![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I don't really object strongly to the removal of the photography of her grandparents because her grandfather now has his own biography where this interesting photography can be used, but I seriously wonder how the only known free photography of Merkel's grandparents can somehow be "non-NPOV". Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 17:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It is neutral, and even has Merkels father on it. -- IIIraute ( talk) 17:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
No idea of what you are talking about. It was just determined at Commons that the image of her grandfather is free, not copyright protected. An image from 1919 with an unknown photographer is not copyright protected, not in the US and not in any European country that I know of. The image with her father is probably not free under American law because it was published well after 1923. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I refer to the decision taken by the administrator of Commons Wikimedia. Under American law, it has to be created before 1923, so a photograph from the 1930s or something (like that of her father) is not free. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
He also said he thinks https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Polish applies. It states that "according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed public domain in Poland." Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 18:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Then it will probably get a more appropriate license when the discussion has concluded in respect to which licenses that apply. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 18:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
If the issue regarding the image is one of copyright then that can be discussed and decided in the appropriate venue. However, it is quite misleading to remove the image under a claim of "POV" (which doesn't make sense) and then turn around and claim it is being removed because it is a copy vio (which probably doesn't make sense either). It looks more like someone's flaying around looking for any reason to remove it to justify a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok guys. Come on.
First we had the photo removed under the pretense that it was "POV" by User:IIIraute [1] which, unless you think the photo is a fake, is a ridiculous reason. In a banal sort of way.
When that didn't work User:IIIraute tried to remove the photo under the pretense that it was a "COPYVIO" and tried to get it deleted from Commons. That didn't work either.
Then of course we got the screams of "No Consensus!" which some users seem to think means "I get to decide what goes in or out into the article" (see WP:OWN).
And then of course, a revert of my first edit of the photo with the justification that I wasn't "following BRD" [2]. First edit with the photo. That's the "B" part. So this justification also doesn't make sense. Especially when User:IIIraute has failed to actually discuss the issue himself and has been essentially blind reverting others. That's hardly following "BRD".
And then we get another removal of the photo this time because apparently it is "no imp" [3]. As it turns out "no imp" means "NO IMProvement". Ok. But then it needs to be explained WHY adding a relevant photo which illustrates article text is not an improvement, right? Just asserting that a particular edit is "no imp" is hardly better than claiming speciously "POV!", claiming erroneously "COPYVIO!", yelling "NOCONSENSUS!" in some attempt at veto, or instructing others to "BRD!" when not following it yourself.
Strangely enough, User:Walkee above seems to be the only one who has bothered to actually articulate a position here (throwing in some personal attacks and all, but nevermind). However, their argument seems to boil down to the fact that there are no other photos of Merkel's family in the article. That seems like a silly argument to make - "we have no other photos in the article therefore we cannot include even one!" but still, at least it's a reason.
All in all I'm extremely disappointed here. The way that this has unfolded suggests that an editor or two are desperate to keep the photo out of the article simply because Angela Merkel's grandfather is wearing a Polish Army uniform in it. Merkel herself appears to be proud of her roots and most people in both Poland and Germany seem to think that this is an interesting and neat piece of German-Polish history. But not here on Wikipiedia. Oh no. Rather, what we get here is flailing around and quoting of random Wikipedia policies and guidelines which are not applicable and irrelevant simply to provide a flimsy justification, any justification, to edit warring and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can you try a little harder? Thanks. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
As noted before, I do not care either way if this photograph is included or not in this specific article as we now have another even more appropriate article where it can be used, but the idea that a straightforward photo of two of Merkel's grandparents shortly before their marriage and shortly after they became engaged is "POV" is laughable. I very much agree that this photograph is of much more historical significance than any random photo, due to extensive media coverage of the photograph itself in relation to Angela Merkel's family background. It also serves, as noted by Marek, as an illustration of German-Polish history that the vast majority in both Germany and Poland, including Angela Merkel, find interesting, and not in a negative way. Additionally, being taken in Poznan and at a time her grandfather apparently identified as a Pole, it also serves better to illustrate Merkel's roots. It doesn't give her Polish roots undue weight, however, as it also includes her grandmother, a native of Berlin. Also, the more recent photo with Merkel's father is most likely not free, unlike this photograph from 1919. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 23:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we are all very well aware of that and I am completely satisfied with the current solution. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 00:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and? You are once again failing to actually address other user's comments. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
We have two images of Merkel's grandfather which are relevant to the section under discussion and which obviously add to the article in the sense that they illustrate the topic. One image is sort of generic and of low quality. The other image is both high resolution and captures and important historical fact which is exactly the kind of thing that would be of interest to encyclopedia readers. The bull headed approach here seems to be to remove any and all images of Merkel's grandfather because... ... ... well, I'm not exactly sure why. Because it apparently bothers a couple of Wikipedia editors who have a very narrow focus on German-related issues, that the photo shows Merkel's grandfather in a Polish Army uniform? Hence, "it must not be included at all cost!".
We can do the whole dispute resolution thing, go through the noticeboards and all that. But at the end of the day, this is a very good and historically important image which improves the article and makes it more encyclopedic. I only hesitate because judging on my past experience I know how frustrating it can be just to make what should be a minor change when faced with dedicated tendentious editors. It wastes a lot of time. I'm sort of thinking about whether I really want to waste my time. But we can go there. So how about we include the image but you guys come up with some caption which suites your concerns. You know. BRD. CONSENSUS. All that. If you keep being mean and uncooperative, then yeah, sure, let's run the gauntlet of Wikipedia's "dispute resolution process". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
"Her grandfather was a Ludwig Kazmierczak, born 1896 in Posen – then part of the German Reich. The family was proud of its Polish roots. Obviously not grandpa Ludwig who emigrated to Berlin when Posen became Polish again after the first world war. He married a Berlin woman, and they had a son – Horst Kazmierczak, Angela's father. The family decided to cut their Polish roots in the early 30s. The Kazmierczaks followed a common fashion and Germanised their family name to Kasner." → The Guardian → here You can also read this in Merkel's authorized biography → Stefan Kornelius, Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography, Alma Books Ltd, Richmond, 2013, page 14, ISBN-13: 978-1846883071, here Don't obsess over something he did not want to be - Kasner was taken prisoner of war in 1918, and the Blue Army was formed under French command, from German POW's of Polish origin. -- IIIraute ( talk) 01:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I wonder how many times it is necessary to stress that [4] is 1) most certainly an unfree picture from around 1930 (i.e. after 1923) and 2) not a Wikipedia file. If you really believe this picture belongs in one of our articles, you will have to upload it here first. As it is probably not in the public domain (unlike the earlier photograph) and not the subject of much media commentary (unlike the other photograph), I find it dubious that it can be used here. I think the starting point of any discussion on which images to use must be the files that are available here on Wikipedia. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 14:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to make this clear again: Just because I am refuting Illraute's factually incorrect claims about copyright and other issues here, I am not part of any dispute over whether to include the picture of Ludwig Kasner in this article. I have no opinion on the issue and can live with either result. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. So let's start with the fact that as of right now we have only one image of Merkel's grandparents that we can we use on Wikipedia. Bringing up other potential images which it is not possible to use, is a red herring. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Merkel is a world leader, visible throughout the press almost every day around the world. Her grandfather is an interesting trivia but trivia nonetheless. More emphasis turns this article too Polish-centric, distracting and yellow press. I think deep down you understand that. The text already describes her grandfather in an undue proportion and the image is already used in the page of the grandfather. Why aren't you still happy with that? While you have time to flog a dead horse, for all others this can be seen as disruptive. Consensus-creation is not when someone seems so obsessed over a rather trivial matter and persistent that others just stop bother responding because they have other things to do and don't care about having the last word as much.-- walkee talkee 18:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
rfc|bio|hist}}
), advertised at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany, would seem to be the way to go.The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article on Angela Merkel include an image of her grandfather, Ludwig Kasner? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The proposed image and caption. -- IIIraute ( talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
"Her grandfather was a Ludwig Kazmierczak, born 1896 in Posen – then part of the German Reich. The family was proud of its Polish roots. Obviously not grandpa Ludwig who emigrated to Berlin when Posen became Polish again after the first world war. He married a Berlin woman, and they had a son – Horst Kazmierczak, Angela's father. The family decided to cut their Polish roots in the early 30s. The Kazmierczaks followed a common fashion and Germanised their family name to Kasner." → The Guardian → here You can also read this in Merkel's authorized biography → Stefan Kornelius, Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography, Alma Books Ltd, Richmond, 2013, page 14, ISBN-13: 978-1846883071, here -- IIIraute ( talk) 00:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that you are showing your true colours - why don't you run to Commons and try to get it deleted - I don't think we have to discuss this here. -- IIIraute ( talk) 01:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, please let me quote the editor PointsofNoReturn on this issue: "Assuming that the point of adding an image of the grandfather is to just illustrate her grandfather and not his role in the Polish army, I am all for adding the picture you suggested."
