Talk:Angela Merkel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

This picture (also here) is as "free", as the other copyright protected image you uploaded

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)

Please see the licensing of the image you uploaded: "This applies to the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of 70 years after the work was made available to the public and the author never disclosed their identity." The same should apply to the other picture. --IIIraute (talk) 18:17, 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)

The US license was removed from an admin here --IIIraute (talk) 18:30, 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)

As you can see here it only has a European Union license. P.S. You really should discuss this at Commons. --IIIraute (talk) 18:41, 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)

Please see: Talk:Angela Merkel#Edit warring & POV pushing. Also, there is no consensus for the inclusion of this photograph to this article. Therefore I did suggest, i.e. did ask you to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made (the picture was added) and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante) until consensus is reached. --IIIraute (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion you link to is not about the photograph, so I'm not sure what your point is. You appear to be upset that in the photograph Ludwik is wearing a military uniform which you don't particularly enjoy looking at. Wellllll... maybe you should take that up with the person who took the photo? I mean, I really don't know what to tell you here. You seem to be saying that the photograph was taken in some nefarious POV way but given when it was taken, before WW2, that ... sort of doesn't make any sense.

As to the BRD, yes you quoted "BRD" at me in your edit summary. After you reverted twice. Without discussing the issue which is actually relevant (instead trying to get your way by claiming the photograph was a copyvio). And after I already "discussed" - did the D - on talk. The progression of changes suggests that you are either not quite clear on what "BRD" means, or you are just quoting it randomly to get your way. Now, if you read the guideline (not policy) carefully, it turns out that "follow BRD" does not actually mean "don't you dare revert me motherfucker!". It means "be bold", "revert", "discuss". So maybe you should try following some of these steps yourself rather than mindlessly quoting policy.

Finally, as to the "there is no consensus for the inclusion of this photograph". That seems to be a different way of saying "IIIraute don't like the photograph, IIIraute remove!". I'm not the only one who put the photo in the article. You are confusing WP:IDONTLIKEIT with WP:CONSENSUS in a way which very strongly suggests a problem with WP:OWN on your part in regard to this article. The photo illustrates the subject matter (though you've been trying to remove as much as you can of that too) and hence is relevant and useful to the purpose of the article. People quote "Consensus!" all the time when they actually seem to mean "I get to have my way!". But just like BRD is not what you think it actually is, "consensus" is not a divine right to veto any change you don't like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Does this conversation really have to end up on some board for incivility and bad faith? I mean, just re-read your comment and you'll find hardly a sentence without provocative phrasing. The photo is about Merkel's grandfather just when he was in that uniform putting extraordinary focus on this phase of his life before he settled in Germany and adopted a German name. The article does not have a single photo of her other grandparents, not even her father or mother, not her brother and not her sister and not even her former husband or even her current husband she's been married to for 16 years!! Of course in this light the image serves to create an imbalance and the textual description is already more than this issue should have here although an article about her family is also possible, where this image can be put. (Note: this thread is a reiteration and pointless escalation of a former thread where most criticized the excessive trivia about her grandfather. Again, Volunteer Marek is edit warring to override it.) --walkee^talkee 13:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What's uncivil and bad faithed is using misleading edit summaries and quoting random Wikipedia guidelines when they are clearly not applicable as a way to try and intimidate editors who disagree with you.

As to photos, if you want to include other photos of Merkel's family then I of course have no objection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 1 May 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)

Volunteer Marek's version of history seems more than a little disingenuous. If it really only was about adding a picture of her grandfather, why not take this picture It is neutral, and even has Merkel's father on it. There is no consensus for the inclusion of the other picture, and selection of images is a matter of editorial judgement. --IIIraute (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, my "version of history" is just fine. You're hell bent on removing the photo and have made up one crappy excuse after another. The problem with the other photo you propose is that it is of lower quality and lacks the historical significance than the photo you're removing does. How can a photo be "non-neutral"? That just doesn't make sense. The "no consensus" appears to be your own problem with WP:OWN. Selection of images is a matter of editorial judgement to about the same extent as selection of text to include in the article. In other words, if it's reliable and relevant we can put it in.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 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)

Ludwig Kasner has an own article. --IIIraute (talk) 23:49, 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)

What is the "important historical fact", and what exactly makes it a "historically important image" - and why does it improve the article? The other image, that includes her father, is also in "high resolution" available. --IIIraute (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact he's wearing a Blue Army uniform illustrates the complexities of ethnicity in the region. Indeed, the very reason you're trying to remove the image because of, is exactly what makes it more pertinent and interesting from an encyclopedic point of view.

And come on, this (or other version you linked) is not "high resolution", it is damaged (water? mold?) and smudged. This is obviously of much higher quality by any objective standard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it would suffice to say that this image has been the subject of extensive media commentary in Poland and Germany. Quite unlike the other photograph suggested by IIIraute. Elizabeth Cumberbatch (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

"The fact he's wearing a Blue Army uniform illustrates the complexities of ethnicity in the region." Angela Merkel is neither a "region", nor was she born in an area that needs illustration of the "complexities of ethnicity". She is from Hamburg. Also, the Polish Blue Army uniform does give undue weight to the life of Ludwig Kasner, who was a German citizen born in Posen, German Empire - who fought for the German Empire in France - who decided to cut his Polish roots in 1930, and Germanised the family name to Kasner - who lived for most of his life in Berlin, Germany - and who actually never lived in Poland:

"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)

Nobody said Angela Merkel is a "region", what are you talking about? And we're not talking about where Angela Merkel is from but about her grandfather. I'm sorry I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're going on about.

The basic point is that the image you're trying to remove is 1) of higher quality, 2) of greater historical, and hence encyclopedic, interest and 3) not a copy vio. If 1) and 2) don't convince you then 3) should - maybe at least you'll stop pretending that you want to include an alternative image instead. Which you haven't done, just blanket reverted.

And please make an effort at honest discussion rather than going on off-topic OR theories. Also, don't use misleading edit summaries like "stop edit warring. see talk" when you yourself been blindly reverting anyone who doesn't agree with you. If you want to WP:OWN something go to a store and buy yourself a toy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Elizabeth Cumberbatch. Merkel's broken leg has also been the subject of extensive media commentary → a quick 'google search' for "merkel, broken leg" does generate a fourty times higher result than "merkel, kazmierczak". Does that guarantee the inclusion of a "broken leg" picture? --IIIraute (talk) 01:48, 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)

I have just reverted your insertion of the image to the article - please do not add the image again. You were reverted twice by User:Dewritech here & here - User:Walkee has explained why the image should not be included, and User:Elizabeth Cumberbatch has made clear that her position is neutral. User:Horst-schlaemma and User:Lokalkosmopolit also have criticized the addition of excessive trivia about Merkel's grandfather. --IIIraute (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You have had a chance to participate in a dispute resolution request in regard to the image but failed to do so. So please don't start edit wars after failing to engage in dispute resolution. I will reinsert the image because no valid reason for its inclusion has been provided, only some user's IDONTLIKEIT (and note that some of your friends are getting banned for disruptive editing), it improves an article - it's relevant and so far the only image of its kind available - and because you had your chance to make your case in a neutral venue, but didn't.

