|Helmut Kohl has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 counting
- 3 What to do about "Personality" section
- 4 Personality and Request for Comment
- 5 Longest tenure
- 6 Communist propaganda
- 7 architect of the German Reunification
- 8 Public perception
- 9 Constitution of the first cabinet Kohl
- 10 Image
- 11 section CDU finance affair needs update
- 12 Use of Dr. in front of name
- 13 Thesis
- 14 File:Gedenkplatte Mitterrand-Kohl Douaumont.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- Kohl's foreign policy was pro-USA.
that was recently added by an anomymous user. What is a "pro-USA" foreign policy? Is the statement supposed to contrast Kohl against Schröder? Then it's POV. djmutex 12:40, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It does not make sense to start counting chancellors anew whenever Germany changes it's constitution. Germany in the imperial time, Germany in the Weimar time and Germany today is the same state, and Chancellor is the same position.
- Sorry to correct you, but that is plainly wrong. The Bundeskanzler is quite a different political position than the Reichskanzler was, and the Federal Republic of Germany of today may be the legal inheritor of the Deutsche Reich, but is a new political entity. Can you cite some external publication that counts chancellors from the imperial cabinets onwards or otherwise support your position? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 18:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You are totally wrong. Germany today is as a state identical with the state Germany before 1945. This is even verified by the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. Citing the German Wikipedia article de:Deutschland: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat aber 1973 festgestellt: »Die BRD ist nicht 'Rechtsnachfolger' des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat 'Deutsches Reich'«.
Please note that this is the English Wikipedia. In English the leader of the German government is simply called Chancellor, and we do not have the difference between Reichskanzler and Bundeskanzler, a difference which in an English context is rather unimportant (note also that Bismarck used the title Bundeskanzler during the period of the Norddeutscher Bund). Other countries have also changed constitutions as well as the exact formal titles of their prime ministers or head-of-states etc. If we should make such differences, we would make a horrible chaos, and the system would be very misleading and unhelpful. Details regarding the German constitution and history are to be described in separate articles. All German Chancellors are listed in the article Chancellor of Germany as well as the Category:German chancellors, and I would like to make a meaningful order system from Bismarck to Schröder. Starting numbers anew for the "Weimar Republic" and the "Bonn Republic" is unencyclopedic Hajduk
- I wouldn't say that quoting wikipedia articles is proof for something ;-). I don't believe that you really suggest that the difference between "Reichskanzler" and "Bundeskanzler", between "Deutsches Reich" und "Bundesrepublik" are so small that even such a simple thing as changing the language from German to English makes suddenly Schröder not the 7th Bundeskanzler, but the 33rd what-ever-"Kanzler". I don't know if you are familiar with German politics, but putting the chancellors of the BRD in a direct lineage with the Deutsches Reich politicians is just silly. And how do you count Erich Honecker? And why do you start with Bismarck (if that is the starting point), and not with the cabinet positions in the Holy Roman Empire? Please revert your changes! -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 22:00, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- P.S.: Maybe putting them all in the article Chancellor of Germany and the category German chancellors isn't quite so good an idea, too.
The state now known as Germany was established in 1871. According to the German Constitutional Court. I start with Bismarck because he was the first Chancellor of Germany. The Holy Roman Empire was a different state. And Erich Honecker is not relevant here. He never had a position in Germany, except as a jailed traitor (a "quisling") after the liberation. Soviet occupation puppet regimes has nothing to do with the legitimate government of Germany. I have now included both the numbers when counting all chancellors, and the numbers when counting the current 1949 constitution only. Hajduk
- This is clearly pushing of a POV. Certainly one might argue that the state founded in 1871 ceased to exist in 1945, and that the two states created in 1949 were both new creations. Whatever the official position of the German Constitutional Court, this is probably closer to what de facto happened. john k 03:24, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hadjuk is right about the legal identity of the German national state founded in 1871 (or rather 1867) with the Federal Republic (Maybe one should distinguish between "national state" and "state" as an administrative entity (equalling the American usage of government). But it doesn't matter. There is no continous counting of Chancellors from Bismarck to the present (sometimes the lengths of terms are compared). I don't know whether (or how) they counted them in the Kaiserreich or the Weimar Republic. If a counting is used, it can only start with Adenauer (but even such a counting is not very common).
