Talk:Angela Merkel

Critics

Sorry for my bad english, but you have to add some critics about Merkel in the article. She might be popular in Germany, but she is defenitely not an iron lady. Merkel does not lead the government, she moderates. The constitution of Germany gives the chancellor a "Richtlinienkompetenz" which means, that he or she gives the political goal. And Merkel doesn't do that. She has no profile, you don't have one single slogan she is standig for. The only thing she is doing is booting out concurrents. She has lost six Ministerpräsidenten (which are some like Governors in the USA) of her party in ten months. Two have been voted out of office (Rüttgers in Nordrhein-Westfalen and Althaus in Thüringen), two were praised away (Oettinger to the European Union and Wulff to the office of Federal President) and two quitted (Koch in Hessen and von Beust in Hamburg). After nine months "leading" her so called favourite coalition of CDU/CSU and FDP the balance is a disaster. This coalition reached 48% (34% for the Union and 14% for the FDP) in the Federal Election in September 2009. Because partys have to get 5% minimum to reach the Bundestag, this is a large majority for her to rule. In July demographs see her at 34% (30% for the Union, the FDP wouldn't reach the Bundestag with 4%). This happened in nine months and shows how much trust she lost. A majority of the Germans don't believe that she dominates the government or would reach the normal end of a legislature periode. This critics is spread in the German media (e.g. large magazins like the "SPIEGEL" or the "Stern" or the news like "Tagesschau" or "Heute journal"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.16.247.81 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Added Controversy

I added a controversy section on Merkel, however it was inmediatly deleted by user Qwyrxian. Germans are very protective on their chancellor it seems. Anyway, I have rewritten it, and excluded terms that could be interpreted as POV.Please expand the controversy section further and add more references. I will also do so. @ Qwyrxian - please discuss it here first before you remove large sections.95.223.187.171 (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed only a portion of what you wrote, and that portion was removed it was original research, blatantly POV, and full of weasel words. Who are these "many?" Who used the term "slap in the face?" What reliable source connects the Eid ul Fitr to this controversy? The only reference included is a discussion of the U.S. Koran burning fiasco in the U.S.; as far as I can tell from the Google Translate version of the article, it doesn't have anything to do with Germany, and it certainly doesn't mention Merkel at all. That you believe there's a connection is fine, but you're own opinions about the connection cannot go into the article. This is a classic case of WP:SYN--the attempt to take two different, sourced pieces of information, put them side-by-side, and imply a connection that neither source makes. This is explicitly forbidden. Since everything you added is some combination of POV, OR, and it's subcategory SYNTH, I'm removing it again, per policy. Finally, I am not a German resident/citizen, I can't read German, I've never been to Germany, and I have no particular interest in German politics (outside of a general interest in international affairs). I only ended up watchlisting this article as a result of some non-English edits that I noticed via Recent Changes; then, yesterday your policy-violating edits also appeared, so I reverted those as well. We can certainly discuss the issue here, but you'll need to fix the sentences so that they don't violate policy before they can become a part of the article. It's certainly possible that some variant to or portion of what you're saying has been reported by reliable sources, in which case we part of that could go back into the article, properly phrased. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Qwyrxian, did you mention that it's speculative and involves synthesis as well? (Yes you mentioned the latter.) That ridiculously long quote, which I am about to remove, lends undue weight to one particular organization which apparently agrees with our editor--and it's got to go. WP is not your soapbox, 95. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to write it better as more reliable sources pop up by the hour.You can count with me, friends. A minority of four million people may seem not note worthy, or undue weight for you. But it's not only the Muslim organizations that see a controversy here, it's also the green party and the political left.Alltogether maybe 20 - 30% of German population. Please remember that every, author, every news agency, every research has some bias or some point of view. It all depends how and in what context it is being mentioned or cited. Given the overall lenght, weight and tone of the whole article which does not offer any critcism on Merkel, how do the few lines of "actual controversy" she's caused add up to POV and undue weight?? 95.223.187.171 (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Even one single word of POV is a violation of policy. Adding controversial opinions is totally fine, as long as you are careful to source those opinions and make it clear that they are the opinions of those source, not Wikipedia's opinions. Some details about how to do this can be found in the part of WP:NPOV marked as WP:ASF. So, if you can find a reliable source, you can say, for example, "X Party member claims that Merkel's actions are in part due to the upcoming Eid ul Fitr holiday" (assuming that said opinion has due weight, which would depend in part on who said it and where they were quoted). I'm somewhat tempted to remove some of the emphatics that you added to the beginning of the section, but I think I'll leave the fine details to others (and also see if you discover any more sources). I'll let Drmies speak for her/himself on the issue of the weight of the quote s/he removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The amended version is still not neutral and mentions only the criticism, although the sources also mention praise. It has not been demonstrated that this recent event is already sufficiently significant to be added to the article at all. The section was re-added after being reverted; it should probably be removed until a consensus is established that this recent event and reactions to it deserve mention at all in this article. --Boson (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disaggree. The Angela Merkel article was not neutral, because it lacks ANY criticism.. It is a 'bio' that only has praise for her. An international controversy does not deserve mention? "Has not been demonstrated"??? WTF? How is that! All major news agency's have reported on this as a controversy! They all mentioned the ZDM criticism. It is a controversy! It's got the world wide attention.Neutralty? Bullshit! You jump on everyone that tries to add some balance to this article. This is not a minority viewpoint or undue weight - it may represent the views of as much as 30% of German population.It is also the viewpoint that much of the media has choosen to support. You want it to be Merkel's happy bio page (not neutral). This is a highly charged atmosphere in which local and international right wing groups have managed to incite a feeling of generalized and irrational islamophobia and xenophobia alike. People, such as Terry Jones can reach out to millions with their silly radical videos. Just imagine this scenario: Imagine, Terry Jones will be acredited for the New York islamic center not being build near ground zero, or cancelled/postponed alltogether. Probably, Obama wouldn't hand him an award or medal for that. But imagine, if two legislations later, another US president would do so and award him the "Freedom of speech" award, a medal, a stipend... and blablabla...."saved our country from civil war"....blablabla. Would that be noteworthy? Probably not. It remains a sad fact, that while the media tries to preserve some sort of political correctness, it has long been abandoned by the radicalized public (as much 50-60%). It seems people get their opinions from youtube these days. It saddens me that wikipedia has also been affected by this! Btw, I am not a Muslim and I am also not a communist. I just hate to see a people being collectively trampled & stigmatized for something they didn't do.But I am not an activist.I will not add it again into the article. Instead I will add it here for quick reference:

