anon troll. Never mind, then :) dab (ᛏ) 21:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "German"-Jews

message: Since the page is protected, I would like to post some proposals for (rather minor) changes.
"The medieval empire – known for much of its existence as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation – stemmed from a division of the Carolingian Empire in 843, which was founded by Charlemagne on December 25th, 800, and existed in varying forms until 1806."
The 2nd foundation by Otto I in 962 should be mentioned.
"During these almost thousand years, the Germans expanded their influence with the help of the Catholic Church, Northern Crusades and the Hanseatic League."
Northern Crusades is awkward. There was only one "crusade" in the North, please use another term.
Also the decline of royal/imperial power since 1250 should be mentioned. 
From: "In 1530, the Protestant Reformation of Catholicism failed, and a separate Protestant church was acknowledged as a new state religion in many German states."
To: "After 1517 the Protestant Reformation broke out and spread through Germany.This resulted in the religious split of the country and in 1555 it was left to the princes to determine the religious affiliation of their respective territories."
From: "In 1890 Bismarck was dismissed by the new Emperor William II due to the prudent foreign policy and personal differences."
Into: "In 1890 Bismarck was dismissed by the new Emperor William II due to differences about foreign and internal policies and also because of personal differences."
Explanation: "due to the prudent foreign policy" is a rather awkward wording - I guess Bismarck's policy is supposed to be prudent, but certainly Wilhelm saw it differently. There were also differences about internal policy, e.g. social security, fight against the Social Democrats.
From: "in the Night of the Long Knives, ostensibly to end homosexual vices"
To: "in the Night of the Long Knives, ostensibly to preempt a paramilitary coup against the government"
Reason: though Röhm's homosexuality played some part and was used by Hitler for propaganda, the "real supposed reason" was that Röhm & the SA were planning a coup against the government, a 2nd revolution, to replace the regular army with the Sa paramilitary. Fears of this were widespread and Hitler shrewdly used this to portray himself as the moderate.
Also "left-wing" opposition is a bit awkward in regard to the SA. Yes, in a way, it's true, but then again, it isn't.
"German Parliament is made up of the Bundestag and the Bundesrat."
That's wrong. The two don't form one body with two chambers (as in the UK or the USA), both are distinct bodies of the legislative branch. 
The Bundestag is the parliament and shouldn't be called a the lower house. Contrasted with the Bundesrat, the Bundestag is actually more important. Parallels to the UK or the USA are misleading.
Accordingly, the Bundesrat shouldn't be called the upper house.
In the Education section, it should be mentioned that school education is a matter of the individual states and hence there are differences in the respective school systems.
Str1977 22:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Str, your comments sound very knowledgeable and somebody who knows more about Germany than I should check them soon. Please help. Andries 10:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: I am unprotecting this article again. I have discussed this with Mackensen, and he agreed we should give it a try. I am playing the "uninvolved admin" here, in spite of my couple of comments towards compromise above, since I haven't made an edit to the article yet.
My rationale for unprotecting is:
*protection is considered harmful
*the edit war seems essentially confined to two editors
*other users wish to make useful, uncontroversial changes
The rules for further editing are:
*change disputed points one by one, no summary changes to old versions
*no summary reverting, take each point as it comes, and do not revert it without reasoning on talk
*gidonb and Heimdal should calm down and see what the other editors are up to  to get a feel of consensus, before they jump all over the article
*WP:3RR violations, including "partial" and "complex" reverts will result in 24h blocks without warning. Report 3RRvios to WP:AN/3RR.