- He is clearly wrong about Honnecker being without position, but that doesn't concern any counting, since he wasn't Chancellor (or even the Eastern equivalent: chairman of the ouncil of ministers).
- Another problem with the numbering is that it includes people who never officially used the title "Chancellor" as well, like Philipp Scheidemann or Count Krosigk or did not really hold that office effectively like Goebbels.
- Str1977 00:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
What to do about "Personality" section
"Kohl is known as a very arrogant and egoistic person who still overestimates his work and historical role. When a journalist asked him what he knew about illegal party finances he replied: "For you I'm still Dr Kohl" (he was addressed by "Mr Kohl"). He was never able to handle criticism and to recognize own mistakes, instisting that he was the greatest statesman ever. In fact he believes that german reunification was his own personal masterpiece, ignoring the development of the Soviet Union and the GDR in the 80's that led to reunification." I'm reverting the article back to before this section was plopped in, because it's blatantly POV and trolling/vandalism. If I messed up by doing this, let me know. I'm still trying to get a feel for registered editing. --Sporkot 10:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
When I created this section I did not mean to publish my personal opinion. I come from Germany and here it's much easier to see this side of Helmut Kohl because he's not only the well-known elderstatesman as you perhaps see him from the distance. His arrogance is very significant for him and his political style. It's been a few years that he left office and therefore his character should be mentioned.
The doctor thing displays upstart manners, as my late father would have said, who was a doctor of physics. More significant is what he actually did, and you can form your own opinion by typing into search engines Kohl+corruption and Kohl+honesty.
- This is POV and your view is not shared by all Germans of course. --Avatar-en 10:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Well...Members of Kohl's party wouldn't agree with me, that's right. But in fact this is not my personal point of view, so keep it or delete it, but if you delete it keep in mind that you can't understand Kohl without understanding his character. And it's just as I described it, even if not every German agrees with me...:-) Good luck.
- Just to keep that clear: I'm neither a member of the CDU nor a friend of a party with similiar interests. --Avatar-en 13:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Just FYI, I'm not German, nor do I follow German politics. I deleted your edit because it contributed absolutely nothing to the article. Baseless partisan accusations and (what I think was) defamation of character are POV, plain and simple. Just because you think Kohl is an egotist does not make him one. --Sporkot 22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
It's your personal opinion to say my addition was defamation, that is something else. That does not mean my addition was my personal opinion. That's a big difference. To say something about a person's character is pov and defamation? That's very interesting, Sporkot. I think your sense of "political correctness" is a bit ridiculous. Do you really think it's impossible to mention a person's personality? Isn't it a bit simple to leave it out, to deny any discussion? Isn't it a bit simple to write about an important person like Kohl by just saying: oh, he was born there and held office from then to then, these were his cabinet members? I have to say your attitude is very superficial, think about it. Dear Avatar, in fact I did not mean to say you were Kohl's partisan. But I'm not a partisan of the SPD or any other left party, too. For me it took a few years to realize how Kohl behaves, so I understand why you don't agree with me. It was about two years ago when I saw an interview with Kohl on JBK and I first realized how selbstgefällig he was: "I'm the best, the greatest, I'm so underestimated". And his arrogance is so intense that you can't just ignore it. I know there are many Germans who just don't like him because of his policy, but in fact I was to young to get an aversion to him when he left office. And I know there are many wiki-users who just want to tell other users what they personally think of Kohl. But I am not, and I won't accept that my addition is just seen as "pov" or "defamation" or whatever, avoiding even to think about the description of his character. See some comments on his books:       (some of them are full of hatred and some full of adoration, but what is mostly descibed beside this is his arrogance as I did)