We could try again and you could actually try explaining why the image does not belong in the article. And like I said, I'm open to rewording the caption but there's absolutely no reason what so ever not to include this image. By continually removing it you are decreasing the quality of the article and damaging Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:52, 14 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)

Well, yes, Merkel is a world leader, visible throughout the world, but... what in the hey does that have to do with whether or not we include an image of her grandfather in the article? That's one big incoherent non-sequitur right there.

And how does the image turn the article "too Polish-centric"? I'm sorry, that's just silly. Merkel is a German politician, 99% of the article is about her as a German politician and about German politics. Now, this German politician happens to have a Polish grand father and a 1% of the article happens to mention that. To think that this bare mention of her grandfather, or the inclusion of the image of her Polish grandfather makes the article "too Polish-centric" seems to reflect some kind of Wikipedia-only paranoia. If the letters P, o, l, and e, are put next to each other somewhere in the article then it automatically becomes "too Polish-centric" and its "true Germaness" is lost or something?

Strangely this appears to be an obsession only on Wikipedia, and only among some editors. As far as I can tell, most people both in Poland and Germany think it is sort of neat and of historical interest that Angela has a Polish grandfather. In the real world it doesn't bother anybody. But here...?

Consensus-creation involves making policy based arguments. Not blindly reverting, inventing one nonsense excuse after another (as Illrature has done. First image is "POV", then image is "COPYVIO", then it's just "NO CONSENSUS!!!!!") and trying to WP:OWN the article to enforce one's WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

And in terms of being obsessed, the real obsession here appears to be the insistence of a couple (two) editors that "this image must not appear in the article at all costs!" and their complete unwillingness to compromise, or even discuss the issue (see IIIraute's refusal to participate in dispute resolution). If you have other things to do then please, go do them.

I can see that the only way this will be resolved is if we can get wider input from uninvolved editors. That's why I filed a DR request. Unfortunately IIIraute refused to participate, but then came back here and resumed edit warring. *That* is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please calm down. There's no need to excite a rather dull debate with five exclamation marks as if you were screaming and trembling with rage. Also, stop inventing quotes and mixing them with the rest.

You chose to notify nobody of your dispute resolution request as far as I know and didn't fill it out. Now you proudly and repeatedly present it as an unwillingness by others to participate.

To get back to the issue, I looked at the articles of the past German Chancellors and German Presidents and none includes pictures of their grandparents, let alone parents. The image of the grandfather would be highly attention-grabbing in this article considering its sparse number of photographs and as the first in-text image, thus distracting, too Polish-centric and yellow press. If her one grandfather had played a strong role in her life, I'd reconsider, but he died in another city when she was five or so and he is unlikely to have shared the secrets of politics with her or whatever. Surely he didn't run around in that uniform commonly in his life either, so there's more overemphasis on that part too. We already have two sentences about her one grandfather and her partial Polish heritage and a big ancestry section intended to emphasize that she has Polish heritage too. There's no good reason left for you to crave for more, if you DOLIKEIT or DONTLIKEIT.--walkee^talkee 23:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Walkee, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from using provocative injunctions such as "Please calm down". I am perfectly calm and those five exclamation marks were obviously a characterization of one user's stubborn insistence on getting their way. And of course, as you well know, I didn't notify the user, because the DR bot does that automatically when the request is filed (and yes, I did fill it out). And IIIraute most certainly received that notification, in fact, he received a follow up reminder.

As to your contention that the image is "distracting, too Polish-centric and yellow press", that's just false. What exactly is distracting about including an image of Angela's grandfather in the section on Angela's family? Polish-centric? A single image? Gimme a break, is this some kind of version of the one drop rule for German-ness?

And the charge that this was "yellow-press" has been thoroughly debunked above (this is another nonsense objection that IIIraute made up, along with the idea that the photo is somehow POV! or COPYVIO!). The photo and the story about the grandfather were covered by several respectable newspapers both in Germany and Poland. This was discussed in this section (which someone quickly archived). Der Spiegel, Gazeta Wyborcza, or the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung are NOT "yellow journalism". So please drop this BS argument and don't repeat it anymore.

The rest of your comment is some kind of irrelevant WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

One more time. Why SHOULDN'T an image of Angela's grandfather appear in the section discussing her family background? ESPECIALLY when the image is of historical interest in its own right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Because her grandfather has an own article. In what way is this photograph relevant to the life of Angela Merkel? Also, it isn't just me - Walkee has made his position quite clear, and he did revert you here, you were reverted twice by User:Dewritech here & here; you did not write an opening statement in the DRN, and you failed to include the other users involved (apart from Elizabeth Cumberbatch, who clearly stated that she doesn't want to be involved) ---IIIraute (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure her grandfather has his own article but is there some rule, or even a reason, for why we can't use the image of her grandfather in the section discussing Angela's family here? Not that I'm aware of. The photograph is relevant to the life of Angela Merkel because... it's of her grandfather?

And yes I know you had a few tag team buddies to help you out, walkee, who always pops up just at the right time it seems, being one of them. The other one, Lokalkosmopolit seems to have been indef banned for disruption (and probably sock puppetry but we'd have to ask the blocking admin about that). User Dewritech has not participated in the discussion. And while Elizabeth Cumberbatch (who remember, you initially accused of being my sock puppet!) has stated that they do not wish to get involved here, they did point out that your arguments about the image being POV or COPYVIO, or that we could use "some other image" were nonsense.

As far as DRN goes, I filed the report, you were notified, you failed to respond. Should I have included other users? Maybe. Not sure how that makes your failure to participate any better. But whatever, I'm all for getting some uninvolved eyes to look at the issue. Shall we try DRN again? You want to re-file the request? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

An RfC ({{rfc|bio|hist}}), advertised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany, would seem to be the way to go.

I would suggest the simple question "Should the article on Angela Merkel include an image of her grandfather, Ludwig Kasner?