IMHO, this never was about adding a photograph of the grandfather per se - it's all about him, wearing a Polish uniform. -- IIIraute ( talk) 02:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
By this stage, we all know what this is about - you don't care about including an image of her grandfather per se - it's all about him, wearing a Polish uniform - just look at all your failed POV attempts, e.g. here, here here, here, while removing the part that he fought on the Western Front for the German Empire, as well as other sourced content from Merkel's official biography, e.g. here & here Now that your edit warring didn't work - please see Talk:Angela Merkel#Edit warring & POV pushing - you have returned to again push for more emphasis on that Blue Army trivia. If you really only did care about having a picture of her grandparents included, to make this article more interesting, to "improve" this article - why are you trying to get the second image, that includes the father of Angela Merkel, deleted ... talking about "bad faith"! -- IIIraute ( talk) 02:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
If there is a need to add a photo of Merkel's grandfahter, than take the new one as it also shows her father (more information).-- Dewritech ( talk) 19:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed there was an (unanswered) section in the archives calling for more information on "her government's policies." In particular, the domestic section is lacking. Nothing on the Energiewende, nothing on her handling of the German economy... Unfortunately my understanding is only hazy so I'm not entirely qualified to bulk it up. Brutannica ( talk) 20:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The article claims: "ranked as the world's second most powerful person by Forbes magazine in 2013, the highest ranking ever achieved by a woman; she is now ranked fifth." The reference, however, does not support the claim (the reference is not even from forbes). This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.28.107.243 ( talk) 13:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
A few months ago I amended the line saying she's the first female chancellor to add that she's also the first chancellor from the former East Germany. This was removed a few weeks back by User:Tadeusz Nowak with the edit summary of "undue emphasis on GDR in first paragraph". Since I remember this issue has come up before, I thought it would be better to open a discussion here. What do people think - does mentioning her GDR background in the first paragraph along with her gender constitute "undue emphasis"? Personally, I don't think so at all since both are historic firsts, but I'd be interested to hear what the consensus is. aoxiang翱翔 (user) (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that she formerly lived in the GDR (although born in the Federal Republic of Germany) is already duly addressed in the article. Pointing it out in the first paragraph, as if this is the most important thing one could say about her, gives it undue weight, and seems to be POV and insinuating as well, using a terminology popular with American minorities ("first black president") and insinuating that people who at some point found themselves in the GDR find themselves in a similar position. Also, she is by no means the first chancellor from the area of the former GDR, which would be what really matters. In German or indeed European politics, one does not use this excessive first this or first that terminology to the same degree as the US. There are a lot of possible "firsts" that could be mentioned, probably a dozen of them equally relevant, but this is really trivial stuff, and especially in the first paragraph (the fact that Germany has only elected 2(!) new chancellors since 1990 also adds to how ridiculous it is to emphasize this to such as degree). She may be the first chancellor who is afraid of dogs as well, or the first chancellor who likes to dress in green, or the first physical chemist chancellor. She is even the first chancellor born in 1954! Tadeusz Nowak ( talk) 01:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Angela Merkel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The "In the arts and media" section is short, so I thought, that as with other articles about prominent politicians, this one should also have a "Public image" section, which would more widely cover Merkel's appearance in the arts and media. - Mardus ( talk) 20:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by John ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 November 2007
The discussion of how to pronounce her first name should also emphasize that the 'g' is hard, counterintuitive to most English speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 ( talk) 16:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That article is considerably livelier than this one of late. It could use more eyes. CometEncke ( talk) 00:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This Wikipedia page is being treated as an advertising mouthpiece, silencing inconvenient facts about Ms Merkel.
Members of the German government and Merkel supporters should be banned from making changes to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.125.186 ( talk) 00:31, 1 December 2015
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ulrich Merkel redirects here, could a template:anchor to Angela Merkel#Ulrich be inserted next to his first mention for a more specific redirect? Already modified it to point to that tag wherever it's inserted. Otherwise it will just default to top. 184.145.18.50 ( talk) 20:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Could somebody with the appropriate rights please restore the information deleted in these diffs: [ 1] and here [ [12]]. In my eyes, both contents were sourced and relevevant to the article. LucLeTruc ( talk) 00:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
This section should probably be deleted. A random nobody doing a play on her that nobody ever heard of and nobody cares about doesn't belong in her own article. 2A02:8109:B0BF:CE0B:7935:A37C:6DC4:1BA1 ( talk) 23:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Propose adding citation needed to sentence "However, she was subsequently outmaneuvered politically..." because no evidence is provided for this. It is clear historically that she wasn't chosen as the candidate, but not why that was so, and additional information would be useful.
128.40.90.253 (
talk)
10:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This section: /info/en/?search=Angela_Merkel#Asylum_and_inward_migration right now features only one hardly known Austrian (not even German) 'political scientist' and seems to be heavily biased. The labour market of the OIC surely isn't important for this arcticle, and labour migration has no link to asylum. I suggest a more balanced and comprehensive perspective. 2003:6A:643F:F382:FCB3:4D2F:E897:99B0 ( talk) 20:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The section is really quite awful, and unusable. It's quite annoying. I need some decent & convenient research on Merkel. But the whole article is thus polluted and unusable.