Over one month, and many reverts later, this section keeps getting added. I've stayed out of it, primarily because I don't want to get involved in a revert war. I see no good way to make something as subjective as personality NPOV, but I'm going to let it be. If anyone wants to dispute what I've said or help me figure out how to better deal with this, please make a mention on this page or my user talk page, and for the love of all that is holy, sign it.--Sporkot 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- On second thought, it makes more sense to flag this section as possibly NPOV and get a more broad consensus. --Sporkot 01:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't refer to your own opinions - only other people's and if you want to make it NPOV that means you have to take all opinions on the matter into account. The only way you can include a personality section in a bio without going through reverthell and back is to do it by quotes and referring to whatever public debate there might have been on the subject. So - cite the debate about Kohls personality - make sure to find quotes from both sides of the camp and find the relevant quotes from Kohl. Make sure it's all verifiable and both sides of the argument is accounted for. May the Wiki be With us! WanderingWiki 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, here in Adelaide, South Australia, very far from the action, I have not spoken to a German/Ex-German who does not use a nasty word for Kohl that I can't repeat. When people hear us speaking German, they often start talking and he seems to be the most hated of them all. On the net somewhere, I found that the Soviet Union had informed the US they were going to let East Germany go, because she was too expensive for them. Apparently Kohl knew that and went to Poland so he would be closer to Berlin and he could make a historic appearance. That is why he fought tooth and nail through the courts to keep his communist secret service file away from public scrutiny. I'd just like to throw that in the ring, maybe someone knows more about it? Was it all a big charade?
Hi, the word used for Helmut Kohl might be "Birne" meaning pear or noggin which is his nickname due to satire in German magazine "Titanic" - the German article about Kohl even refers to it. No, Kohl definitely did not travel to Poland to be closer to Berlin - there was a film about his life on German TV two weeks ago and it said (as confirmed by himself in interviews) that he was very upset about the schedule of this visit as he would have prefered being in Germany at the time the Berlin Wall teared down. Unfortunately for him, the visit was planned months before and he could not cancel that as it was very important to improve relationships to Poland. On the 10th November 1989, when Kohl returned to Germany to be in Berlin that day, he had to travel via Copenhagen and Hamburg where he had to use a British plane as no German plane was allowed to land in Berlin or fly via GDR at that time - so it took more time to fly from Warzaw to Berlin as from Bonn to Berlin (although the distance from Bonn to Berlin was five-times bigger).
Well, the Stasi (East-German secret service) file of Helmut Kohl is one of the biggest mysteries here in Germany as anyone here would like to know what to find in it! Helmut Kohl will probably have his good reasons to fight up to the High German Federal Court to prevent the publication. As I would consider Kohl as a victim of East German observation (as they did with any high ranked West German politician) I would guess there are some delicate details about his private life. It is not a big secret in Germany that he had a private relationship with his secretary Juliane Weber. Recently I heard even rumours that he was bisexual (which I can not believe, but no one in Germany can believe any sexuality of Helmut Kohl), perhaps his Stasi file contains any information in that direction, we do not know. Things like this only would become interesting if the information in that file would have any political contents. Best regards from Germany YOG'TZE (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)YOG'TZE
Personality and Request for Comment
I came in through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics. Being somewhat familiar with German politics, i can certainly attest that Kohl had a stubborn style of leadership. However, during his reign this was hardly seen as arrognance, but simply as strong leadership. Condemnation of this style came only later, when his political star had faded and the accusations on the dirty business started to fly - and when his old opposition came to power.
So while there might be truth to the statement that he was known for a self-opinionated and stubborn way of governing, it goes much too far to say he is known as an "egoistic person who still overestimates his work". These characterizations are way over the top, and untrue. During his tenure, he was widely regarded as a great statesman (f.e. in strengthening friendship with France).
