Talk:Germany

hahahahahahaha

"Nationalsocialistic reign" instead of "Third Reich"

IMHO we should replace the title of section 1.6 "Third Reich" by "Nationalsocialistic reign" or something along these lines.

The term "Third Reich" was used by the nationalsocialists themselves to evoke historic legitimacy of their regime. The german word "Reich" means 'realm' or 'empire' and the nationalsocialists believed themselves to be direct successors of the Roman Empire (the "First Reich") and the Holy Roman Empire (the "Second Reich"). Thus, I think the term "Third Reich" does not meat Wikipedia's standards of neutrality as the title of a section dealing with history and should be altered.

On the other hand, reading the article Nazi Germany, one can assume that the term "Third Reich" in the english-speaking world lacks the bad aftertaste as the corresponding german term. I'm not entirely sure how to proceed, then.

Hyugens (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This period is normally referred to as the "Third Reich" in English. In my opinion, since the German word is used, and non-historians probably only use the word in the phrase "Third Reich", to an English native speaker there is no element of legitimacy conferred whatsoever, as might be the case if an English word like empire or reign were used. --Boson (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, the bad aftertaste is very important. It is so important to distinguish between good and bad. And consequently 1,000 years of German history take less space than 12 years of bad aftertaste in this article. Excellent work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.53.172 (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The first Reich would be the Holy Roman Empire, the second the Kaiserreich 1871-1918.--MacX85 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping anyone from writing more on Germany's one thousand years of rich history before the 20th century. If anyone is wondering why there is more about 20th century Germany than pre-20th century Germany, 20th century German history, from the Kaiser to Weimar to Fascism to the Cold War to Reunification and so on, has a more obvious relevance in our world today than Barbarossa.

If "Third Reich" were replaced with a different term, it wouldn't make much sense to replace it with "national socialism," as the latter term sounds far less negative than the former, at least in my English ears, even though the abbreviated "nazi" obviously does have an automatic negative connotation in English. I am not a fluent German-speaker, but as an English-speaker I find the literal term "national socialism" as politically ambiguous as "ministry of truth." So "nazi" and "third reich" I think are more appropriate than "national socialism."

IMHO there is no need to change the title of this particular section. I'm not exactly sure if there are any differences in english, but as a native german I can say, that germans use the term "Drittes Reich" (translated third Reich) is used allmost all the time, refering to the period of nazi reigned germany. Saying this, I can't make ou any need to change the title.

keep third reich because it's standart term in both english and german ('drittes reich')11:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)11:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk)

1945-1949 Germany

Between the fall of Nazi Germany and the division into East and West Germany, what was the full name of that Germany? Was it again the Germany of pre-1933? Or a new manifestation of the country? SGGH ^ping! 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Occupation Germany" of the size of 1937 Germany existed between 8 May 1945 & the Potsdam Conference (16 JUL to 2 AUG 45). The Potsdam Conference changed the size of "Occupation Germany" to be all 1937 German territory west of the Oder-Neisse Line, with the provision that "the Final Peace Conference" could make further adjustments to borders and populations in the 1937 German territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line. The Allied Control Council viewed "Occupation Germany" as one entity for certain purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1947 Vier-Zonen-Karte

I inherited some papers from my grandmother and there was this original map from 1947, from when she was in occupied Germany. It shows the four occupation zones and then it is further broken down into 28 postal zones. I've scanned it and a simple "Enhance" in iPhoto removed most of the yellowness that has occurred as a result of aging. I would hope that it is of value and that someone could find an appropriate place to insert it. I'd like to upload the file, but I don't have the appropriate access. I've signed up for an account, but I'm only really interested in making this one time contribution. If anyone is interested in taking and adding the map to the appropriate section within the Germany page, or a related page, please let me know. The scanned image is 2454x3516 and approximately 9.7MB. Gerbeary (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Gerbeary. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Formation

At the risk of sounding ignorant, shouldn't the 3rd Reich be added to the formation part of the infobox? All the other major government reigns are there, including the first 2 reichs. You can't just overlook those 12 years. LikeHolyWater (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead sure.

--Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Germany is loacted close to the middle of Eourpe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.24.253.150 (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Formation box sought to avoid such matters as contained in the following abbreviated excerpt from PBS in Wiki Talk in Nazi Germany: "The change in the Basic Law after the reunification of the two parts [of Germany] by a dejure alteration to the German constitution[,] [reflected the desire] to define the current territory of Germany as [the totality of] German territory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd Reich should not be mentioned in the infobox because (1) the Holy Roman Empire denotes (or is meant to denote, see below) the first-ever German state, (2) the Creation of the German Empire denotes the extant (!) German state (according to German jurisdiction, whatever may be interpreted politically), (3) the creation of the Federal Republic denotes the extant political form of the state, and (4) the Reunification denotes the extant (and final) territorial form, as well as it was the major change in the history of Western Germany as well, and last but not least it is the national holiday. The German Confederation of 1815, the Weimar Republic, the Third Reich, and the German Democratic Republic, all historical, are not mentioned, because it is an infobox on formation and not on history. I do not think that for the sole fact of its evilness the Third Reich should be mentioned here, and this would even imply that today's Germany was somehow formed by Hitler becoming chancellor (an incorrect, and ugly thought). -- By the way, the Holy Roman Empire should be called of German nation, because the H. R. E. in itself was already created in 800 and not 962 (or, if the continuity is disputed, at least a H. R. E.). Even more, it should be replaced in the info box by "Kingdom of Germany" with the date of 843 or 914, as if we are talking about the state of Germany, this is when the Kingdom was formed; in 962 "no more" happened that its king became Emperor. That's why I said "is meant to denote" above. -- Last point: We have to keep in mind that if we call the Third Reich this way (which has become a historical name, that's why I do it) and especially if we likewise call the H. R. E. the first and the German Empire of 1871 the second, we are following Nazi propaganda: The name of the state during the Weimar Republic was "Deutsches Reich" (German Realm) as well. --84.154.43.233 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

Is the Britannica article a suitable external link according to WP:EL? --Boson (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It provides a large amount of useful information related to the article topic, and is a highly respected publication. Whereabouts does Wikipedia:External links say not to use Britannica? Hayden120 (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand the external-links policy, the main point is that (with a few exceptions such as the official Web site of the article subject) one should avoid “any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article”.

In my opinion, the Wikipedia article (including sub-articles) is already much more comprehensive than the Britannica online article, so the Britannica article doesn’t add any more information. Even if it does, that information should probably be incorporated into the Wikipedia article (or sub-article), giving Britannica as a reference, not as an External Link, if appropriate.

As I interpret policy: if suitable information is in Britannica it should be included in Wikipedia (and probably already is); external links are, for instance, for levels of detail not appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia – or Britannica.

For these reasons, I would think that links to Britannica are generally unjustified, though there will be exceptions (such as the Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Britannica) .

--Boson (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to withhold such comprehensive information from the reader just because it could possibly be incorporated into this article at a later date. The Britannica link is an alternate source for readers to draw their information from, and possibly other facts that are omitted from Wikipedia. If anyone wanted to, they could copy all of the information from the CIA World Factbook (as the content is free to use), and paste it into this article. Would that possibility mean that the CIA link cannot be used? Hayden120 (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Offhand, I didn't notice any information that was missing in the Wikipedia articles. There may very well be reasons for omitting the CIA World Factbook link, though I see no reason for pasting the information contained there. I believe some information (not text) from the CIA World Factbook was already incorporated in the article, though it may have since been replaced by better data from other sources, such as the IMF. Personally, I would be in favour of retaining the CIA link because it contains relevant information that is probably too detailled for inclusion in Wikipedia, such as "Manpower reaching militarily significant age annually". There is probably an argument for consistency, but if that is applied in favour of inclusion that would mean having the CIA link for all country articles (which I find acceptable) and having a Britannica link for all Britannica articles for which there is a Wikipedia article. So this discussion might best be continued elsewhere, e.g. WT:WikiProject Countries, WT:EL or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).--Boson (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

universitie fees

Nearly all German universities are public (i.e. non-private) institutions, charging tuition fees ranging from €50–500 per semester for each student.

Acctualy that is not true. There are still a lot of public universities with no fees. It depends on the state (Bundesland) you live in.