===== Controversy =====

Chancellor Angelica Merkel has been sharply criticised for being personally present and involved at the M100 Media Award handover to Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard This happens at a time of fierce emotional debate in Germany over disparaging remarks about Muslim immigrants made by the former Deutsche Bank executive Thilo Sarrazin. The Zentralrat der Muslime and the left party (Die Linke) as well as the German Green Party criticised the action by the centre-right chancellor. The Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper wrote: "This will probably be the most explosive appointment of her chancellorship so far." Others have praised Merkel and called it a brave and bold move for the cause of freedom of speech.''

95.223.187.171 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

From wiki article: "In October of 2010 Merkel was met with further criticism after making several anti-Muslim remarks calling for Muslim immigrants to learn and adopt Christian values [...]"

This criticism stems from a AFP article posted on Yahoo news. The article butchered Merkel's words.

I looked for a German citation and found her original words in a 15. Oct Spiegel article:

Auch die CDU-Vorsitzende versicherte: “Wir fühlen uns dem christlichen Menschenbild verbunden, das ist das, was uns ausmacht.” Wer das nicht akzeptiere, “der ist bei uns fehl am Platz”.

My own translation (I'm an American expat in Germany):

In addition, the CDU chairwoman asserted: “We feel bound to the Christian view of humanity, that is what distinguishes us.” Whoever does not accept that, “is out of place among us.”

It’s at this point where context is extremely important. Merkel was speaking at a conference for young CDU members. CDU stands for Christian Democratic Union. She wasn’t talking about Germany as a whole, but what makes her party unique. She had no xenophobic intentions with the speech, and that’s confirmed when one considers what else she said (17. Oct BBC article):

In her speech in Potsdam, however, the chancellor made clear that immigrants were welcome in Germany. She specifically referred to recent comments by German President Christian Wulff who said that Islam was “part of Germany”, like Christianity and Judaism. Mrs Merkel said: “We should not be a country either which gives the impression to the outside world that those who don’t speak German immediately or who were not raised speaking German are not welcome here.”