I would also suggest displaying the proposed image and caption with the question. --Boson (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm remaining uninvolved in this matter, but I am starting the RfC immediately. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC

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)

Angela Merkel's paternal grandfather Ludwik Kaźmierczak (later Kasner) ca. 1919–1920 in the uniform of the Polish Haller's Army with his then-fiancée, Merkel's grandmother Margarethe

The proposed image and caption. --IIIraute (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: the caption can of course be easily adjusted and rewritten.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Volunteer Marek already tries to manipulate the outcome of this RFC, before it has even started - please see Talk:Angela Merkel#Edit warring & POV pushing regarding this controversial edit. --IIIraute (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

...and again --IIIraute (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you call that edit "manipulation of this RfC" is a pretty good indication that you've got some kind of obsessive WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset in regard to this topic which manifest itself by blanket reverts, edit warring, and a complete failure to engage other users in good faith. Of course I already know that, but hey, it's worth pointing out for the benefit of others.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As to you linking to the Talk:Angela Merkel#Edit warring & POV pushing section, my comment there is relevant: "There is not a chance in hell that I'm replying to this barrage of personal attacks, falsehoods, unfounded accusations, attempts at outing and intimidation and bad faith." For the benefit of uninvolved editors, IIIraute's initial comment in that section was an obnoxious rant full of personal attacks, baseless accusations of sock puppetry and borderline outing. Most of it was removed after an intervention by an administrator. So I'm not sure why he wants to to link to that section or what he hopes to achieve by it. More substantial discussions (as opposed to barrages of personal attacks) are here and here (very quickly archived - an uninvolved user's quote: Sorry IIIraute, but Marek is, indeed, right. Your behavior is a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT., You still didn't get the point..Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, that's what, 3rd or 4th generation of German nationalist POV-pushers we are dealing with here? Anyway, I would actually say we don't need this image because 1) it doesn't show the subject 2) it belongs in the early life which would make it sandwiched and thus should have no image unless it is highly relevant and 3) it's already in Ludwig Kasner. I'd encourage editors to add some more images and/or move the existing ones around, this article is not pretty with the current selection and locations. Image of her grandparents simply doesn't seem very relevant, and there's no great place for it, so I say - can it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Re 1) it shows her grandfather, of course, in a section on her family. Note also that this aspect of her family received very wide coverage in both Poland and Germany. 2) Not really, but I guess that's a matter of opinion. 3) It is in Ludwig Kasner, but I don't see why that's an argument for why it can't be here. It's not like a photo in an album where if you put it in one album you can't put it in another - it's the internet. Also we already discussed the possibility of other related images, but this is the only free one, AFAICT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Whether an image should be included in this article in the broad long term is a question based on quite a few considerations, such as WP:MOSIMAGES and how best to use a selection of images, which isn't easily addressed. Thus, I think a better question is, given the current article state, is there a reason not to include the image? The answer to that is no. The image is supposedly public domain, which is as free as free gets. That is really the only possible objection I've seen raised. There is, apparently, some sort of objection based on his military outfit. I don't really see the utility of mentioning that in the caption (I mean, the war was over at that point, he may have just been wearing it to look smart for the photo), but then again, I don't see it as a reason not to include it. The fact the photo exists in another article is completely and utterly irrelevant. CMD (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Inclusion - Admittedly this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but I can't see many articles about major politicians which include images of their grandparents (outside one or two that have family photos). It would seem weird to have pictures of the grandparents but not the parents, no? Is the grandfather somehow more relevant or notable in relation to Merkel? NickCT (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the grandfather somehow more relevant or notable in relation to Merkel? - yes. Basically for the very reason that IIIraute is trying to remove the image. The fact that Merkel's grandfather turned out to be Polish was big news both in Poland and Germany (in both places most people thought that was pretty neat). And it's also of historical interest and illustrates the complexities of ethnicity in the region. Lots of media attention.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - Ok. Convince me. Here's some more other stuff; Barack Obama has notable Kenyan heritage (which was "big news), yet no images of Kenyan relatives. Arnold Schwarzenegger has notable Austrian heritage, yet no austrian family photos. Is Merkel's polish heritage somehow more important to her than those other politicians?

And how notable can it be if we're only dedicating one line of text to it? NickCT (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, @NickCT:, fair enough. Let me work backwards.

First, the reason we're dedicating only one line to it, is the same as why we're having this RfC. IIIraute (with some tag-teaming from walkee) has fought tooth and nail (and has been completely unwilling to compromise) to remove any and all mention of the background of the grandfather. Even what's in there now only made it in just barely, despite his tendentious opposition. And of course, two wrongs don't make right. So I do in fact think that the subject needs a bit (not too much) expansion in the article text.

Second, there actually is a picture of Obama's grandfather in his article [5] (even an unfree one!). It's true that there's no picture of his Kenyan father, but, like you say, this is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Personally I would very much support including such an image there, I think it should be in there, and I'm tempted to go look for one to add it.

For The Gubernator, well, Austro-American relations don't have the same history as German-Polish relations, so it's not surprising that there's no news coverage or images of his grandparents there (though there is an extensive discussion of his parents in the article).

Overall, like you say, it's OTHERSTUFF. I don't know why some other articles about some other politicians don't include similar images. Maybe no free ones are available. Maybe nobody thought to include them. Maybe it's just a different situation. But here, in this particular article, there are very good reasons to include this one - it's of historical interest, it received widespread media coverage, it illustrates an aspect of the topic very well.

Thanks for the constructive comments (and Piotrus too).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@User:Volunteer Marek - re "there actually is a picture of Obama's grandfather" - Right. But that was more a family picture, with multiple family memebers. Plus, Obama's "white" heritage isn't really as notable as his african heritage, and the image is of his maternal grandfather.

re "I don't know why some other articles about some other politicians don't include similar images." - Ok. Well can you give me some OTHERSTUFF? Can you point to an article with a figure of major notability where they do show a picture of the figure's parents/grandparents to illustrate heritage?

"it's of historical interest, it received widespread media coverage, it illustrates an aspect of the topic very well. " - I'm just not sure it's due. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: - It's unbelievable you regard the fleeting news (that happened mainly in Poland, no "big news" in Germany) about her paternal grandfather who she barely knew, if at all, as more important than her own parents. The limited coverage is unconvincing when you remember that for example Merkel is ranked as number 1 in the Forbes list of the world's most powerful women and many regard her as Europe's most influential person. She receives press articles on an hourly basis. It wouldn't be exaggerated to say that if Merkel dropped an audible fart, she'd receive more press coverage than about her paternal grandfather. While the angle to Poland is neat, the picture in a uniform used against Germany isn't as innocent. You wouldn't put a Wehrmacht picture in the article on Donald Tusk either and pretend you're not politically motivated. For these reasons and the ones I already gave above, I oppose the inclusion attempts of the image. --walkee^talkee 21:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, not true. If it wasn't big news in Germany why do we have all the major German newspapers reporting on it extensively? The rest of your comment is hardly worth commenting on. For one thing, it's extremely offensive to compare the Polish army to the "Wehrmacht" which was responsible for widespread war crimes and atrocities in Poland and across Europe, and which was directly complicit in the genocide of Jews, Poles, Russians and others. The very fact that you're willing to make such a obnoxious comparison bespeaks of your bias and suggests you shouldn't be editing articles related to these topics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

walkee, the history of Merkel's grandfather is slightly more relevant than a fart, and saying otherwise, while maybe funny, is just not true. The discovery of Merkel's roots was noted in all major German press, which should not be overlooked, for example Die Welt[6], Der Spiegel [7], Deutsche Welle [8] the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung [9], etc. etc. etc. I support the inclusion, on the basis that it is an interesting, relevant, harmless, high quality image which can only increase the spread of knowledge, interest in history, etc etc. I don't see any reason to exclude it. It is not sensational, it is historical. It helps the reader see the family history of Merkel in an interesting way. For the same reason, NickCT I wouldn't oppose a photo of any family member's that you proposed, I think photo's of Obama's grandparents would be interesting. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC))

Merkel's broken leg has also been the subject of extensive media commentary → a quick 'google search' for "merkel, broken leg" does generate a fourty times higher result than "merkel, kazmierczak". --IIIraute (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. ""merkel, broken leg"" gets you 3 (that's "three") google hits [10]. Searching for "merkel "broken leg"" appears to get more hits but only the first three are about Merkel breaking a leg, the rest are about other people's broken legs. A search for "merkel kazimierczak" automatically brings up Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel, the Guardian, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Deutsche TV, Sud Deutsche, Focus, N24 - you know, all those sources which you claimed earlier were "yellow journalism" and "tabloids". And that's just the German media, we haven't even gotten to the Polish and other media. And that's just looking for "merkel kazimerczak" but not "merkel kasner".