The paragraph further goes on to say: "In fact he believes that german reunification was his own personal masterpiece, ignoring the development of the Soviet Union and the GDR in the 80's that led to reunification." This is typical historic revisionism (perhaps because the author wasnt old enough to experience it when it happened?). Certainly, the geopolitical changes put everything in motion, but it was indeed Kohl who made sure that die Wende followed quickly and painlessly. Bear in mind that, at the time, there was a significant possibility that the GDR would remain a seperate state for some time, even if it were to become democratic. In fact, it was unclear what would happen with the entirety of Central Europe. Only with hindsight is it clear to see that they have integrated easily in the European Union. Concluding: if there has to be a paragraph on his personality (which i doubt, most information could be included elsewhere), it has to be more balanced and neutrally formulated than this. The Minister of War (Peace) 09:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for further suggestions or proposals concerning a better edit.--22.214.171.124 13:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- A bit late, but the lack of suggestions for a "better" edit probably indicates that there isn't one. Thus, it only makes sense to not have this section in the article. I noticed someone put it back. I'm reverting/deleting one more time, and that's it. I will not be dragged into a revert/edit war over something that so blatantly violates the Wikipedia policies--Sporkot 02:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, there seem to be few suggestions for improvement. I for one wouldnt know hot to make your section less opinionated, and my suggestion would be to remove it entirely (which I have done a few times already). If you are interested in making a decent section on his personality, I suggest you read WP:NPOV and post it here. From there we might be able to work out a consensus. Also, perhaps you should consider creating an account> It makes it far easier for others to contact you. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I've given the other users a few weeks to make better proposals but the echo was a bit weak indeed. One reason for that may have been the fact that my addition was deleted - so it should better be kept as "NPOV" and linked to this discussion page ( and - as you may have realized - that's not the version I began with). I will agree to other formulations that will be seen as more neutral but I will also ensure that the essential of my addition will remain. --126.96.36.199 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm interested in rewritting this article. I think the NPOV-section really stands out of the rest of the article, which also is a bit weak. I will do the following
- Structure the article like the Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christian Schwarz-Schilling. This would involve moving the pieces on his cabinets to separate articles. In order to give the article more structure
- Translating and integrating pieces from the German article into this one. In order to give the article more substance.
- Possibly creating a section Public perception and assessments" like on George W. Bush in order to give the criticism more depth/
- Or something like this. Would this solve the issue and improve the article
- C mon 22:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think the above suggestions are very good. Such a section would improve the article greatly. However, the existing paragraph, though revised, is still unfit for addition to this article. I have, again, removed it. Before having been agreed upon on this talk page, said paragraph is unfit for inclusion. The Minister of War (Peace) 12:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, c'mon. As I told you, The Minister of war, it would have been a good idea to keep the section as long as its still under discussion so that other users may have a look at the discussions page. But as long as c'mon prepares his proposal I will not revert the article (under the condition that there will be a section "Public perception and assessments", of course- that's the reason I'm still here,c'mon:-}). --188.8.131.52 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've finished the radical revision, broadening and structuring the article. A public perception-stub has been created, feel free to expand! C mon 22:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty good!
- Still, especially the public perception bt needs more sources. Specifically:
- "Some critize
shim for taking personal credit for German Reunification, while without historical developments in the USSR and the GDR in the late 1980s, reunification would not have been possible". Some? Which some?
- "During the public hearings about the party financing scandal his inability to deal with criticism became apparent, when he fell out to one of the researchers, when he adressed him with mr Kohl, instead of dr Kohl." This needs at least one source, which probably shouldnt be hard to find.