Source:

http://www.studis-online.de/StudInfo/Gebuehren/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.230.34 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the second commenter is correct. It depends on the state in which you wish to study.--Île_flottant~Floating island (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Motto

I would call "Land of Ideas" a current promotional slogan rather than a motto. --Boson (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed it. "Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit" is the only thing that comes close to a motto. Kusma (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thirded. I'm German and have never ever heard of a motto "Land of Ideas" or anything close. After a little web research, I found out "Land of Ideas" is a current national initative whose patron is Horst Köhler. 212.202.199.190 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish population ranking

The Religion section currently has "Germany has Europe's third-largest Jewish population (after France and the United Kingdom)." (recently changed from "Russia" to "France"). The source cited does not appear to support either Russia or France, and another source suggested that third position is unsure. Does anybody have a reliable source for the rankings?--Boson (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

But it is true, as the article says, that during the last years more Jews prefered emigrating to Germany than to Israel as they, usually Ashkenazies, feel much closer to Germany and the German language (Yiddish is a Germanic language) than to Israel. The Hebrew language is too much different from Yiddish and Israel is a Mideast nation in a conflictive area, so an increasing number of Ashkenazies prefer emigrating to Germany where they feel more integrated.--88.24.242.203 (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just on a side note, the correct plural would be Ashkenazim. Vargher (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Population estimates

A population estimate 40 years ahead is non scientific research. It is not a factual reality and usually based on data trends in the past. It resembles crystal balling and has no place in an encyclopedia. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Without the estimates, the article makes it look like Germany's population is expected to grow (we include File:Population of German territories 1800 - 2000.JPG), and it is a good service to our readers to tell them that extrapolating this graph is unscientific. Of course the population projections rely on some assumptions and will be wrong if there is a sudden radical change in German society, but the statement "under reasonable assumptions, it should be expected that German population will shrink" is scientifically perfectly reasonable. It is important that science makes long-term predictions, on which political decisions are then based (think global warming). In other words, I will revert your removal. Kusma (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Germany needs a Census every decade as the U.S. and Spain do. It is time for it so everybody can know what is the real population of Germany, instead of estimates. From 1970 to 1990 West Germany´s population didn´t change and it was expected to shrink...but finally, thanks to immigration from Ausslander (ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe) and Reunification population increased by 22 million people. What will be next? We don´t know because a Reunification with Austria and Eupen (Belgium) is also possible during the next decade, and also the immigration of more Ausslander and other immigrants from Ukraine and Russia. So who knows what will be the population of Germany by 2020.--83.35.181.133 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A population figure in 2050 depends on too many factors which are not inlcuded in this prediction. It is more sincere to tell the readers that any sci-fi movie is a better guess on future developments. Crystal balling has no place at Wikipedia. Lear 21 (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen multiple articles with scientific predictions for the future, particularly 2050—probably chosen for being a clean number. It is research from a reliable source and is clearly marked as being merely an estimation. Under your logic, should we delete all articles that relate to global warming? Isn't that theory a form of crystal balling? Heck, the article for the Sun predicts that "in about 5 billion years, it will enter a red giant phase". Hayden120 (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific predictions aren't the mere speculation that WP:CRYSTAL prohibits. You seem to believe that population predictions are inherently unscientific. Not saying that Germany's population is expected to shrink unless there is substantially more immigration is to keep silent about one of the most important facts about the demographics of Germany. Kusma (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, per WP:CRYSTAL, credible research that employs predictions is perfectly acceptable. Kusma (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The population of a nation depends on economic and political even cultural preconditions. These factors are not included in a prediction trying to foresee a reality in 40 years. Even worse, the the prediction pretends to be a fact based on a trend in certain window o time. It´s too unreliable. This article concentrates on basic facts in the present and the past. There is no place for future fantasies. Lear 21 (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no future fantasy in the article, just a statement that helps to put the birth rate and population statistics into a better perspective. Please find a real argument against the inclusion of this relevant and sourced information instead of repeating that you don't like it. Thank you, Kusma (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no better perspective. These kind of predictions change all 5 years. In Berlin during the early 90ies most of the demographic experts predicted an increase of population from then 3.3 to almost 4-5 million in 2020. Today it is clear that the Berlin figures are rather stable. Speculation is not a reliable source of statistics. Lear 21 (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it relevant for the context of many political decisions that in the 1990s, the population of Berlin was expected to grow. Similarly, it is relevant for current German politics that the population is expected to shrink (even under the assumption that immigration levels and fertility rise quite a lot). The sources by the Federal Statistics Office explain their methodology and seem to fit "credible research that employs predictions". Kusma (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there are too many "ifs" and uncalculated not even considered factors in these projections. Lear 21 (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You already said that you do not like the projections. In fact, you haven't said much else, and have not bothered to answer to any of my points. Do you have any real arguments? Kusma (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see a profound reliability concerning these projections. Even more important is that any "futuristic trends" belong in sub-articles. When just scanning the main article about Germany´s Demographics I see several hard facts which are more worthy to be part of the Germany article. It doesn´t make sense to present a "projection" of whatever in the third sentence of a highly shortened text in a section like this. The projection has a low priority, or in other words, the priority of several other basic facts are much higher because they reflect reality. Lear 21 (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nivea isn't a firm