But hey, go ahead and keep undermining your credibility with these kinds of cheap and false rhetorical tricks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

...right here/here and here - where are the Washington Post, CNN, BBC, USA Today, Fox News, The Economist, The Times, etc. articles about her grandfather?--IIIraute (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You can always inflate the number of ghits by omitting quotation marks. The second page of the first search for example is about ... a jet being "broken" into, or other people's legs. And I don't see why we need Fox News or CNN here. Are you going to remove other parts of the article that aren't specifically sourced to these media outlets? German newspapers like Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel, and Frankfurter Allgemeine are not good enough for you? Since when??? Obviously this aspect of Merkel's biography is of more interest to Europeans than Americans, so it's not surprising that European press would report more on it. Please stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You said it! - that's exactly what walkee tried to point out. For one of our world's leaders - rather local news/trivia! --IIIraute (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

...covered by Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine, the Guardian etc. Some "local news". Please stop pretending that this is some "dog bites man" story. Please stop insulting our intelligence.

Btw, the broken pelvis thing is in the article, so I don't see what your point is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

...yes, and *that* story was covered by the Washington Post, CNN, BBC, USA Today, Fox News, The Economist, The Times, etc. Do you follow me? --IIIraute (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

if you want to include a picture of Merkel's broken leg I support you. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC))

• Comment I really don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the article. Its her grandfather. And if I read this right, her grandfather is notable enough for Wikipedia to have his own article, so I don't see a guideline or policy reason not to include the photo.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. With WP:IRELEV images "are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information". The information of this image: her grandfather was photographed in a Polish uniform around 1920. Which information is relevant for Merkel? That her grandfather had Polish roots (already mentioned in the article). Relevance of his alleged military activities around 1920? For Merkel: none (until disproved). As the image focuses on the military aspect (and some of the editors), it meets WP:UNDUE as "undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement".-- Dewritech (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

When you state "already mentioned in the article", then turn around and claim that this image does not "provide readers with visual information" you are contradicting yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Just consider the aspects of "focus" and "weight".-- Dewritech (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. Looks like just an evasive response.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue as to what the big deal is. What is wrong with the photo and why is it worth all this drama?--JOJ ^Hutton 21:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not only, that this photograph is not at all relevant to the life of Angela Merkel, but also having her grandfather pictured in the Polish Blue Army uniform (the Blue Army was formed under French command, from German POW's of Polish origin) does give undue weight to the life of Ludwig Kasner, who was a German citizen born in Posen, German Empire - who fought for the German Empire in France - who was taken prisoner of war in 1918 - who after the war opted to move to Berlin when Posen became Polish again - and who decided to cut his Polish roots in 1930, and Germanised the family name to Kasner - who lived for most of his life in Berlin, Germany - and who actually never lived in Poland:

"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)

• Comment - I don't have firm opinion about inclusion of the proposed image itself, but if it is included then the caption should be definitely shortened. Haller's army just isn't relevant to Merkel's biography.--Staberinde (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I have no problem with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Encyclopedic biographies often include images of people important in the subject's life. That importance can be measured by closeness of relation (e.g., parents) and by notability of the relative (e.g., a grandfather with his own biographical entry). I can't believe the absence of such images in other bios is at all relevant, considering the difficulty of obtaining free images. Obviously in this case there are deep issues involved either between some specific editors or between two factions of different political persuasions, but those factors should be irrelevant and I don't care to delve into them; on the surface this seems an obvious case for inclusion. Powers ^T 12:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the grandfather notable for, apart for being the grandfather of Angela Merkel? What is the "importance in the subject's life" - Merkel hardly knew him, and she was five years old when he died. --IIIraute (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

He is her grandfather. That is why he is important. By that logic, ancestry should never be included in a biographical article because the ancestors of the person were dead 25 years before the person was born. I don't see why a picture of Merkel's grandfather cannot be included. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I had been under the impression that his notability was separate from that of his granddaughter. If that's not the case, then there certainly is a weaker case for inclusion... but I don't see any real barrier to inclusion, either. Powers ^T 01:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support I don't mind adding this image since it is an image of her grandfather. My support only depends on where the image would be used in the article and how it would be used in relation to where it is put. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Z13571206Q,Ludwig-Kasner--wczesniej-Kazmierczak--wraz-z-zona-cropped.jpg

Angela Merkel's paternal grandparents Ludwig and Margarethe Kasner with their son Horst Kasner

• Since this is only about adding a picture of her grandfather (I wonder why the grandmother never gets mentioned) wouldn't it be better to use a more neutral image of her grandparents, that also depicts Merkel's father, Horst Kasner? --IIIraute (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not actually clear if this alternative image is free to use as it was published after 1923 (not more than 70 years). It's quite likely that it might be deleted soon on Commons (might go nominate it myself). Furthermore, the image is clearly of lower quality; it's grainy and smudged.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

§ 66 Anonyme und pseudonyme Werke

(1) "Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung. Es erlischt jedoch bereits siebzig Jahre nach der Schaffung des Werkes, wenn das Werk innerhalb dieser Frist nicht veröffentlicht worden ist." here --IIIraute (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes but that's the problem. The image was published after 1923, which means that siebzig Jahre hasn't passed. Also, other problems. When you uploaded that image to Commons, for "Source" you put "Family photo". That would suggest that this photo was in possession of your family, which I don't think is the case. What you're supposed to indicate in the "Source" field is where you obtained the photo.

Now, I don't know where you got this version, but the version here has a very clear copyright mark on it. So it's a good bet that this will be deleted very soon from commons as a non-free work, and without a decent non-free rationale, it will also be removed from en-Wikipedia as well.

Btw, since this is the english Wikipedia, it would be helpful if you provided English language translations where applicable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

No, according to German law, if an anonymous work is not published at all, then the copyright expires 70 years after creation. The copyright expired around 1997. Publishing the photo later does not recreate copyright.

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)

What matters also is its status according to US copyright law, which appears to be "70 years after the author's death". Also, what year was this created? What's the source? The point is that the copyright status of that work - which is of lower quality than the image under discussion - is unclear and that image might very well be deleted.

Also, please cut it out with comments like "Now that you are showing your true colours - why don't you run to Commons and try to get it deleted ". Not exactly conducive to a constructive discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And let me point out, again, that when that image was published in Deutsche Welle it carried a very clear copyright mark.