Somebody just wants to make a point here that they don't like Merkel. But I don't care about that somebody's point of view. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:982A:6192:2677:D8B1 ( talk) 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I also don't understand why one biased opinion is allowed to be present in the article alone. This section should be flagged for lack of neutrality. After all there are refugees from war torn countries like Syria who come to Europe and Germany. Ich901 ( talk) 11:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Angela Merkel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The section on foreign policy is completely haphazardly rendered and is also seriously outdated, and does not summarize her foreign policies during her chancellorship in a good way. Relatively minor events of her early relationship with Obama when he had just been elected are recounted, and far too much of the section is devoted to a single visit to Israel. In fact, around 50% of the section is devoted to relations with just two countries, India and Israel. I suspect we need a separate article on the Foreign policy of Angela Merkel and a new summary here to do this important topic justice (compare: Barack Obama#Foreign policy and Foreign policy of Barack Obama). I might start working on such an article, but any help would be appreciated. -- Tataral ( talk) 21:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Chancellor of Germany should be in the first sentence. There are good reasons to assume that the Barack Obama article represents the best/most recognised practice, and it has the following opening sentence
Barack Hussein Obama II is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States
Some articles seem to omit the "a [nationality] politician" part, e.g. Theresa May, which has the following opening sentence
Theresa Mary May is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, in office since July 2016
Both of these models are acceptable to me, but some editors probably believe the nationality should be stated explicitly in the opening sentence, as in the Obama article. -- Tataral ( talk) 14:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
She was born in 1954, in which Hamburg was in West Germany and I feel that Wiki pages should be accurate. Alwaysright987 ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add in the section "Honorary degrees"
In January 2017, she was awarded the title Doctor Honoris Causa jointly by the Ghent University and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Reference: http://de.euronews.com/2017/01/12/belgien-ehrendoktor-fuer-angela-merkel Edhtwoze ( talk) 12:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone object if we put the IPA for "Angela" and/or "Merkel" in the lead sentence? Since especially "Angela" with a hard g is not obvious to English speakers, it would comply with "if the name of the article has a pronunciation that's not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name" in the MOS Siuenti ( talk) 13:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The English pronunciation of her first name is /ˈæŋɡələ/ or /ˈɑːŋ-/, and that of her last name is /ˈmɛərkəl/, or alternatively /ˈmɜːrkəl/.[1][2] In German, her last name is pronounced [ˈmɛɐ̯kl̩].[3][4] There are several different ways to pronounce the name Angela in German. The Duden Pronunciation Dictionary[5] lists [ˈaŋɡela] and [aŋˈɡeːla]. According to her biographer, Merkel prefers the pronunciation with stress on the second syllable[6] ([aŋˈɡeːla] with a long /eː/). This pronunciation is more common in Austria.[7][8] Other pronunciations, such as [ˈaŋɡəla] and [ˈaŋəla] are also heard from native German speaking people.[2]
I am planning to try and add sources for the unsourced material currently in the article. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort is welcome. Also, for consecutive sentences which share a common source, I will be using <!-- -->
to avoid over referencing. This makes the source visible in edit mode or visual edit mode.
Knope7 (
talk)
19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Mixing with male politicians of Saudi Arabia isn't news as Condi Rice,Hillary Clinton, and others have done it previously. However, it has received significant coverage and deserves a mention. [13]-- 2601:C4:C001:289E:70D2:650D:6C92:D31C ( talk) 07:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Merkel's 2015 decision to allow refugees to resettle in Germany should be discussed in this article. I've noticed that the word "refugee" appears in a picture caption and in the title of multiple sources cited in the article, yet the word "refuge" does not appear in the body of the article itself. That was a major policy decision. Also, the photograph that uses the caption "By opening Germany's borders to refugees fleeing Middle East, some critics have blamed Merkel for encouraging the mass migration into Europe." should probably be re-captioned. I don't think the picture itself is critical of Merkel so its odd that the caption would refer only to critics and not the policy itself. Knope7 ( talk) 21:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
HEy folks, the controversies paragraph is of quiet poor quality beeing largely a collection of unrelated stuff which often does not even qualify for beeing a controversy. A lot of the content should go directly into context with paragraphs describing Merkels career and political positions. Examples:
Members of her cabinet and Merkel herself also support state schools enabling Islamic religious instruction (similar to the provision of denominational Christian religious instruction).[130][131][132]
Her trademark Merkel-Raute has been described as "probably one of the most recognisable hand gestures in the world".[135]
How are these things a controversy?
In July 2013, Merkel defended the surveillance practices of the NSA, and described the United States as "our truest ally throughout the decades".[136][137] During a visit of U.S. President Barack Obama in Berlin, Merkel said on 19 June 2013 in the context of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures: "The Internet is uncharted territory for us all". (German: Das Internet ist Neuland für uns alle.) This statement led to various internet memes and online mockery of Merkel.[138][139] ...
Why not put this either chronologically into the description of her chancellorship or to positions on foreign policy or privacy rights?
In August 2014, Merkel visited Ukraine to show her support for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.[142] Human Rights Watch said that "Merkel's visit is an opportunity for her to denounce violations of international humanitarian law by the Ukrainian military."[143]
Does not sound to be controversial at all.
Maybe the Westergard thing and the criticism for her stance in the refugee question are the only real things that qualify as criticism but in my eyes they should be explained in context, i.e. in a paragraph describing Merkels position on immigration and refugees together with the critizism she received for it. LucLeTruc ( talk) 12:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Why is her picture a picture of her giving a speech? Make her official portrait her infobox portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.248.75 ( talk) 17:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Can someone show the "oficial portrait" here? Is it copyright free? Apuldram ( talk) 21:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The great majority of world leaders infobox pictures are flattering official portraits of them the way they want to be portrayed, or smiling headshot photos that flatter their subject. Consider the images for
Theresa May,
Donald Trump,
Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama, or
Martin Schulz, which are all official portraits or the unofficial but
headshot style, smiling portraits of
Emmanuel Macron,
Justin Trudeau,
Frank-Walter Steinmeier or
Malcolm Turnbull. It seems a bit unfair to give Angela Merkel an unflattering photo of her making a slightly ominous hand gesture with a somewhat pained expression. I would suggest using one of the photos that Angela Merkel uses on her government profile which should be copyright free under German official works law.
N0thingbetter ( talk) 08:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe the concept of an "official portrait" of a politician is mainly a US phenomenon. The website of the Chancellor does include an "official-looking" portrait, but it isn't particularly good and there is no indication of it being available under a free license. File:Angela Merkel CDU Parteitag 2014 by Olaf Kosinsky-28.jpg, which is a random photo taken during a party conference, is certainly not a good portrait; she has a weird and passive facial expression, and is probably listening to a question or something like that. -- Tataral ( talk) 09:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Angela Merkel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion it is wrong to claim that any of Merkel's predecessors was a military officer in the sense of being a professional soldier. The claim can only refer to Helmut Schmidt, who, indeed, rose to the impressive rank of lieutenant during WW II, but - as the article about him correctly mentions - was conscripted in 1937. All autobiographical and biographical texts about Schmidt state that he had never had a career in the military on his mind when he left school. In fact, he wanted to study architecture. When the war began there was, of course, no way out for him to get out of the army (except by defecting and very probably being executed right away or sent off to a concentration camp). Given his intellectual powers it seems that he should have climbed to a much higher rank during the war; the modest rank he actually obtained indicates that at no point in his life he aspired to a military career. Even in the case of John F. Kennedy, who voluntarily joined the military in WWII, I would find it ridiculous to place him on one level with, say, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who is indeed among the former American presidents who had been military officers. The fact is, that none of the German chancellors had been soldiers by profession, if I'm not mistaken, not even between the world wars. (The only exception may be Dönitz, the successor of Adolf Hitler for a couple of days.)