**if only gidonb and Heimdal are reverting, that's eight reverts per day before both are blocked. That's not very bad, and if the warring is confined to these two, that'll hardly have an effect on the article
*if reprotection is required, it should be requested at WP:RfP, and the request should be announced here, so that people opposed to protection can also leave a note there. You should then wait until an uninvolved admin comes over from WP:RfP, and protects the page blindly (i.e. if you request protection, you have no way of knowing if "the wrong version" will be protected)
Does that sound like a deal? I would ask admins not to re-protect after the first two or three reverts. Let's see if this will calm down. Both gidonb and Heimdal will realize that just reverting each other will yield no result, whatsoever except wasting everybody's time and make them look childish. Another rule is, if you feel very annoyed, take a break for a couple of hours, and see what the others could figure out when you return. dab (ᛏ) 09:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially considering the history section is far too long even after the deletions. Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I agree (obviously, given my repeated comments to this effect above).  The main "controversy" for me is the amount of over-detailed material, so "add them back in one at a time unless there are no specific objections" isn't ideal, either:  ending up with a history section that comprises half the length of the article is as undesirable by that route, as by an immediate revert.  Obviously the challenge will be arriving at a section generally seen as "balanced" without resorting to "covering all bases" at stylistically undesirable length, and (im)balance of section lengths.  I think dab's comments that only two editors are involved isn't really inaccurate;  look back through both the talk page, and the article history, and you'll see a number of people reverting Heimdal, and complaining about his behaviour (and generally only Heimdal and some anon IPs reverting to Heimdal's version) -- including me, it must be said.  I'd agree with dab's advice as being good for everyone involved, however.  Note that this dispute has rumbled on for months to the exasperation of all concerned with a steady stream of < 4 reverts per day, so strict enforcement of 3RR itself seems unlikely to help resolve it as such.  Alai 23:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

text: You've repeatedly pointed this out indeed, but haven't addressed any of my equally repeated counterpoints.  47K is considerably long, putting it not merely over the "article size" warning threshold, but by about 50% too long, and larger than 99.9% of .en articles, by a rough calculation. There's nothing drastic about the pruning involved.  "Heimdal should explain" why it's in any way desirable for the history section to become so disproportionately large, for it to duplicate coverage in other articles, and for the article to become so much larger than the size which "may be desirable".  The US article may be excessively long too, but it doesn't have the same structural problems you've introduced here, so much as generalised bloat. I'd be happy to go and argue for trimming of that, too, but I get the distinct feeling you'd simply find other "precedents" for the previous size of the Germany article (though I'd be glad to accept your assurance that you would and will not).  Your arguments here are essentially of the character of "two stylistic wrongs mean I don't have to justify anything at all here", and attempting to throw the burden of evidence for the desirability of changes you have made (which you steadfastly refused to discuss at the time) on Gidonb for having tried to undo some of them.  Do you really feel that the existence of other over-long articles (like say, [[History of Germany]...) is an argument against any attempt to make this one of more normative length?  Alai 11:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that the history section is too long but I think there are good reasons to have the section somewhat longer than the history sections of e.g. the USA, and France. The recent history of Germany is dramatic, complicated, full of ruptures and affected most of Europe. Andries 11:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current History section is already "somewhat longer", and perhaps justifiably so for the reasons you mention.  The current length is on the high end of what I'd personally be comofortable with, but is workable.  I don't think it's necessary to have an RfC on the specific issue of the length (in either case), though I do still wonder if a  tag would be a good idea, for just such cases.  Previously the article was listed on the content dispute section of RfC, though.  Alai 12:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Starting with the non-History edits may be a very good idea for just such a reason, though as dab says, please do them one at a time and relatively slowly, in any event.  And yes, clearly the section should be balanced, and things given a prominence (including whether they're mentioned at all) according to notability, not randomly or with any agenda.  Alai 12:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: And please recall, you did a fair bit of "lengthening" on the article which has bloated it up to its current size; rather than looking for Gidonb edits to put back in, you should be looking for more things to trim. Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: unprotecting again, hear ye

message: I demand that this page be protected again. I won't accept any further deletions by Gidonb. - Heimdal 11:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Andries. This corresponds with my contribution. Best, gidonb 19:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Andries, I added the image of Benedict XIV because I thought that the election of the first German pope since the 11th century was something to celebrate. And also because the Religion section was looking a bit too Protestant for a country that is evenly split between Catholics and Protestants. But I thank you for your piece on the Kirchensteuer. Although, I expect that User:Jayjg will jump up with indignation over this "bloating" of the page, and surely, User:Gidonb will soon delete it again. - Heimdal 12:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here I am; the page is indeed "bloated", and you appear to have been taking ownership of this page for some time now. If you can't start working things out with other editors on this page first, rather than unilaterally forcing your changes into the article, I'm going to start taking a much more active role than just "jumping up with indignation". Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Whether they are facts is one things; whether they are "good and useful information" is another". Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please protect this page again