Bottomline: the image which is being proposed for inclusion is free and usable. This is not necessarily true of the lower quality image you're suggesting as an alternative.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The copyright ended in Germany after 70 years from creation, in the USA it never was protected with copyright. Additionally, this picture has the same source than this photograph. It's a photo of a photo - please see here --IIIraute (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure about the first part, and pretty sure you're incorrect about the second part. For it to be in public domain in US it would have to have been taken before 1923, which, since it very obviously has a person born in 1926 in it, just isn't the case.

I would also like to note the irony here. You initially tied to remove the photo of Ludwik in uniform under the pretense that it was a "COPYVIO". In fact, you fought like hell to make that case [11]. But you didn't suceed. But now... you're arguing like hell that a newer image, with much more dubious status is NOT COPYVIO. Basically you don't like a particular image. You tried to get it deleted. It didn't work. So now you're trying to come up with an alternative, using the exact opposite reasoning you used initially. I'm sorry, but your BAD FAITH is showing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss this at Commons. According to German law, if an anonymous work is not published at all, then the copyright expires 70 years after creation. The copyright expired around 1997. Publishing the photo later does not recreate copyright. Additionally, this picture has the same source than this - it's a photo of a photo - please see here

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)

Well, for you it obviously is. But you shouldn't assume that just because you've been acting in bad faith, then that must mean that others are too.

1. To be specific: you first tried to get rid of the original because it was "NPOV!. This was a ridiculous argument and didn't work.
2. Since that didn't work you tried to get your way through other means by arguing that the original image was a COPYVIO.
3. That didn't work either and the admin on Commons rejected your argument so you tried to get your way through good ol' fashioned edit warring.
4. As a result of that this RfC was opened. Now it's pretty obvious which way the discussion is heading, and that's for inclusion. So you're trying another trick.
5. You got another image, which is of lower quality and which is newer than the original one. It has been pointed out that this newer photo is a likely COPYVIO. Because unlike the first one it was taken later.
6. And now, despite your previous insistence that the older photo was a copyvio, you made a 180 degree turn and are arguing that the new one is NOT a copyvio. Do you realize how hypocritical and ridiculous you're being?

Like I said. You shouldn't assume that just because you are acting in bad faith that means others must be too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about - I never made a secret of not wanting to have the first image included, while you pretended to only care about including an image of the grandfather - and I also have not changed my argument: it is not relevant to the life of Angela Merkel, he is only notable for being her grandfather, he has no importance in the subject's life, Merkel hardly knew him, and she was five years old when he died, it is non-NPOV, and having her grandfather pictured in the Polish Blue Army uniform - an army that was formed under French command, from German POW's - does give undue weight to the life of Ludwig Kasner, who was a German citizen born in Posen, German Empire - who fought for the German Empire in France - who was taken prisoner of war in 1918 - who after the war opted to move to Berlin when Posen became Polish again - and who decided to cut his Polish roots in 1930, and Germanised the family name to Kasner - who lived for most of his life in Berlin, Germany - and who actually never lived in Poland.

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)

The new one is of lower quality (smudges and water damage) and is probably a COPYVIO IIIraute's protestations to the contrary not withstanding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The license on commons is undisputed. No indication for copyvio.-- Dewritech (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's gonna be. It's a copyvio because it was taken after 1923.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

And the "additional" father outweighs any minor quality issues.-- Dewritech (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

That's your POV. And if you think there is a license issue, discuss it on commons.-- Dewritech (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Clarification Request: How do we know that this is "Polish Haller's Army" uniform? If indeed he served there it should be part of the narrative, not caption. As a simple caption in the context of Merkel's article it is completely irrelevant. --Truther2012 (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that and I think it's an excellent suggestion (the fact it's Polish Haller's Army uniform is in one of the sources, a reliable one, that IIIraute keeps trying to remove from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The tendentiousness of this battle over a photo which is of at best marginal interest suggests that the real controversy here has do do with the relative significance or insignificance of Merkel's Polish heritage. That is an issue which should be addressed using reliable secondary sources, rather than by implying something using an image. Joe Bodacious (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That issue WAS addressed using reliable secondary sources, but unfortunately IIIraute removed the info and the reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There was a second image posted later in the discussion that shows her grandparents and her father. There is a copyright argument going on right now about the image, but assuming that it is not a copyright violation, would you be okay with using the suggested image? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a scrapbook. I would support the inclusion of images that are directly related to Ms. Merkel's notability as a politician. She's not famous for having an extended family. Joe Bodacious (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this point has probably been lost in all the long discussion. But I think that aside from the fact that 1) the alternative image is of lower quality and damaged, and 2) it's copyright status is uncertain (though that may get worked out), the original image is more suited for this article precisely because it illustrates an interesting historical fact. Now. This fact is the reason for why IIIraute is so hell bent on removing the image, but for people who are not bothered by the fact that a German chancellor may have Polish ancestry, what's the big deal? That in itself is *encyclopedic* info and the original image illustrates it.

If you're a reader and you come to this article and you look at the background section and you see an image of Angela's grandfather in a Polish army uniform chances are you'll be surprised! And you're more likely to have actually learned something new from reading our encyclopedia, then if we just have a generic (damaged, grainy) photo of two people and a baby. Isn't that what encyclopedias are supposed to do? Serve as learning tools? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

...animated by the best intentions, 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 --IIIraute (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose inclusion. It seems undue weight to include her grandparents without including her father. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. She's got four grandparents, by complete coincidence we happen to include a picture of one wearing an army uniform of a foreign army? Undue weight. Especially since this is a biography of a living person, and her heritage is controversial to various nationalists. A picture is worth a thousand words, and this picture is not worth a thousand words in this biography. She is not at all notable for being someone's granddaughter, she is notable for leading a rather important country. --GRuban (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. Agree with GRuban. Undue weight. Gives the appearance of Polish nationalist bias, which is reinforced by the caption. --Boson (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC).
• Weak oppose per WP:IRELEV and WP:NPOV. Her grandfather's notability is interesting and should be featured, but a photo seems to be overkill... especially one without the subject featured. SueDonem (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

The discussion above 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.

Domestic affairs

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)

References messed up

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)

First chancellor from former GDR

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)

There may be some subtleties of German politics that I'm not aware of, but this seems rather innocuous to me; neither undue weight nor of such overwhelming importance as to require inclusion in the lead. (I do think it belongs in the main text, possibly more prominently than the current "Comparisons" section. Somewhat analogous cases might be Woodrow Wilson (first U.S. president from the South since the Civil War, ~50 years) mentioned in the article but not the lead; or John Stuart (first Scottish prime minister of the UK, ~40 or 55 years, depending on where you start) included in the lead - prominently when you consider the entire lead is only two lines. By comparison, Merkel's election after 15 years of (re)union seems like a short time span to be considered a truly historic first. 2600:1006:B14D:6435:49ED:EC61:DA65:BDC (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it definitely belongs at least in the main text, probably more prominently. Personally, I think that if we mention in the lead that she's the first female chancellor, it's hard to see why we shouldn't also mention that she's the first former East German one - both are historic firsts of her chancellorship and of comparable importance to women and former East Germans respectively. I agree that this isn't undue weight, either on her gender or her GDR origins.