She has been described as the leader of the free world but so has Trump and Obama Not to mention her posistion as the second most powerful person, she has also been third, sixth as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
"In 2007, Merkel was President of the European Council and chaired the G8, the second woman to do so" - fair enough; would mentioning the first woman to chair the G8 be merited? Auto asks - 2017 July 04 1948Z 86.177.37.161 ( talk) 19:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Relevant article by the Economist: The Merkel Doctrine -- Germany is not the new leader of the free world Nicolas Perrault ( talk) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the section link from the lead to the International status section of the article. The lead summarises the text of the body of the article, so it is right to include the sentence in the lead that summarises that section. However, before there was an indication of the source of the information in that sentence, some editors did not realise that the sentence was strongly sourced (with references 92 to 103 !). Accordingly I added the section link, to help readers find the coverage in the body of the text. Apuldram ( talk) 21:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed "Merkel has been described as the 'de facto' leader of the European Union, the most powerful woman in the world, and the leader of the free world" from the LEAD.
The discussion two days ago, above, was not conclusive regarding insertion of leader of the free world in the LEAD. Certainly, including such a highly subjective and hotly debated label in the LEAD, not to mention in the first paragraph and written with such implied assurance, isn't merited.
Until or unless that discussion is resolved, I'm going to leave the sentence here. Happyme22 ( talk) 06:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. It's written as a complete puff piece instead of being an objective NPOV article. 2601:8C:4102:1210:D50E:23AB:FC3F:E5F ( talk) 08:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
please give a qualified scientific source that this kind of counting is used anywhere in politics, history or newspapers. At least in Germany it is utmost unusual. If there is no scientific source, it might be TF and should be avoided. -- Nillurcheier ( talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we are close to end of discussion. -- Nillurcheier ( talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Angela Merkel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
An IP address from Finland has tried repeatedly to include a massive, POV overemphasis on the formal full name of Leipzig University for a brief part of the university's history. It's easy to see where this attempt to link Merkel to "Marxism" is coming from.
The title of the article on the university is Leipzig University. The WP:COMMONNAME of the university is and has always been Leipzig University, and was Leipzig University when Merkel attended it. There is no need to include anything else than the WP:COMMONNAME of a university when merely mentioning it, briefly, in an article about someone who happened to attend it as a student. The communist-era full name belongs in the history section of the article about the university itself, but not here. -- Tataral ( talk) 22:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Although the section Leader of the Free World in the article Free world does mention Angela Merkel, I don't think that is sufficient to regard it as part of the {{ Angela Merkel series}}, so I would suggest removing it from that template. -- Boson ( talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Rather than repeatedly reverting, could we decide here whether this is sufficiently defining or notable to be mentioned in the lead section. I would suggest that it should be mentioned only in the body (see next section). -- Boson ( talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The section International status has
and
There are currently two references. One says
The second reference has two citations: one is just a headline, and the other says
That's a bit weak for the current wording. I would suggest replacing "numerous" with "some".
References
-- Boson ( talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Current events superseded all of this. At this point she is the Leader of an interim government with no mandate to negotiate important issues in Europe or on the world stage.-- Michael G. Lind ( talk) 17:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
First of all: Putting all your feigned arrogance aside, you are just a normal User (not Majestatis Wikipedia, able to ban others with a different opinion whenever you want to). So stop your constant threats to ban & block other Users once and for all (sic!). Stop paternalising other users. Maybe this kind of intimidation works within the EU, but not here, sorry. A self-proclaimed "humanist" should behave differently.
Second, and this is by no means meant derisively, your academic background seems to be very poor. Five minutes of research and I just see a User driven by an Agenda: Miltantly playing the naughty game of Trump Bashing and promoting the European ideas / EU itself. Fair enough, but Wikipedia is not about that. Competence is required (you've mentioned it), but some Neutrality, too. So, if I were you, I'd rather start a blog to promote my ideas, but of course that's just my opinion.
Third: While your opinions about me are insignificant, I dare to inform you that I am not a new user, but active since a couple of years now. I tend to put quality over quantity This is why my articles regularly appeared on the Main page in de:wikipedia and hopefully in a little while here, too.
Fourth: Did you ever read any books/biographies about Mrs Merkel? Wer angeblich deutsch sprechen kann, sollte das doch schaffen. Gerd Langguth for instance? Do you really know the difference between a newspaper-comment an a sholars work? Because all these "Leader of the free World" references I've seen here are comments in some newspapers. If you had an academic background, then you would know that we put an emphasis on scholars work. Look at her German site, this introduction is way better. Neutrality with focus on the really important issues, no superficialities. Your beloved Leader of the free World-phrase is just a media-phenomenon, some commentators used it as a reaction to the election of Donald Trump. Oh, and of course Mrs. Merkel superseded Michelle Obama in the Forbes list. LOL. Please, bring in some scholarly work. And yes, it does matter that she is just geschäftsführend im Amt. No, you did not explain why this is irrelevant. This is very important - as you can see it in the German introduction.
Fifth: If you'd like to assist me in bringing forward this article, better expand it where it is dearly needed instead of fussing about superficialities. Atomaustieg for instance. Use sources like Langguth, Plickert (Hrsg), or, if you have to rely on media, BBC online, FAZ, and so on. Kind regards and after Christmas I'll take a look at your impovements.-- Michael G. Lind ( talk) 12:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Angela Merkel secured her fourth term as a Chancellor of Germany and I would like to add that to an article about her [+ short story about coalition talks] Nadzik ( talk) 10:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
"Horst Kasner (1926–2011; née Kaźmierczak)" --> Horst Kasner (1926–2011; né Kaźmierczak) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.248.156 ( talk) 14:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
“Merkel has been widely described as the de facto leader of the European Union, the most powerful woman in the world, and the leader of the Free World.”?? Shouldn’t there be a citation for this “widely described”? Otherwise it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.88.226.75 ( talk) 16:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The current text reads: "While Chancellor Schröder made clear he would join the war in Iraq, Merkel and the CDU-CSU supported the invasion of Iraq."
Schröder opposed the war in Iraq, so it should read "he would NOT join". The sentence actually makes sense only then.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
/info/en/?search=Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Foreign_policy -> Relations with the Middle East, and the references in that article.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.77.130.83 (
talk)
11:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Eliminate Angela Merkel is "leader of the free world." Denverboy632 ( talk) 04:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. See the
Free world page for more context
DannyS712 (
talk)
05:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Nine-minute BBC podcast, possibly of interest: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswsgf -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Benjamin Sühler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2.247.255.168 ( talk) 07:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It should read "who has been serving as Chancellor of Germany since 2015." Not "serving since 2015" RCL89 ( talk) 23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
23:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this block, use comma instead of a dot after "2013 election":
In the 2017 election, Merkel led her party to victory for the fourth time. Both CDU/CSU and SPD received a significantly lower proportion of the vote than they did in the 2013 election. and attempted to form a coalition with the FDP and Greens. The collapse of these talks led to stalemate. The German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier subsequently appealed successfully to the SPD to change their hard stance and to agree a 3rd grand coalition with the CDU/CSU.
In this block, remove word duplication "that that" in the first sentence:
In 2019 media speculation persists that that Merkel's successor as party leader, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer may take over Merkel's position as chancellor sooner than planned if the governing coalition proves unsustainable. The possibility is neither confirmed nor denied by the party.