- "Some critize
- Does our anon feel like digging for sources? Especially the first is too slanted to be left in there without a cite. I'd also love to see a cartoon with Kohl as a birne! The Minister of War (Peace) 09:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I am reverting the changes on Kohl being the longest serving Kanzler in the history of the FDR. I realise that he actually is the longest serving Bundeskanzler, but I think it is illuminating to reveal he his the second longest serving chancellor ever. The link with Bismarck is warranted in that regard. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 11:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, although Willi Stoph was Premier, rather than Chancellor, of the DDR, he held this analogous post for more than twenty years over his two tenures, longer than either Bismarck or Kohl. There seems to be a general tendency at wikipedia to act as though the BRD is automatically and obviously the one and only successor state to the German Reich. This simply isn't true - the DDR was a legitimate, internationally recognized regime which had an equal claim to be considered the Reich's successor. I'd prefer that we avoid BRD/Reich comparisons like this. john k 19:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- There is an important difference. The Federal Republic of Germany is claiming to be identical as a state with the German state established under Bismarck. The German Democratic Republic did not make this claim, quite the opposite. Furthermore, the German Democratic Republic had no Chancellor. I don't think a Soviet puppet dictatorship should be treated as equal with the democratically elected government in any event. -Minot
- I might add that "BRD" is a communist or right-wing extremist propaganda term and that a state which such a name did never exist. -Minto
- It's a tendency pushed by anon German IPs (who like to also claim that using East German/East Germany and West German/West Germany is "an attempt to create the impression of two German peoples"!) PMA 09:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, (although I realise the discussion is long dead), I dont dispute that the DDR is a legitimate heir to the Reich. They were an internationally recognised country, and they were a successor state to the Reich. But dont forget that the DDR doenst exist anymore!
Reich | +---+---+ BRD DDR +---+---+ | BRD
Nope, this is wrong. According to the ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 1973, there is no "successor" to the German state (prior to 1949), because the Federal Republic of Germany is as a state identical with the state 'Deutsches Reich'".
The German Democratic Republic, on the contrarary, did not claim to be identical nor a successor to the German state (prior to 1949).
Also, the Federal Republic of Germany is in legal terms in no way a successor to the German Democratic Republic. The GDR was abolished and its former territory reunified with the Federal Republic of Germany. As a state it simply ceased to exist.
Germany (Deutsches Reich) | ----- GDR Germany (Federal Republic)
Wilhs 14:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The DDR/GDR was the area of Soviet Occupation Zone, the other three occupation zones became the Federal Republik. I don't know who was first, but it was in a very short time frame. Whether the BRD is the successor of the DDR depends on how you look at it. When it came to property, like factories, land, houses, businesses, they acted as if they were successors, sold them, gave some away, sold for half the value (as it happened to my property), and the money stayed with the government of course. When you look at political prisoners they are not successors, for reasons of compensation or making their 'gap years' count for pensions.
I've translated "Verdienstordens der Bundesrepublik Deutschland", from the German article of Helmut Kohl, as "Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany", that's a literal translation. Someone removed it because it was "communist propaganda", but it's a literal translation! Furthermore I've reinstated the trivia section, not because I think this article merits a trivia section, but because the fact, that Kohl was the second longest chancellor, is rather trivial and should not be part of the articles introduction.
- This is untrue. You used the name "German Federal Republic", a GDR cold war derogatory term. Trivia sections are btw. frowned upon, because they are utterly unencyclopedic. It is not "trivial" that he was the longest serving Chancellor since Bismarck, it is actually quite important, and the fact belong in the introduction, not in a separate "trivia" section. Wilhs 14:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- I did not used the name German Federal Republic" but "Federal Republic of Germany", the conventional long form and a literal translation! On a more constructive note, I've integrated the former trivia section in the text, a compromise, I hope, between our two positions.