Could I clarify what you mean in your last line, though - are you saying it's less of a historic first because it took only 15 years? If so, I think the short time span actually makes it more notable - it's especially remarkable that she was elected so soon after reunification - and I think the first election of a former East German as chancellor since reunification would have been a historical milestone regardless of when it had occurred. What do you think? aoxiang翱翔^(user)(talk) 17:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Boson's comment below is a clearer statement of what I had in mind with my comment about the much shorter time frame. 2600:1006:B14D:6435:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied below. aoxiang翱翔^(user)(talk) 17:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

At least the way it is worded may give undue emphasis to the attribute "first". Only two chancellors were elected after German re-unification and the chancellor has to be a German citizen, so it's a bit like tossing a coin twice and saying how notable it is that the second toss was the first time it came up heads (or tails). --Boson (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

According to the DE Wikipedia, das Merkel is the 1st chancellor with a degree in natural sciences. So? None of this (woman, GDR, physicist) seems to be discussed these days. Was it ever? Is it important? Does it withstand the "10 year test"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's comparable. Merkel being a woman and from the former GDR have personal significance to Merkel's political career and historical significance to Germany in a way that her being a physicist does not. In 10 years it's likely that Merkel's election will still be seen as a milestone in gender equality and German reunification, but I doubt it was ever seen as a "milestone for physicists" because physicists just aren't a distinct political or social demographic. And I think it's quite clear that both Merkel's gender and her GDR origins have been discussed extensively since 2000. aoxiang翱翔^(user)(talk) 17:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean; it's true that there have only been two chancellors since reunification. However, I don't think that analogy is quite applicable. The election of chancellors isn't as random as tossing a coin, and if we accept that East and West Germans didn't have an equal chance of being elected in 2005 (which I think would be difficult to reject, considering this was still an issue long after Merkel had established herself), I think we have to see this as a historical milestone rather than just a coin that could have fallen either way. While it may sound odd to note that someone is the first among two, I'm having trouble thinking of a better way to describe this historical milestone, which I think is significant enough both to Merkel herself and to Germany as a whole to justify inclusion in the lead. What do you think? aoxiang翱翔^(user)(talk) 17:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think what this is actually trying to state as remarkable is that Merkel became leader of the CDU and chancellor despite having been raised in the GDR, with the emphasis on "despite", suggesting that growing up in East Germany would have made it very unlikely that she would be chosen to run for such office, or be elected -- not because it had never happened before (as "first" would suggest) but because people could not be expected to vote for an "Ossi" (for unstated reasons) so soon after re-unification (the opposite of what "first" implies). I wouldn't, personally, put it in the lead, though I would have no great objection, but I think we would need sources that make statements justifying a word like "despite". I couldn't, offhand, find anything really suitable in Langguth's biography. --Boson (talk) 00:51, 8 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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131001195707/http://www.swr.de/nachrichten/-/id=396/nid=396/did=7030978/166vg7v/index.htm to http://www.swr.de/nachrichten/-/id=396/nid=396/did=7030978/166vg7v/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Section rename to In the arts and media?

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)

Moved here from article

Notable facts

• In her office Merkel has a picture of the German-born Russian Empress Catherine the Great, who is described by Merkel as "a strong woman".
• In July 2006, during the G8 Summit proceedings at Konstantinovsky Palace, United States President Bush strode up behind Merkel and clasped his hands upon her shoulders in a massage-like way. Bush's action startled Merkel, causing her to flail her arms. The awkward exchange became a popular viral video on YouTube
• At the 2006 WEF (World economic Forum) in Davos, Switzerland the newly elected Merkel was dubbed "Queen of Davos" by the other attendees and subsequently the World's media.
• On the 8 June 2006, Merkel launched her video podcast via the Bundeskanzlerin website, making her the first head of government to launch a regular video podcast.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by John (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 November 2007

Does this mean we should redirect Queen of Davos here? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

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)

Could use more eyes on Vladimir Putin

That article is considerably livelier than this one of late. It could use more eyes.CometEncke (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Blatant Censorship

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

A complaint about censorship that calls for banning people is extraordinarily hypocritical. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that 'A complaint about censorship that calls for banning people is extraordinarily hypocritical.' is an accident fallacy, in case anyone cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.224.232 (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems odd that "refugee" appears in 4 of the references but only once in the article itself, even though only one of those 4 references is associated with that. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

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)

Partly done: I put it in Angela Merkel#Personal life as that's the only mention I can see or Ulrich. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed content

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)

In the arts and media

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016

Propose adding 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)

Done VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Offline} 13:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

#Asylum_and_inward_migration : One unknown "expert"

This section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Yeah, it's not a reliable source and that abstract is ridiculous. Not sure if the author actually understands what an "abstract" is. I removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111214105930/http://www.newsecho.de/news/ticker/Sa6pk0PGTGs/merkels_vater_gestorben_termine_abgesagt to http://www.newsecho.de/news/ticker/Sa6pk0PGTGs/merkels_vater_gestorben_termine_abgesagt

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Foreign policy

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)

Opening sentence

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)

The construction with an indefinite article and a defining relative (i.e. with no preceding comma) is weird. It sounds as if Angela Merkel is a member of the class of German politicians who are the current Chancellor of Germany (like "The human body-louse is an insect which lives and feeds on the surface of the skin"). With a comma the relative is weird for different reasons. The problem is that these are two different pieces of information, and a subordinate clause is not appropriate. --Boson (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2016

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)

Note: The article/infobox already states she was born in Hamburg, Germany. -- Dane ^talk 07:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

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)

Done JustBerry (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

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)

@Siuenti: There is a footnote after her name containing a detailed description of various pronunciations – I quote:

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]

Which English IPA do we use? I think we should include the German as well, perhaps the version she prefers? We could keep the footnote and put it after the IPA and reword it to mention alternative pronunciations. Laurdecl ^talk 03:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok I suggest making that footnote more obviously about the pronunciation so people like me don't miss it hehe. Perhaps put /ˈæŋɡələ/^a to give a hint. Siuenti (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: Better? Laurdecl ^talk 06:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I moved the semicolon, now it's like (English /ˈæŋɡələ ˈmɛərkəl/^[a]; which is good for me. Siuenti (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding sources

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)

Angela Merkel without headscarf in Saudi Arabia

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)

Nah. WP:NOTNEWS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

agree. Not news. Merkel wearing a burka would be news. Apuldram (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Allowing refugees to resettle in Germany

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)

Controversies

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)

I agree with this. We can integrate legitimate criticisms into paragraphs about her policy positions or actions as Chancellor. Lumping together positions that some people disagree with and calling them controversies is misleading. Knope7 (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Picture

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)

What's wrong with a picture of her making a speech? That's one of the things she does quite often. I prefer to see a picture of someone in action. Apuldram (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with anon. There are many good pictures of Merkel in Commons. This is not one of them. Framing is horrible and her face should be more visible. I recommend a more centralized picture where her face can be more clearly seen, such as this: NoMoreHeroes (talk) 19:01, 1 June 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.