Herpesklaus ( talk) 17:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Das Internet ist Neuland für uns alle" to "Das Internet ist für uns alle Neuland", because this is recognized by most German people as the actual quote. Sommerlichter ( talk) 20:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I don't really object strongly to the removal of the photography of her grandparents because her grandfather now has his own biography where this interesting photography can be used, but I seriously wonder how the only known free photography of Merkel's grandparents can somehow be "non-NPOV". Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 17:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It is neutral, and even has Merkels father on it. -- IIIraute ( talk) 17:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
No idea of what you are talking about. It was just determined at Commons that the image of her grandfather is free, not copyright protected. An image from 1919 with an unknown photographer is not copyright protected, not in the US and not in any European country that I know of. The image with her father is probably not free under American law because it was published well after 1923. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 18:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I refer to the decision taken by the administrator of Commons Wikimedia. Under American law, it has to be created before 1923, so a photograph from the 1930s or something (like that of her father) is not free. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
He also said he thinks https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Polish applies. It states that "according to the Art. 3 of copyright law of March 29, 1926 of the Republic of Poland and Art. 2 of copyright law of July 10, 1952 of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 are assumed public domain in Poland." Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 18:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Then it will probably get a more appropriate license when the discussion has concluded in respect to which licenses that apply. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 18:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
If the issue regarding the image is one of copyright then that can be discussed and decided in the appropriate venue. However, it is quite misleading to remove the image under a claim of "POV" (which doesn't make sense) and then turn around and claim it is being removed because it is a copy vio (which probably doesn't make sense either). It looks more like someone's flaying around looking for any reason to remove it to justify a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok guys. Come on.
First we had the photo removed under the pretense that it was "POV" by User:IIIraute [1] which, unless you think the photo is a fake, is a ridiculous reason. In a banal sort of way.
When that didn't work User:IIIraute tried to remove the photo under the pretense that it was a "COPYVIO" and tried to get it deleted from Commons. That didn't work either.
Then of course we got the screams of "No Consensus!" which some users seem to think means "I get to decide what goes in or out into the article" (see WP:OWN).
And then of course, a revert of my first edit of the photo with the justification that I wasn't "following BRD" [2]. First edit with the photo. That's the "B" part. So this justification also doesn't make sense. Especially when User:IIIraute has failed to actually discuss the issue himself and has been essentially blind reverting others. That's hardly following "BRD".
And then we get another removal of the photo this time because apparently it is "no imp" [3]. As it turns out "no imp" means "NO IMProvement". Ok. But then it needs to be explained WHY adding a relevant photo which illustrates article text is not an improvement, right? Just asserting that a particular edit is "no imp" is hardly better than claiming speciously "POV!", claiming erroneously "COPYVIO!", yelling "NOCONSENSUS!" in some attempt at veto, or instructing others to "BRD!" when not following it yourself.
Strangely enough, User:Walkee above seems to be the only one who has bothered to actually articulate a position here (throwing in some personal attacks and all, but nevermind). However, their argument seems to boil down to the fact that there are no other photos of Merkel's family in the article. That seems like a silly argument to make - "we have no other photos in the article therefore we cannot include even one!" but still, at least it's a reason.
All in all I'm extremely disappointed here. The way that this has unfolded suggests that an editor or two are desperate to keep the photo out of the article simply because Angela Merkel's grandfather is wearing a Polish Army uniform in it. Merkel herself appears to be proud of her roots and most people in both Poland and Germany seem to think that this is an interesting and neat piece of German-Polish history. But not here on Wikipiedia. Oh no. Rather, what we get here is flailing around and quoting of random Wikipedia policies and guidelines which are not applicable and irrelevant simply to provide a flimsy justification, any justification, to edit warring and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can you try a little harder? Thanks. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
As noted before, I do not care either way if this photograph is included or not in this specific article as we now have another even more appropriate article where it can be used, but the idea that a straightforward photo of two of Merkel's grandparents shortly before their marriage and shortly after they became engaged is "POV" is laughable. I very much agree that this photograph is of much more historical significance than any random photo, due to extensive media coverage of the photograph itself in relation to Angela Merkel's family background. It also serves, as noted by Marek, as an illustration of German-Polish history that the vast majority in both Germany and Poland, including Angela Merkel, find interesting, and not in a negative way. Additionally, being taken in Poznan and at a time her grandfather apparently identified as a Pole, it also serves better to illustrate Merkel's roots. It doesn't give her Polish roots undue weight, however, as it also includes her grandmother, a native of Berlin. Also, the more recent photo with Merkel's father is most likely not free, unlike this photograph from 1919. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 23:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we are all very well aware of that and I am completely satisfied with the current solution. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 00:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and? You are once again failing to actually address other user's comments. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 01:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
We have two images of Merkel's grandfather which are relevant to the section under discussion and which obviously add to the article in the sense that they illustrate the topic. One image is sort of generic and of low quality. The other image is both high resolution and captures and important historical fact which is exactly the kind of thing that would be of interest to encyclopedia readers. The bull headed approach here seems to be to remove any and all images of Merkel's grandfather because... ... ... well, I'm not exactly sure why. Because it apparently bothers a couple of Wikipedia editors who have a very narrow focus on German-related issues, that the photo shows Merkel's grandfather in a Polish Army uniform? Hence, "it must not be included at all cost!".
We can do the whole dispute resolution thing, go through the noticeboards and all that. But at the end of the day, this is a very good and historically important image which improves the article and makes it more encyclopedic. I only hesitate because judging on my past experience I know how frustrating it can be just to make what should be a minor change when faced with dedicated tendentious editors. It wastes a lot of time. I'm sort of thinking about whether I really want to waste my time. But we can go there. So how about we include the image but you guys come up with some caption which suites your concerns. You know. BRD. CONSENSUS. All that. If you keep being mean and uncooperative, then yeah, sure, let's run the gauntlet of Wikipedia's "dispute resolution process". Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
"Her grandfather was a Ludwig Kazmierczak, born 1896 in Posen – then part of the German Reich. The family was proud of its Polish roots. Obviously not grandpa Ludwig who emigrated to Berlin when Posen became Polish again after the first world war. He married a Berlin woman, and they had a son – Horst Kazmierczak, Angela's father. The family decided to cut their Polish roots in the early 30s. The Kazmierczaks followed a common fashion and Germanised their family name to Kasner." → The Guardian → here You can also read this in Merkel's authorized biography → Stefan Kornelius, Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography, Alma Books Ltd, Richmond, 2013, page 14, ISBN-13: 978-1846883071, here Don't obsess over something he did not want to be - Kasner was taken prisoner of war in 1918, and the Blue Army was formed under French command, from German POW's of Polish origin. -- IIIraute ( talk) 01:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I wonder how many times it is necessary to stress that [4] is 1) most certainly an unfree picture from around 1930 (i.e. after 1923) and 2) not a Wikipedia file. If you really believe this picture belongs in one of our articles, you will have to upload it here first. As it is probably not in the public domain (unlike the earlier photograph) and not the subject of much media commentary (unlike the other photograph), I find it dubious that it can be used here. I think the starting point of any discussion on which images to use must be the files that are available here on Wikipedia. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 14:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Just to make this clear again: Just because I am refuting Illraute's factually incorrect claims about copyright and other issues here, I am not part of any dispute over whether to include the picture of Ludwig Kasner in this article. I have no opinion on the issue and can live with either result. Elizabeth Cumberbatch ( talk) 23:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. So let's start with the fact that as of right now we have only one image of Merkel's grandparents that we can we use on Wikipedia. Bringing up other potential images which it is not possible to use, is a red herring. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Merkel is a world leader, visible throughout the press almost every day around the world. Her grandfather is an interesting trivia but trivia nonetheless. More emphasis turns this article too Polish-centric, distracting and yellow press. I think deep down you understand that. The text already describes her grandfather in an undue proportion and the image is already used in the page of the grandfather. Why aren't you still happy with that? While you have time to flog a dead horse, for all others this can be seen as disruptive. Consensus-creation is not when someone seems so obsessed over a rather trivial matter and persistent that others just stop bother responding because they have other things to do and don't care about having the last word as much.-- walkee talkee 18:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
rfc|bio|hist}}
), advertised at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany, would seem to be the way to go.The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article on Angela Merkel include an image of her grandfather, Ludwig Kasner? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The proposed image and caption. -- IIIraute ( talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
"Her grandfather was a Ludwig Kazmierczak, born 1896 in Posen – then part of the German Reich. The family was proud of its Polish roots. Obviously not grandpa Ludwig who emigrated to Berlin when Posen became Polish again after the first world war. He married a Berlin woman, and they had a son – Horst Kazmierczak, Angela's father. The family decided to cut their Polish roots in the early 30s. The Kazmierczaks followed a common fashion and Germanised their family name to Kasner." → The Guardian → here You can also read this in Merkel's authorized biography → Stefan Kornelius, Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography, Alma Books Ltd, Richmond, 2013, page 14, ISBN-13: 978-1846883071, here -- IIIraute ( talk) 00:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that you are showing your true colours - why don't you run to Commons and try to get it deleted - I don't think we have to discuss this here. -- IIIraute ( talk) 01:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, please let me quote the editor PointsofNoReturn on this issue: "Assuming that the point of adding an image of the grandfather is to just illustrate her grandfather and not his role in the Polish army, I am all for adding the picture you suggested."