I don't know what should be done to edit the page, but that AFP article is not a good source for this "controversy" 141.2.177.126 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You're drawing your own conclusion. You said that the AFP article (one of the most reliable sources for news) is not a good source. Would Reuters, BBC, Guardian and NPR in addition to the AFP be sufficient? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/oct/18/angela-merkel-multiculturalism-germany-video this is the speech they're talking about. Where she is quite explicit in her criticism of multiculturalism, as well as of immigrants.

Our job isn't to report the news. Our job is to track things that are going on. Mistaken or not, this is really happening, and should be reported. 216.55.112.130 (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we move Failure of Multiculturalism to Controversy, and expand it to cover the reactions to her statements 216.55.112.130 (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose we remove the Failure of Multiculturalism and Controversy sections as events that are given undue weight because they happen to be recent news. The two subjects deserve half a sentence together at most, and then only if they can be shown to reflect something of lasting relevance. I also suggest we put the rest in some sort of chronological order. --Boson (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information."

"Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete."

If it falls into obscurity, we can move them. We aren't a first hand source. We're talking from second-hand sources. This is EXACTLY within the scope of what should be covered on here. I'm going to draw up an idea for what the new Controversy section should look like. Hopefully I'll have time for it tomorrow. 71.238.163.251 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2010 (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.

Merkel one quarter Polish

In this article, Lech Kaczynski states that Merkel is one quarter Polish. A member of a specific minority in Poland, like the Masurians, will often be described as Polish in Poland. 158.143.166.124 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is another reference: "Bei dem Gespräch mit der Bundeskanzlerin habe er erfahren, "dass Frau Merkel zu einem Viertel polnisch ist, was ich vorher nicht wusste." Auf die Frage, ob dies die deutsch-polnischen Beziehungen verbessern würde, entgegnete Kaczynski: "Das ist eine Frage für Frau Merkel und nicht für mich." " (DJG/hab [1]) 158.143.166.124 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Merkel stated that she is one quarter Polish in an interview with Der Spiegel in 2000.[2] Based on this, I have included her in the category Germans of Polish descent. Doblouto (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Polish people are called Poles. Correction, please. The McChicken costs $1 (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

head of NWO

I do not know if it is relevant, but many conspiracy theorists think that Merkel is the head of some secret New world order organization. Personlly, I think this should not be mentioned, because there is zero evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.2.64 (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

mother of Angela Merkel

I just read an article about the mother of Angela Merkel, citing her saying: "Nein, in der SPD bin ich nicht mehr." (No, I am not a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany anymore)

source: http://www.welt.de/politik/article2496274/Was-an-Angela-Merkels-Mutter-vorbildlich-ist.html

I changed the section "early life" so it fits with the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.97.223 (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Her Excellency

Or Honourable or something, does she need a title? Most incumbent head of States have one; though she is no head of State, yet other Prime Ministers have such a title, too (Cameron does, Fillon doesn't). Germany's head of State, President Wullf, doesn't have any such title neither though, at least not in Wikipedia. What to do? Is that correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhoaxt (talk • contribs) 13:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove lists of cabinet members from biographical article and just link to main articles

I propose we remove the two cabinet lists, replacing them with links to the two articles concerned. Cabinet lists do not belong in a biographical article. The two lists are basically duplication of the corresponding articles.--Boson (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation of first name

Are we sure the G is pronounced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have heard two main pronunciations of the name in Germany, both of which are given in the Duden pronunciation dictionary: [aŋˈɡeːla] and [ˈaŋɡela]. Her biography quotes her former teacher as saying that she expected her name to be pronounced with the stress on the 'e', which is presumably the pronunciation with the long 'e'; I don't think this pronunciation is ever without the [g]. The other pronunciation given by Duden also shows the 'g' as pronounced, though I have sometimes heard it pronounced with a barely audible [g] and with the 'e' pronounced like a schwa. --Boson (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Teflon

Should it be mentioned in the article that the American govt. refer to her as Angela Teflon Merkel? Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is fleeting trivia; so no. --Boson (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be written down somwhere - yes --87.150.12.252 (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We should refer somwhere in the article to that --109.70.1.207 (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should mention this for the sake of completeness --84.57.153.35 (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how a nickname allegedly used by an unknown (but probably very small) number of unknown American officials according to anonymous sources and which will be forgotten this time next year is of encyclopedic interest. If it deserves a mention, then not as an actual nickname but as an alleged piece of information reported in connection with WikiLeaks, and not in the biographical article on Angela Merkel. Perhaps it belongs in the article on a person known to have used the term. --Boson (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

[you can see my answer to your argument]