File:Merkel 1.jpg

Merkel's official biography page portrait

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212234414/http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/union-dank-merkel-im-umfrage-aufwind-1784909.html to http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/union-dank-merkel-im-umfrage-aufwind-1784909.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902021654/http://web.ubbcluj.ro/news/evenimente/view_ev.php?lang=En&id=588 to http://web.ubbcluj.ro/news/evenimente/view_ev.php?lang=En&id=588
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218212105/http://www.karlspreis.de/index.php?id=32&doc=68 to http://www.karlspreis.de/index.php?id=32&doc=68
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720033421/http://www.bnaibritheurope.org/bbe/content/view/596/121/lang%2Cen_GB/ to http://www.bnaibritheurope.org/bbe/content/view/596/121/lang%2Cen_GB/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721135303/http://www.aicgs.org/support/merkel2010.aspx to http://www.aicgs.org/support/merkel2010.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926162623/http://abclive.in/national/national/478-angela-merkel-jawaharlal-nehru-award-.html to http://abclive.in/national/national/478-angela-merkel-jawaharlal-nehru-award-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Comparisons

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.)

I've removed the claim. Any predecessors who were miltary officers are covered by the escape clause 'among other professions'. Apuldram (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Leader of the Free World

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)

So? Why should it matter for this article? The first paragraph of the lead section is not intended to list every trivial detail of a magazine's list over the years. It's sufficient with the most notable/widely used descriptions in the lead, namely "de facto leader of the European Union" which has been used by numerous sources over the last decade, "most powerful woman in the world" which has also been widely used by many sources, and "leader of the free world" which has been very widely used since late 2016. We don't need a fourth "one of the world's most powerful people" because that is self-evident and the description itself isn't particularly notable (perhaps because it's so self-evident). --Tataral (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Was the original comment was implying that Merkel is not the only person who has been called the leader of the free world and using that as an argument against inclusion? I don't think we need Merkel to the universally agreed upon leader of the free world to make it relevant to the article. Important sources have referred to Merkel that way and it is reliably sourced in the article. Knope7 (talk) 00:38, 31 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)

The first female President of the European Council was Margaret Thatcher in July to December 1986. Apuldram (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Merkel being President of the European Council should be integrated into the body of the article. Right now it appears to only be mentioned in the lead. This goes to a larger issue with the article: there are plenty of useful facts, but they are not necessarily integrated into a narrative nor are the always sourced. Knope7 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Until December 2009, President of the European Council was not an elected or appointed position, not an honour. It happened automatically to the leader of the government of the country that is for six months by rota the host country. Apuldram (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't really address my point. Something being an honor is not the only criteria for inclusion. The point I am making is we should provide greater context for facts and connect facts where appropriate. The article will be more cohesive if we can connect ideas. Knope7 (talk) 02:03, 6 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)

International status

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)

Dubious assertions in LEAD

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)

Counting chancellors

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)

@Nillurcheier, I see you have been busy changing every German Chancellor article you have found (8 so far) that uses this style. Without first obtaining consensus! Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to assert your own point of view. The articles should be restored until there is a consensus that supports the change. Apuldram (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree, we need a consensus. Starting point should be the style on the German pages where there is no counting. But I am open to changes if reliable sources support this counter. --Nillurcheier (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Here is the policy. All these arbitrary numbers should be removed. Mewulwe (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There you find

"The parameter |order= is used in conjunction with |office= to state that the officeholder is the nth holder of the office, for example "42nd President of the United States". This should only be used when there is a well established use of such numbering in reliable sources. Do not add numbers simply based on a Wikipedia list of holders of the office, because (1) the list may not be accurate and (2) even with a definite list, different numbering systems could be applied (as to how various categories of "irregular" officeholders should be counted, and as to the counting of those serving for multiple non-consecutive periods) making the numbers arbitrary; and even where such issues are not yet present, they are bound to be in the future, making this unsustainable. Per WP:SEAOFBLUE, is not recommended to wikilink |order= to a list of officeholders, even if such a list exists."

Looks like we are close to end of discussion. --Nillurcheier (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree that numbering German chancellors is unusual and we shouldn't do it. (It is trivial original research (that is probably what you mean by "TF"), but it is original research nonetheless. —Kusma (t·c) 16:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022213102/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=amxJTktF7JMs&refer=home to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=amxJTktF7JMs&refer=home
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011051049/http://www.zimbio.com/Chancellor%2BAngela%2BMerkel/articles/tvb0mRYv0RF/German%2Bopposition%2Bhits%2B11%2Byear%2Bhigh%2Bpolls to http://www.zimbio.com/Chancellor+Angela+Merkel/articles/tvb0mRYv0RF/German+opposition+hits+11+year+high+polls

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Leipzig University

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)

Ooh yes 100% Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Leader of the free world

"Leader of the free world" in the template Angela Merkel series

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)

"Leader of the free world "in the lead section

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)

This is a stable part of the article and is meticulously sourced, and we've been through this thoroughly already. It is occasionally removed by an IP address from Texas or something who hasn't edited any other articles and who uses the visual editor (which is telling enough), who sees this as part of an internal US debate that is not relevant to this article. The description has become the most widespread, standard description of Merkel in English language media over the last year. It isn't a description used by "some commentators"; it is used by more or less everyone. It is clearly highly significant and defining of Merkel personally, especially considering the fact that neither her immediate predecessor Gerhard Schröder nor any of her other predecessors would have been described in such a way. At this point the description in equal in significance to the other common description of Merkel's role on the world stage ("de facto leader of the EU"). --Tataral (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmm Visual editor, but Ohio, not texas. Eh, close enough. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nothing23456: As you can see here, leader of the free world should remain. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Thrice today, this time from los angeles, getting a bit ridiculous. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

"Leader of the free world" in the section International status

The section International status has

• "In December 2015, Merkel was named as Time magazine's Person of the Year, with the magazine's cover declaring her to be the "Chancellor of the Free World"."

and

• "since 2016 she has been described by numerous commentators as the "leader of the free world."

There are currently two references. One says

• 'The phrase “leader of the free world” is usually applied to the president of the United States, and rarely without irony. I’m tempted to say that the leader of the free world is now Angela Merkel.' [my emphasis]

The second reference has two citations: one is just a headline, and the other says

• 'Now, she is being hailed as the “leader of the free world” on social media and by some commentators ...'