IMHO, this never was about adding a photograph of the grandfather per se - it's all about him, wearing a Polish uniform. -- IIIraute ( talk) 02:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
By this stage, we all know what this is about - you don't care about including an image of her grandfather per se - it's all about him, wearing a Polish uniform - just look at all your failed POV attempts, e.g. here, here here, here, while removing the part that he fought on the Western Front for the German Empire, as well as other sourced content from Merkel's official biography, e.g. here & here Now that your edit warring didn't work - please see Talk:Angela Merkel#Edit warring & POV pushing - you have returned to again push for more emphasis on that Blue Army trivia. If you really only did care about having a picture of her grandparents included, to make this article more interesting, to "improve" this article - why are you trying to get the second image, that includes the father of Angela Merkel, deleted ... talking about "bad faith"! -- IIIraute ( talk) 02:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
If there is a need to add a photo of Merkel's grandfahter, than take the new one as it also shows her father (more information).-- Dewritech ( talk) 19:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed there was an (unanswered) section in the archives calling for more information on "her government's policies." In particular, the domestic section is lacking. Nothing on the Energiewende, nothing on her handling of the German economy... Unfortunately my understanding is only hazy so I'm not entirely qualified to bulk it up. Brutannica ( talk) 20:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The article claims: "ranked as the world's second most powerful person by Forbes magazine in 2013, the highest ranking ever achieved by a woman; she is now ranked fifth." The reference, however, does not support the claim (the reference is not even from forbes). This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.28.107.243 ( talk) 13:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
A few months ago I amended the line saying she's the first female chancellor to add that she's also the first chancellor from the former East Germany. This was removed a few weeks back by User:Tadeusz Nowak with the edit summary of "undue emphasis on GDR in first paragraph". Since I remember this issue has come up before, I thought it would be better to open a discussion here. What do people think - does mentioning her GDR background in the first paragraph along with her gender constitute "undue emphasis"? Personally, I don't think so at all since both are historic firsts, but I'd be interested to hear what the consensus is. aoxiang翱翔 (user) (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The fact that she formerly lived in the GDR (although born in the Federal Republic of Germany) is already duly addressed in the article. Pointing it out in the first paragraph, as if this is the most important thing one could say about her, gives it undue weight, and seems to be POV and insinuating as well, using a terminology popular with American minorities ("first black president") and insinuating that people who at some point found themselves in the GDR find themselves in a similar position. Also, she is by no means the first chancellor from the area of the former GDR, which would be what really matters. In German or indeed European politics, one does not use this excessive first this or first that terminology to the same degree as the US. There are a lot of possible "firsts" that could be mentioned, probably a dozen of them equally relevant, but this is really trivial stuff, and especially in the first paragraph (the fact that Germany has only elected 2(!) new chancellors since 1990 also adds to how ridiculous it is to emphasize this to such as degree). She may be the first chancellor who is afraid of dogs as well, or the first chancellor who likes to dress in green, or the first physical chemist chancellor. She is even the first chancellor born in 1954! Tadeusz Nowak ( talk) 01:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Angela Merkel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The "In the arts and media" section is short, so I thought, that as with other articles about prominent politicians, this one should also have a "Public image" section, which would more widely cover Merkel's appearance in the arts and media. - Mardus ( talk) 20:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
References
— Preceding unsigned comment added by John ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 November 2007
The discussion of how to pronounce her first name should also emphasize that the 'g' is hard, counterintuitive to most English speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.17.141 ( talk) 16:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That article is considerably livelier than this one of late. It could use more eyes. CometEncke ( talk) 00:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
This Wikipedia page is being treated as an advertising mouthpiece, silencing inconvenient facts about Ms Merkel.
Members of the German government and Merkel supporters should be banned from making changes to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.125.186 ( talk) 00:31, 1 December 2015
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Ulrich Merkel redirects here, could a template:anchor to Angela Merkel#Ulrich be inserted next to his first mention for a more specific redirect? Already modified it to point to that tag wherever it's inserted. Otherwise it will just default to top. 184.145.18.50 ( talk) 20:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Could somebody with the appropriate rights please restore the information deleted in these diffs: [ 1] and here [ [12]]. In my eyes, both contents were sourced and relevevant to the article. LucLeTruc ( talk) 00:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
This section should probably be deleted. A random nobody doing a play on her that nobody ever heard of and nobody cares about doesn't belong in her own article. 2A02:8109:B0BF:CE0B:7935:A37C:6DC4:1BA1 ( talk) 23:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Propose adding citation needed to sentence "However, she was subsequently outmaneuvered politically..." because no evidence is provided for this. It is clear historically that she wasn't chosen as the candidate, but not why that was so, and additional information would be useful.
128.40.90.253 (
talk)
10:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This section: /info/en/?search=Angela_Merkel#Asylum_and_inward_migration right now features only one hardly known Austrian (not even German) 'political scientist' and seems to be heavily biased. The labour market of the OIC surely isn't important for this arcticle, and labour migration has no link to asylum. I suggest a more balanced and comprehensive perspective. 2003:6A:643F:F382:FCB3:4D2F:E897:99B0 ( talk) 20:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The section is really quite awful, and unusable. It's quite annoying. I need some decent & convenient research on Merkel. But the whole article is thus polluted and unusable.