C mon 20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- First: The article history clearly says "German Federal Republic" . Secondly, you moved one of the most important things that are to say about Kohl from the introduction to an obscure place. What's the point of having an introduction when it cannot contain the most important facts? It has nothing with "trivia" to do that Kohl was the longest serving Chancellor since Bismarck, on the contrary it says very much about Kohl and his reign. Read the guideline for featured articles; a good article shall have a good introduction of a length like Pope John Paul II Wilhs 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
architect of the German Reunification
I have changed this passage because I dont consider "architect of the German Reunification" neutral. I rather feel it creates the impression the reunification proceeded along some masterplan created by Kohl. And I (and many others including scholars) would even say he was rather driven by the events and merely reacted to them, but Im not going to discuss this in full detail here. Therefore I would suggest a more neutral expression.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-05
- This change has since been reverted with the incorrect edit summary "rv vandalism". In my opinion it needs rephrasing but I agree that the sentence with "architect" smacks of POV. What is the sentence actually meant to express in objective terms?--Boson 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would say "driven by events" position downplays a little too much of what Kohl personally accomplished. There is a slight consensus (normally historians on the centre-right, but a lot of centre-left historians as well) that had the Chancellor of West Germany been a Social Democrat in 1989, Germany might miss reunification and we will probably still see two German states today. "A person of his time" type of argument can only carry weight to certain stage and German reunification is a type of singular events that the standard modernist/postmodernist social-economic context explanation on its own is inadequate. --JNZ (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this part of the article is biased against Kohl. It is anyway difficult to write such a paragraph without being subjective. Probably this part of the article should be deleted.
220.127.116.11 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this part is biased both ways. If Kohl is described as one of the most popular politicians in Germany, I think we must be talking about another politician. If you ask me, he was never overly popular. So unless someone could quote some poll or some other link that shows Kohl's high popularity compared to other German politicians I would strongly suggest removing that part about Kohl being one of the most popular politicians. I think that is nonsense. By the way while the German version of the article talks about the "Birne" satire as well it doesn't mention aanything about perceived high popularity at all. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Constitution of the first cabinet Kohl
Hello LessHeard vanU,
I do not understand why you critize and even reverted my edit.
Helmut Kohl was voted as chancellor on Friday 01st October, his minister were confirmed on Monday 04th October 1982. On Sunday, our parliament Bundestag never has session on Sundays and there was definitely no session on the 03rd October 1982!
Please explain to me why you consider the correction of a wrong date as vandalism?
- I apologise for mistaking your edits as disruptive. The previous date had been unchallenged for some time, and date changing is a frequent edit made by people wishing to invalidate Wikipedia. I would suggest, so that people like me do not make the same mistake, that you use the edit summary to explain your reasons for your edit. Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear LessHeard vanU,
Many thanks for your quick response! Yes, I can imagine that there is a lot of vandalism fon Helmut Kohl's article, in German edition of wikipedia it is even worse, I guess. Of course, I will explain future changes made from my side in order to avoid any misunderstandings. Best regards from Germany. YOG'TZE (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)YOG'TZE
Please stop edit warring around the image to use. I'd prefer the Bundesarchiv image, it's smaller, but clearly of higher quality. The other one is just blurred. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 08:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
section CDU finance affair needs update
The section about the CDU finance affair needs an update. In the meantime, Schreiber was extradited to Germany and sentenced to eight years of jail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I was going to update the information on the Karlheinz Schreiber court case, but came to the conclusion that is not sufficiently relevant and should be removed. If it were to stay, its relevance would have to be indicated in the text. In any case, like most of the section it is unsourced. As I understand WP:BLP all of this unsourced text should be removed without delay. --Boson (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Use of Dr. in front of name
It is general policy in a BLP that a "Dr." is not placed in front of the name. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles for more on this topic. I recently reverted someone's addition of the "Dr." in front of Helmut Kohl. Such addition not only goes against the policy as above, but also is a form of derision, given the recent story around Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who not only had to drop the title of Dr. following allegations of plagiarism, but also had to resign his presitigious post as Defence Minister in the German government.-- Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg: Baron without a title; German defence minister resigns over plagiarism --Skol fir (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Eletronic version of thesis "The Political Developments in the Palatinate and the Reconstruction of Political Parties after 1945 (German)":
(remove blank between h and a:) www.4sh ared.com/document/rwjYMthV/HK_1958_diss_transkript.htm (PDF)
File:Gedenkplatte Mitterrand-Kohl Douaumont.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Gedenkplatte Mitterrand-Kohl Douaumont.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
|A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.|