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)

@Michael G. Lind: She was described as the defacto leader for 10+ years I'm pretty sure. So inaccurate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, are you going to remove "most powerful woman in the world" once she retires? Obviously not. It says has been described, not is - so accurate even if people stop describing her as that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: „I'm Sure". Any references? Because I am sure the talk began only after Mr. Trump became PotUS. Traditionally PotUS is called the Leader of the free world, so much for the „10+years"--Michael G. Lind (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Michael G. Lind: I'm talking about "most powerful woman" and "head of the EU" not "leader of the free world". Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC) To clarify, I was talking about defacto leader of the EU, which was in the same sentence and so also described as "for a short time" because of your change. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Then one should separate this or -as several users already tried to do- delete the "leader of the free world". All these titles are in my opinion a very superficial concept of power. According to the Forbes list, Michelle Obama was in 2010 the MPW.....seriously? And de facto Head of the EU (even informal) is - in my opinion - also a bit over the top, because usually there is an axis between Berlin and Paris and this is indeed the dominant pairing in the EG or EU. (As, for instance, a frustrated Margaret Thatcher often described). So I don't see this either, but if we can agree to delete the leader of the free world, then go ahead with the other two descriptions, if you want.--Michael G. Lind (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Michael G. Lind: Someone already deleted it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galobtter: And now a User feels it is both „irrelevant and factually wrong" that Merkel, after the German federal election, 2017 is just Head of a Caretaker Government and therefore decides to put this cold war-phrase back into this article, no matter what.--Michael G. Lind (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop changing that sentence without consensus. Your personal opinion that she is "just Head of a Caretaker Government" (which is both nonsensical, wrong, and totally irrelevant for the material in question for a whole bunch of obvious reasons) are entirely irrelevant for this article, and this has been a stable part of the lead for nearly a year and we are not going to change the lead without consensus. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not editors' personal (and uninformed) opinions. --Tataral (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Tataral, some things are irreleveant in your personal opinion, but relevant for others. Please stop to insult other Users who dare to have a different opinion. Also, it would be nice if you stop paternalising other Users. Thank you. As for the ongoing dispute, I suggest an Dispute resolution. If you agree, we can solve this issue quickly. Who is "We" by the way? Is Tataral one individual (at times speaking in a Pluralis majestatis) or a collective organisation? (Firm, NGO, EU...) Kind regards--Michael G. Lind (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

While everyone may edit Wikipedia, competence is required, and it's clear that you are not familiar with how Wikipedia works at all and that you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's editing process before making any further edits to this article. The fact that you "have an opinion" does not give you a right to promote original research and personal opinions in this article. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on your opinions. There is no dispute, there's a new editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing process pushing his own opinions and original research and ignoring a long-standing consensus and a requirement to discuss and obtain consensus to change that stable sentence after being repeatedly told so, and if you continue edit-warring I will treat it as vandalism.

Your assertion that Merkel is "just Head of a Caretaker Government" is both ludicrous and irrelevant to the issue at hand; in particular your assertion that she therefore cannot be the "leader of the free world", due to her alleged caretaker status, is a form of original research, synthesis and just personal POV irrelevant to an encyclopedia, that additionally defies basic logic (non sequitur). First of all, Merkel's current government has exactly the same competencies as any other German government, so the assertion that there is something fundamentally different about her current government is wrong. Secondly, even if she were "just Head of a Caretaker Government" that wouldn't change the fact that she has been widely described in a particular way by reliable sources. And thirdly, it wouldn't change the fact that she had been widely described in such a way by reliable sources at some point during her tenure as Chancellor. Wikipedia is not just about the present. That description has been extensively debated here and elsewhere on Wikipedia for nearly a year and we will not change it without consensus and valid arguments based on Wikipedia policies and sources, as opposed to personal views on her being "just Head of a Caretaker Government." --Tataral (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Check the Dispute resolution noticeboard. Merry Christmas--Michael G. Lind (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss proposed changes here on the talk page, and cite reasons based on Wikipedia policies and/or reliable sources. When challenging material that has been included in the lead section for a long time in a high-profile article and that has been extensively discussed previously, this is particularly important. I have explained to you why your "just Head of a Caretaker Government" argument is not a valid argument based on Wikipedia policies or sources. Since you have not offered any policy-based reasons to remove this material or tried to obtain consensus here, you have not yet really discussed this matter on the talk page. For that reason, it would be a waste of both my and other editors' time to make use of the dispute resolution noticeboard at this point. --Tataral (talk) 06:28, 24 December 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)

You are a new user, at least here at the English Wikipedia, and you've demonstrated clearly that you are unfamiliar with the editing process here at the English Wikipedia, and that you don't understand what reliable sources are at the English Wikipedia, how we use them, or that your own original research/synthesis and edit-warring to change a stable lead section without any real discussion isn't acceptable. Your rant against me merely serves to demonstrate that once again, while you yet again fail to offer anything – anything at all – of substance (based on Wikipedia policies and reliable sources) regarding your proposal to change anything in the lead section.

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you urgently need to listen to advice from experienced editors. This means that if you want to propose any changes to the carefully worded and composed lead section, you should make your case here on the talk page with policy-based arguments and reliable sources, rather than irrelevant screeds about other (very experienced) editors' supposed academic credentials and other irrelevancies.

Now, the reason I reverted your recent change to the lead section was that it was

1. undiscussed, so there was no consensus for it
2. disregarded the principles found in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section upon which this lead section is built ("a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs") by adding a fifth badly composed one-sentence "paragraph," wrecking the lead section as a whole, and
3. I don't think this material merits mention in the first paragraph of the lead because it's a technicality and routine occurrence that happens after any election, because there isn't a fundamental difference between an "acting" government and any other government in Germany (it has the same competencies as any other government), because it's the third time Merkel heads such an "acting" government, etc.etc. (However, the material should be mentioned below in the body of the article, and I wouldn't object strongly to briefly mentioning the acting government issue at the end of the third paragraph of the lead where it fits more naturally, after the sentence "In the 2017 federal election the CDU again became the largest party.")

--Tataral (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read more than the first sentence. And as long as you are not able to discuss issues without apologising for telling a pack of lies this won't change;-) No further response needed.--Michael G. Lind (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

As long as you are unable to discuss your proposals in a constructive manner, based on reliable sources etc. and without personal attacks, we are not going to change the stable lead section. --Tataral (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2018

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

née --> né

"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)

leader of the free world?

“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)

User Tataral, who described herself an EU-employee, loves Merkel and she will threaten to ban you, if you want to change it. Mods here on en.Wikipedia let her do as she likes. But don't worry, in 2021, probably earlier, Merkel steps down anyway after she suffered a series of terrible defeats in Germany and within her own party. (None of Merkels election defeats and her following decision to resign are mentioned in the article, of course. See above for reasons.)--Michael G. Lind (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit request for correcting an error in chapter "Leader of the opposition"

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

"Not join" appears to be correct. One reference given is <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/23/germany.0700/ Schroeder wins second term] ''[[CNN]]'', 23 September 2002.</ref>.

There might be better references for the whole of the sentence.

--Boson (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2018

Eliminate Angela Merkel is "leader of the free world." Denverboy632 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See the Free world page for more context DannyS712 (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Potential source: "Angela Merkel's Rise to Power"

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

2.247.255.168 (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: to request that a page be created, please see WP:AFC DannyS712 (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

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)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2019

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)

 Done ― Heb the best (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2019

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)

 Done ― Heb the best (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)