Somebody just wants to make a point here that they don't like Merkel. But I don't care about that somebody's point of view. 2602:252:D6A:B2C0:982A:6192:2677:D8B1 ( talk) 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I also don't understand why one biased opinion is allowed to be present in the article alone. This section should be flagged for lack of neutrality. After all there are refugees from war torn countries like Syria who come to Europe and Germany. Ich901 ( talk) 11:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Angela Merkel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The section on foreign policy is completely haphazardly rendered and is also seriously outdated, and does not summarize her foreign policies during her chancellorship in a good way. Relatively minor events of her early relationship with Obama when he had just been elected are recounted, and far too much of the section is devoted to a single visit to Israel. In fact, around 50% of the section is devoted to relations with just two countries, India and Israel. I suspect we need a separate article on the Foreign policy of Angela Merkel and a new summary here to do this important topic justice (compare: Barack Obama#Foreign policy and Foreign policy of Barack Obama). I might start working on such an article, but any help would be appreciated. -- Tataral ( talk) 21:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Chancellor of Germany should be in the first sentence. There are good reasons to assume that the Barack Obama article represents the best/most recognised practice, and it has the following opening sentence
Barack Hussein Obama II is an American politician who is the 44th and current President of the United States
Some articles seem to omit the "a [nationality] politician" part, e.g. Theresa May, which has the following opening sentence
Theresa Mary May is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, in office since July 2016
Both of these models are acceptable to me, but some editors probably believe the nationality should be stated explicitly in the opening sentence, as in the Obama article. -- Tataral ( talk) 14:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
She was born in 1954, in which Hamburg was in West Germany and I feel that Wiki pages should be accurate. Alwaysright987 ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add in the section "Honorary degrees"
In January 2017, she was awarded the title Doctor Honoris Causa jointly by the Ghent University and Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
Reference: http://de.euronews.com/2017/01/12/belgien-ehrendoktor-fuer-angela-merkel Edhtwoze ( talk) 12:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone object if we put the IPA for "Angela" and/or "Merkel" in the lead sentence? Since especially "Angela" with a hard g is not obvious to English speakers, it would comply with "if the name of the article has a pronunciation that's not apparent from its spelling, include its pronunciation in parentheses after the first occurrence of the name" in the MOS Siuenti ( talk) 13:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The English pronunciation of her first name is /ˈæŋɡələ/ or /ˈɑːŋ-/, and that of her last name is /ˈmɛərkəl/, or alternatively /ˈmɜːrkəl/.[1][2] In German, her last name is pronounced [ˈmɛɐ̯kl̩].[3][4] There are several different ways to pronounce the name Angela in German. The Duden Pronunciation Dictionary[5] lists [ˈaŋɡela] and [aŋˈɡeːla]. According to her biographer, Merkel prefers the pronunciation with stress on the second syllable[6] ([aŋˈɡeːla] with a long /eː/). This pronunciation is more common in Austria.[7][8] Other pronunciations, such as [ˈaŋɡəla] and [ˈaŋəla] are also heard from native German speaking people.[2]
I am planning to try and add sources for the unsourced material currently in the article. Anyone who would like to join me in this effort is welcome. Also, for consecutive sentences which share a common source, I will be using <!-- -->
to avoid over referencing. This makes the source visible in edit mode or visual edit mode.
Knope7 (
talk)
19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Mixing with male politicians of Saudi Arabia isn't news as Condi Rice,Hillary Clinton, and others have done it previously. However, it has received significant coverage and deserves a mention. [13]-- 2601:C4:C001:289E:70D2:650D:6C92:D31C ( talk) 07:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Merkel's 2015 decision to allow refugees to resettle in Germany should be discussed in this article. I've noticed that the word "refugee" appears in a picture caption and in the title of multiple sources cited in the article, yet the word "refuge" does not appear in the body of the article itself. That was a major policy decision. Also, the photograph that uses the caption "By opening Germany's borders to refugees fleeing Middle East, some critics have blamed Merkel for encouraging the mass migration into Europe." should probably be re-captioned. I don't think the picture itself is critical of Merkel so its odd that the caption would refer only to critics and not the policy itself. Knope7 ( talk) 21:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
HEy folks, the controversies paragraph is of quiet poor quality beeing largely a collection of unrelated stuff which often does not even qualify for beeing a controversy. A lot of the content should go directly into context with paragraphs describing Merkels career and political positions. Examples:
Members of her cabinet and Merkel herself also support state schools enabling Islamic religious instruction (similar to the provision of denominational Christian religious instruction).[130][131][132]
Her trademark Merkel-Raute has been described as "probably one of the most recognisable hand gestures in the world".[135]
How are these things a controversy?
In July 2013, Merkel defended the surveillance practices of the NSA, and described the United States as "our truest ally throughout the decades".[136][137] During a visit of U.S. President Barack Obama in Berlin, Merkel said on 19 June 2013 in the context of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures: "The Internet is uncharted territory for us all". (German: Das Internet ist Neuland für uns alle.) This statement led to various internet memes and online mockery of Merkel.[138][139] ...
Why not put this either chronologically into the description of her chancellorship or to positions on foreign policy or privacy rights?
In August 2014, Merkel visited Ukraine to show her support for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.[142] Human Rights Watch said that "Merkel's visit is an opportunity for her to denounce violations of international humanitarian law by the Ukrainian military."[143]
Does not sound to be controversial at all.
Maybe the Westergard thing and the criticism for her stance in the refugee question are the only real things that qualify as criticism but in my eyes they should be explained in context, i.e. in a paragraph describing Merkels position on immigration and refugees together with the critizism she received for it. LucLeTruc ( talk) 12:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Why is her picture a picture of her giving a speech? Make her official portrait her infobox portrait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.248.75 ( talk) 17:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Can someone show the "oficial portrait" here? Is it copyright free? Apuldram ( talk) 21:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The great majority of world leaders infobox pictures are flattering official portraits of them the way they want to be portrayed, or smiling headshot photos that flatter their subject. Consider the images for
Theresa May,
Donald Trump,
Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama, or
Martin Schulz, which are all official portraits or the unofficial but
headshot style, smiling portraits of
Emmanuel Macron,
Justin Trudeau,
Frank-Walter Steinmeier or
Malcolm Turnbull. It seems a bit unfair to give Angela Merkel an unflattering photo of her making a slightly ominous hand gesture with a somewhat pained expression. I would suggest using one of the photos that Angela Merkel uses on her government profile which should be copyright free under German official works law.
N0thingbetter ( talk) 08:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe the concept of an "official portrait" of a politician is mainly a US phenomenon. The website of the Chancellor does include an "official-looking" portrait, but it isn't particularly good and there is no indication of it being available under a free license. File:Angela Merkel CDU Parteitag 2014 by Olaf Kosinsky-28.jpg, which is a random photo taken during a party conference, is certainly not a good portrait; she has a weird and passive facial expression, and is probably listening to a question or something like that. -- Tataral ( talk) 09:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Angela Merkel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion it is wrong to claim that any of Merkel's predecessors was a military officer in the sense of being a professional soldier. The claim can only refer to Helmut Schmidt, who, indeed, rose to the impressive rank of lieutenant during WW II, but - as the article about him correctly mentions - was conscripted in 1937. All autobiographical and biographical texts about Schmidt state that he had never had a career in the military on his mind when he left school. In fact, he wanted to study architecture. When the war began there was, of course, no way out for him to get out of the army (except by defecting and very probably being executed right away or sent off to a concentration camp). Given his intellectual powers it seems that he should have climbed to a much higher rank during the war; the modest rank he actually obtained indicates that at no point in his life he aspired to a military career. Even in the case of John F. Kennedy, who voluntarily joined the military in WWII, I would find it ridiculous to place him on one level with, say, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who is indeed among the former American presidents who had been military officers. The fact is, that none of the German chancellors had been soldiers by profession, if I'm not mistaken, not even between the world wars. (The only exception may be Dönitz, the successor of Adolf Hitler for a couple of days.)