message: Jayjg, the information may not be useful to *you*, but perhaps it may be useful to others? Also, regarding the alleged "bloating". I kindly ask you to go over to the United States page and convince the people over there to delete half the article. Surely, an article of the size of 61KB must be full of "bloat", or not? - Heimdal 16:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the information may be useful to others, perhaps not; work it out with the other editors here. As for the United States page, it has already been explained to you that two wrongs don't make a right.  If you feel the United States page needs to be shortened, go work on that, but that has nothing to do with the length of this page. Jayjg (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia recommends that articles stay under 32K; that is "fair"; please do not bring up irrelevant pages again, as I won't respond.  Regarding "taking ownership", it might be "ridiculous" had the history of your edits not been clear, and had not several other editors made this exact same charge (e.g. Luis Rib, Clem McGann).  It would indeed be nice if this page could "be left to develop freely", but apparently you will not allow that to happen. Jayjg (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Stop it Gidonb, will you. Look after your own behaviour first, before criticizing others. I really do have the impression that Germany and the United States are being treated differently on en.wikipedia.org. If this is the case, Jayjg should say it openly. - Heimdal 17:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Sigh.  I said I wouldn't respond, but I'll try again.  I've never looked at the United States article, and don't know what is in there.  Perhaps because it is the world's only superpower, the world's largest economy, and is vastly larger than Germany in both population and sheer physical size, people felt it needed a longer article.  Whatever the reason, as I told you already, if you have a problem with the United States article, go fix it, or bring it up on the relevant talk page (Talk:United States).  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Meanwhile, Wikipedia policy recommends articles be closer to 32K, and the Germany article looks too big to me.  Please do not try to side-track the issue by bringing up the extraneous issue of the United States article again; I am only discussing this article, and will not respond to further attempts to bring up the United States article.  Discuss the content of this article. Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayg, where is the guideline that says that Wikipedia articles should be at most 32k? I think this guideline is obsoleted.  I never read anything about it anymore on theWikipedia:Featured_article_candidates, Wikipedia:The_perfect_article, Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article. For example, the Polish September Campaign is a Featured Article Candidate of 59k but nobody complains about the size. Andries 18:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Article size. Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody makes any remarks about Featured article candidates that are almost twice the recommended size then I can no longer take this recommendation seriously. Andries 18:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do all the discussions in this section seem to revolve around other articles, and not this one? Jayjg (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: See previous comments. Jayjg (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I sent an email to the mailing list of the English Wikipedia about the size lenght. It is not just the article about the USA but many articles exceed the recommended size limit lately and nobody seems to care anymore. Only some contributors here. Andries 19:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think either editor should be making unilateral edits, and 9 reverts by one editor in 12 hours is excessive by any standard. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, whether it's helpful is a matter of opinion.  After you told me you had "only moved" it, I went looking for it, and even though I knew what strings to search for, it took me ages.  The only Jewish link on the page is to Jews, but it wasn't there.  So I guessed you might have put it in History of the Jews in Germany and just forgotten to link, but no, it wasn't there.  Only when I went to the ZJD page and tried "what links here" did I find that you had put it into Demographics of Germany.  I doubt if readers looking for this information will find it.  Again, the point of the main country article is to give easy access to other articles, so links to major institutions and other relevant articles should be here, up front.  Why is there no reference to the Bundesbank?  This article should be a hub linking directly to all these things.  And I for one don't particularly care if that means some information is in two places. --Doric Loon 21:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. Don't worry about my personal discomfort - I'm not that emotionally involved.  I just meant this as an example of why you shouldn't delete lightly, and in the present atmosphere probably shouldn't do it at all.  --Doric Loon 21:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Mav, could you do this for the history chapter? It again needs a lot of reduction. A blocked user here was encouraged by an administrator to increase its size. He was even given some suggestions how to better get away with it. gidonb 11:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lenght of the article and its history section

message: OK, I have inserted a brief description of the legal system and cross-referenced.  I also changed the title of this section from "politics" to "constitution".  Politics is all about political parties, in most people's usage.  Maybe we should have a short section here on politics, but this ain't it.--Doric Loon 13:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The section does not discuss politics. However, it does not discuss constitution either. It discusses government in Germany, including the branches of government, the head of state and the regulations. I changed the title accordingly. gidonb 15:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal system

message: I propose that everything on this page before the sub-heading "this remains a very biased page" be archived. If no-one objects I shall do so around this time tomorrow. Mackensen (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. gidonb 16:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Why, after reading the post of Maveric149 on Friday May 20th, I have the feeling that I've been tricked. I have been told here that this article should be no longer than the recommended size of 32KB. But now I'm reading in Maveric's post that - hear and behold - it is allowed to "let articles grow larger than this one". Besides, it appears that the recommended size is an outdated issue, which was once adopted because the old browsers could not handle articles longer than 32KB. Then I've been told that the length of the History section is incompatible with Wikipedia policy. But now again, here's what Maveric's post says:
::"Nothing wrong with moving detail from a general article like this to an article that is supposed to cover a sub topic in more detail like Geography of Germany. However I let articles grow larger than this one before I bother doing that. For example Polish September Campaign was getting really big, so I summarized the ==Opposing forces== section and moved the detail to Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign."