Nivea has been quoted in section Economy as one of the most important companies. But Nivea is a brand only. Please check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.203.73 (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannot find where Nivea is listed as company. Please quote sentence.--Boson (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is listed in the Economy section as an important brands. It is nowhere claimed that it is a company. Kusma (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Renewable Energy in Germany

The final paragraph of the section on the German economy is misleading. It only lists the share of renewable energy in total primary energy consumption and not the share of renewable energy in electricity consumption. Germany has a target to achieve a 27% share of renewable energy in electricity supply by 2020 and has already surpassed its old 12% target this year (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany). This development is not captured by the article as it stands. I would suggest the following insertion after the final sentence:

"However, renewable energy is one of the fastest growing energy sources in Germany. The share of renewable energy in electricity supply has increased to 14% in 2007; the German government has set a target to increase this share to 27% by 2020."

Source: German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/40791/5466/

In addition, please provide an authoriative source for the assertion that other sources of energy (which includes renewables) only contributed 3.7% to primary energy consumption since newer data seems to indicate that renewable energy alone already satisfied 8.4% of final energy consumption. (Please also see http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/40791/5466/). Otherwise newer data would need to be inserted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin.schoenberg (talk • contribs) 13:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

ref 139

is in the archive now: http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2006/08/31/gay_city_news_archives/past%20issues/17334472.txt (http://www.gaycitynews.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=17334472&BRD=2729&PAG=461&dept_id=568864&rfi=8 is not working) --WikiAnika (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

This article was semiprotected 16 May 2007 by Kusma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who cited "Anon vandalism" as the reason.

As it's been over two years I'd like to gather opinions on whether the semiprotection is still necessary. It might now be worth unprotecting to see if the level of vandalism is either very low or managable. It not then we'll have learned something and we can reprotect. I'm also contacting Kusma. --TS 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of FA country articles are protected. The high user traffic at these articles always involves high percentages of unregistered vandalism. The semi-protection has proofed to be a valuable tool. Lear 21 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Whenever it was unprotected in the past it had to be re-protected again within days, and a lot of time was wasted checking for and reverting vandalism. Look at the logs and the edits following previous unprotects. I do not recommend unprotecting. --Boson (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the current rate of editing, the amount of change in the article in any recent week has been quite low, so if the article were kept unprotected for, say, two days as a test, the amount of harm likely to be done by vandals would be minimal and I am quite happy to go through all the edits for that period ensuring that no good edits are lost. Would that kind of test meet your concerns about the time wasted? Of course if extensive vandalism took place I'd cut the experiment short because there would be no point continuing. --TS 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be OK by me, if you stay around for a couple of weeks. The amount of vandalism in a given period varies, probably depending on something like the school holidays in the USA and how fast word spreads.--Boson (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The last thing I want to see is this or any other article messed up by vandals or an excessive burden placed on other editors by IP vandalism. I watch hundreds or articles routinely and (since I started commenting here) this is one of them. If there are no serious objections I'll probably ask for the article to be unprotected soon and I'll watch it like a hawk. --TS 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

After 24 hours following the removal of semiprotection 4 vandalism acts from 4 different IP´s have been conducted. It is enough proof that this article provokes constantly vandalists to pursue their methods. Because the Germany article is one of the most read articles in Wikipedia (Top 200) I request semiprotection to be reinstalled as soon as possible. Lear 21 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Four incidents of vandalism in one day doesn't amount to extensive vandalism in my opinion--certainly not enough to merit semiprotection on an article as closely watched as this. --TS 12:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No IP vandalism on 10th, just one up to noon GMT on 11th. So it seems to vary from day to day and is easy to revert when it happens. This is preferable to semiprotecting because it better fulfils Wikipedia's principle that anybody should be able to edit. --TS 12:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Status as at 2009-09-11 15:17:

Since semi-protection removed:

• 18 edits in total, of which:
• 1 bot edit (Interwiki)
• 0 productive edits (not reverts and not reverted) by people

--Boson (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't require that every edit made be productive, only that it should be made in good faith. This edit made by 155.101.178.88 yesterday is an example. I reverted it because the editor had confused the verb uses of "breakfast" and "lunch" with the noun forms--perhaps someone whose first language is not English. --TS 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And here is a more representative sample of the edits:

• " got there [sic] ass kicked in the war"
• " [The Judiciary of Germany] is the independent arse crack . . . for killing your mum "
• "[ most states] suck their own balls".
• replaced paragraph by " tesdfgsffffffffffffffffggggggggggggggggggggg"
• added " I FRICKING LOVE HAIRY BUSHY SWEATY MOIST PUSSY"
• added " HEIL HITLER"
• Replaced whole article by "Germany is a dirty nazi jew hole and should be nuked"
• added "the poster master has struck again"

--Boson (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

publicized is spelled wrong

In the Holy Roman Empire Section. 76.197.3.115 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid and quite common spelling in British English. It should only be corrected if the bulk of the article is in US English. --TS 04:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

British, "non-Oxford" spelling (-ise, -isation) seems to be used consistently throughout the article.--Boson (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Proper rank of exporters in dispute

Almost all of German exports are to other EU nations which use the Euro, are a short distance away, face no import/export duty and as such most of its "exports" are really more like domestic internal trade. The existence of the EU as a new kind of entity makes internal EU trade a bit hard to define as "exports" in the traditional sense because many of the economic realities of traditional exports (lack of different currencies especially) are no longer apparent in the EU.

I propose adding in addition to the current ranking, an alternative ranking of Germany's exports be added showing it's exports to non-EU states, which is the only valid comparison to the exports of other nations (China/USA/India) which are not in the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.77.79 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source comparing countries on that basis? --Boson (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The WTO has a ranking excluding intra-EU trade, which, naturally, treats the EU as a single economy and shows the EU as the largest exporter, ahead of China and the USA. --Boson (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If ths article was about the EU, that ranking might be relevant. According to the German government, the majority of German "exports" are to other European states:

"About three quarters of exports of goods “made in Germany” were shipped to European countries." http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/EN/Navigation/Statistics/Aussenhandel/Handelspartner/Handelspartner.psml Why don't we include at least that quote/information? ...which I think is relevant since no trade rules/duty/currency exchange need take place as is the case with trade between non-EU member states which is much more similar to domestic trade in a geographically large country than it is to ocean-going trade, duty-due trade and different-currency trade involed in trade elsewhere... Germman trade with Austria is much simpler than even China/Brazilian/Australian/American domestic trade and it's relevant to see how much German trade (relatively little) is to outside the EU.

Furthermore, there is another statistical exaggeration of German "trade"; namely exports and imports through European nations with sea ports (e.g. Hamburg) are "recorded at the frontier country where the goods are placed under the customs procedures." http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_SDDS/EN/ext_base.htm ...meaning that...

"a car from Japan which pays import duty on arrival in Germany can be shipped to Belgium or Poland and sold there in the same way as a German car. No further duty is charged"

http://europa.eu/pol/comm/overview_en.htm ...even though this is rather deceptively recorded as GERMAN trade.

all this is relevant because Germany, while happy to promote whatever possible trade they can as German "exports", is in fact by world standards NOT exporting as much as they claim in the traditional sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.77.79 (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the cited source or similar should be used to update and expand the information on Germany's trading partners. I would suggest putting the details in the sub-article Economy of Germany and summarizing them to the extent of stating the proportion of exports to EU countries in the appropriate section. --Boson (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see you agree which is nice, I'd like to research this issue a little more when I have the time. I'm not clear at the moment whether, say, a car built in France but exported through Hamburg is counted as a German export and likewise whether all imports through Haburg count as German imports whether or not their final destination is somewhere else in the EU. I'll put something together when I have the time... thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.77.79 (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cuisine

The cheese and cold meat buffet shown under "cusine" is not very typical for private festivities.