She has been described as the leader of the free world but so has Trump and Obama Not to mention her posistion as the second most powerful person, she has also been third, sixth as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
"In 2007, Merkel was President of the European Council and chaired the G8, the second woman to do so" - fair enough; would mentioning the first woman to chair the G8 be merited? Auto asks - 2017 July 04 1948Z 86.177.37.161 ( talk) 19:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Relevant article by the Economist: The Merkel Doctrine -- Germany is not the new leader of the free world Nicolas Perrault ( talk) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I have restored the section link from the lead to the International status section of the article. The lead summarises the text of the body of the article, so it is right to include the sentence in the lead that summarises that section. However, before there was an indication of the source of the information in that sentence, some editors did not realise that the sentence was strongly sourced (with references 92 to 103 !). Accordingly I added the section link, to help readers find the coverage in the body of the text. Apuldram ( talk) 21:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed "Merkel has been described as the 'de facto' leader of the European Union, the most powerful woman in the world, and the leader of the free world" from the LEAD.
The discussion two days ago, above, was not conclusive regarding insertion of leader of the free world in the LEAD. Certainly, including such a highly subjective and hotly debated label in the LEAD, not to mention in the first paragraph and written with such implied assurance, isn't merited.
Until or unless that discussion is resolved, I'm going to leave the sentence here. Happyme22 ( talk) 06:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. It's written as a complete puff piece instead of being an objective NPOV article. 2601:8C:4102:1210:D50E:23AB:FC3F:E5F ( talk) 08:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
please give a qualified scientific source that this kind of counting is used anywhere in politics, history or newspapers. At least in Germany it is utmost unusual. If there is no scientific source, it might be TF and should be avoided. -- Nillurcheier ( talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like we are close to end of discussion. -- Nillurcheier ( talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Angela Merkel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
An IP address from Finland has tried repeatedly to include a massive, POV overemphasis on the formal full name of Leipzig University for a brief part of the university's history. It's easy to see where this attempt to link Merkel to "Marxism" is coming from.
The title of the article on the university is Leipzig University. The WP:COMMONNAME of the university is and has always been Leipzig University, and was Leipzig University when Merkel attended it. There is no need to include anything else than the WP:COMMONNAME of a university when merely mentioning it, briefly, in an article about someone who happened to attend it as a student. The communist-era full name belongs in the history section of the article about the university itself, but not here. -- Tataral ( talk) 22:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Although the section Leader of the Free World in the article Free world does mention Angela Merkel, I don't think that is sufficient to regard it as part of the {{ Angela Merkel series}}, so I would suggest removing it from that template. -- Boson ( talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Rather than repeatedly reverting, could we decide here whether this is sufficiently defining or notable to be mentioned in the lead section. I would suggest that it should be mentioned only in the body (see next section). -- Boson ( talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The section International status has
and
There are currently two references. One says
The second reference has two citations: one is just a headline, and the other says
That's a bit weak for the current wording. I would suggest replacing "numerous" with "some".
References
-- Boson ( talk) 11:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Current events superseded all of this. At this point she is the Leader of an interim government with no mandate to negotiate important issues in Europe or on the world stage.-- Michael G. Lind ( talk) 17:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
First of all: Putting all your feigned arrogance aside, you are just a normal User (not Majestatis Wikipedia, able to ban others with a different opinion whenever you want to). So stop your constant threats to ban & block other Users once and for all (sic!). Stop paternalising other users. Maybe this kind of intimidation works within the EU, but not here, sorry. A self-proclaimed "humanist" should behave differently.
Second, and this is by no means meant derisively, your academic background seems to be very poor. Five minutes of research and I just see a User driven by an Agenda: Miltantly playing the naughty game of Trump Bashing and promoting the European ideas / EU itself. Fair enough, but Wikipedia is not about that. Competence is required (you've mentioned it), but some Neutrality, too. So, if I were you, I'd rather start a blog to promote my ideas, but of course that's just my opinion.
Third: While your opinions about me are insignificant, I dare to inform you that I am not a new user, but active since a couple of years now. I tend to put quality over quantity This is why my articles regularly appeared on the Main page in de:wikipedia and hopefully in a little while here, too.
Fourth: Did you ever read any books/biographies about Mrs Merkel? Wer angeblich deutsch sprechen kann, sollte das doch schaffen. Gerd Langguth for instance? Do you really know the difference between a newspaper-comment an a sholars work? Because all these "Leader of the free World" references I've seen here are comments in some newspapers. If you had an academic background, then you would know that we put an emphasis on scholars work. Look at her German site, this introduction is way better. Neutrality with focus on the really important issues, no superficialities. Your beloved Leader of the free World-phrase is just a media-phenomenon, some commentators used it as a reaction to the election of Donald Trump. Oh, and of course Mrs. Merkel superseded Michelle Obama in the Forbes list. LOL. Please, bring in some scholarly work. And yes, it does matter that she is just geschäftsführend im Amt. No, you did not explain why this is irrelevant. This is very important - as you can see it in the German introduction.
Fifth: If you'd like to assist me in bringing forward this article, better expand it where it is dearly needed instead of fussing about superficialities. Atomaustieg for instance. Use sources like Langguth, Plickert (Hrsg), or, if you have to rely on media, BBC online, FAZ, and so on. Kind regards and after Christmas I'll take a look at your impovements.-- Michael G. Lind ( talk) 12:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Angela Merkel secured her fourth term as a Chancellor of Germany and I would like to add that to an article about her [+ short story about coalition talks] Nadzik ( talk) 10:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
"Horst Kasner (1926–2011; née Kaźmierczak)" --> Horst Kasner (1926–2011; né Kaźmierczak) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.248.156 ( talk) 14:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
“Merkel has been widely described as the de facto leader of the European Union, the most powerful woman in the world, and the leader of the Free World.”?? Shouldn’t there be a citation for this “widely described”? Otherwise it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.88.226.75 ( talk) 16:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The current text reads: "While Chancellor Schröder made clear he would join the war in Iraq, Merkel and the CDU-CSU supported the invasion of Iraq."
Schröder opposed the war in Iraq, so it should read "he would NOT join". The sentence actually makes sense only then.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
/info/en/?search=Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Foreign_policy -> Relations with the Middle East, and the references in that article.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.77.130.83 (
talk)
11:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Eliminate Angela Merkel is "leader of the free world." Denverboy632 ( talk) 04:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. See the
Free world page for more context
DannyS712 (
talk)
05:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Nine-minute BBC podcast, possibly of interest: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswsgf -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Benjamin Sühler has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2.247.255.168 ( talk) 07:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It should read "who has been serving as Chancellor of Germany since 2015." Not "serving since 2015" RCL89 ( talk) 23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
23:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In this block, use comma instead of a dot after "2013 election":
In the 2017 election, Merkel led her party to victory for the fourth time. Both CDU/CSU and SPD received a significantly lower proportion of the vote than they did in the 2013 election. and attempted to form a coalition with the FDP and Greens. The collapse of these talks led to stalemate. The German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier subsequently appealed successfully to the SPD to change their hard stance and to agree a 3rd grand coalition with the CDU/CSU.
In this block, remove word duplication "that that" in the first sentence:
In 2019 media speculation persists that that Merkel's successor as party leader, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer may take over Merkel's position as chancellor sooner than planned if the governing coalition proves unsustainable. The possibility is neither confirmed nor denied by the party.
Herpesklaus ( talk) 17:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Angela Merkel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Das Internet ist Neuland für uns alle" to "Das Internet ist für uns alle Neuland", because this is recognized by most German people as the actual quote. Sommerlichter ( talk) 20:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)