For the record, the article Polish September Campaign was 59KB long before Maveric149 intervened to move parts of it to other articles. The Germany page on its part has never been longer than 47KB, far away from the dimensions of the Polish article, let alone of the United States page. That's why Maveric149 has never intervened on this article to cut the size of the History section: Because the length of the Germany page did not justify such an intervention. Based on what Maveric149 has said in his post, starting tomorrow on Monday, I for my part intend to gradually restore all the parts that have been removed from the Germany article in the last couple of weeks if not months. If the restored parts are removed again, I will revert the page. I'm ready to make full use of my right to revert as much as 3 times per day if necessary. I intend to continue reverting the page until the cancellations stop. In the case that the page should be protected again, I'm ready to put the case to the arbitration committee, as I regard the deletions that have been made, and all the various attempts to put curbs on the article and on those who work on the page as illegal. In the future I will respect interventions that are aimed at reducing the size of the article and of single sections only by Maveric149 himself. However, I don't think that such an intervention will happen, because there is no reason for it. In fact, there never has been any. - Heimdal 16:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heimdal, this position that you're taking is contrary to everything for which Wikipedia stands. What you seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, is that no one can shorten the article without your express permission. In effect, you claim to "own" the article. No one owns articles on Wikipedia. If there is consensus to shorten the history section on this article, then you must stand aside. You are not in a position to "authorize" one user or another to make various changes. If you respect the manner in which Wikipedia operates, then you would find a way to ascertain consensus, not simply attempt to impose your will upon others. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Heimdal, can you just shut up about the United States article for five minutes? Scanning through this page, you are saying the same thing about a dozen times. If you don't like the US page, go complain over there. If you don't want to shorten this page, just say so, and other people will know that's your opinion. Sheesh. Deletion of your edits is not "illegal", as long as they are explained on talk, and there is some sort of consensus among other editors. If you continue to just stubbornly revert to your version, it will be you who is blocked, eventually, rather than this article. Have you ever heard of Wikipedia:Summary style? You are suffering from "main article fixation". There's nothing wrong with material being exported to specialized articles, this is supposed to be an overview article about Germany, and it is up to the community to decide which facts are notable enough to be featured here. dab (ᛏ) 08:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to what Dbachmann wrote, I want to state that there is a lot of work to be done on the "digression" article e.g. Geography of Germany, and Religion in Germany. I could use some help there. Andries 08:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, I've been wanting to write a metapage on Wikipedia:Main article fixation for a while now. Anybody want to help? It's a very common phenomenon, I've seen it on lots of articles (e.g. Human). It's very natural, people want their contributions to be as visible as possible. It can be a real problem, though, and we might compile a list of hints how to overcome it. I.e. once this article settles down, the experience made in the process may be compiled as a help for future similar disputes. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: excellent example, Andries. While people are at each other's throats here, Geography of Germany is in a rather pitiful state. It will be much more rewarding to put work into that, than to be reverted and called names over every factoid here. dab (ᛏ) 10:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: let's just forget about gidonb, at the moment. Andries and others seem to think that the history section is too long, and I can't blame them.  You can take people to the arbcom for censoring your facts altogether, but hardly for saying they should be on History of Germany. Personally, I don't care if you add a fact or two. But why? And which ones, most importantly? Give us a list of points that absolutely need to be here, as well as on History of Germany, I am not really sure which points you are arguing about. Propose a subsection here, and have people vote on it. If your version gets a majority, you'll have a much stronger case. dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding [[User:Maveric149|Maveric]]'s post