Talk:Angela Merkel

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.

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

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.

Aside from the image, there is the text

While we have an RfC on the inclusion of the image above, it's apparent that IIIraute wishes to remove any mention of Merkel's grandfather's ethnicity or the fact that he served in the Polish Blue Army, except in the vaguest of terms.

This is information which is reliably sourced and pertinent. It provides valuable historical information. Of course we shouldn't give too much weight too it, but we don't need a section or even a paragraph on it. Two well sourced sentences or so should be enough.

Do we need a separate RfC on this?

Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It is always better to tell the truth - "Merkel has Polish ancestry through her paternal grandfather, Ludwig Kasner, a German national of Polish origin from Posen (now Poznań). The family's original name Kaźmierczak was Germanized to Kasner in 1930." was the stable, long standing content (based on Merkel's official biography) you just have changed again. Your edit warring during an ongoing RfC is more than inappropriate, and I do indeed, ask all other editors to have a look at this → Talk:Angela Merkel#Edit warring & POV pushing. --IIIraute (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from accusing me of lying. The reliable sources which you keep removing have been discussed before, and I provide them below for convenience. And you keep linking to that section, but all that sections shows is that you are almost impossible to talk to, have a bad case of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, prone to making personal attacks in discussions, as well as false allegations. And that's after the worst of your comments had to be removed by an Arbitrator.

Sources:

"The family tree of German Chancellor Angela Merkel has caused excitement in Poland. Her grandfather Ludwig Kazmierczak was Polish, and fought against the Germans in World War I." - Deutsche Welle [12]

"These images caused a stir in Poland, because they show the chancellor's grandfather in an elegant bright uniform. For Polish historians, this made it clear that Kazmierczak was a soldier in the Polish army, which fought in World War I on the side of France against Germany." - Deutsche Welle

"Her (Angela's) grandfather Ludwig Kazmierczak was obviously a genuine Pole - and might have charged a soldier in the Haller Army took up arms against Germany." - Frankfurter Allgemeine (google translation) [13]

It was revealed this week that German Chancellor Angela Merkel's grandfather came from Poland and that her original maiden name was Kazmierczak, not the Germanized Kasner. - Der Spiegel [14]

Kazmierczak is the original name of Merkel's grandfather and father - Der Spiegel

"According to the biography comes Merkel's grandfather, Ludwig Kazmierczak, from Posen, where he was the illegitimate child of Anna Kazmierczak and Louis Wojciechowski was born in 1896. He grew up under the care of his mother and her future husband Louis Rychlicki in Posen (Polish: Poznań)" - Suddeutsche (google translate) [15]

"Not only that her grandfather was a Polish name and came from Posen. Even more: I suppose he even fought against the German Empire"..."Ludwig Kazmierczak wears proudly crossed arms the uniform of the so-called Haller Army -. A unit of Poland, which was used in the French army against the Germans." - Deutsche TV (google translate) [16]

"Merkel's grandfather was in Haller's Army"..."Angela Merkel's grandfather from Poznan was a Hallerite. He most likely fought against Germany, and then against the Bolsheviks" - Gazeta Wyborcza (google translate) [17]

And more... Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I should also add that the version you claim was "stable" was just the version you edit warred to keep. You can call that "stable" if you want, but it does not make it so (never mind that "stability" isn't a valid argument).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

...if you want to, I can provide the diffs of all the different users that did revert you - just let me know. --IIIraute (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography: "Horst’s father Ludwig, Angela’s grandfather, was born in Posen in 1896 – although not as Ludwig Kasner, but Ludwig Kazmierczak. Like most inhabitants of the province of Posen, the Kazmierczaks had Polish roots, and since the second partition of Poland, the city and surrounding region had seen several boundary changes and various different rulers. At the time of Ludwig Kazmierczak’s birth, Posen was part of the German Empire, so Merkel’s grandfather was officially a German citizen. The family nonetheless had remained faithful to its Polish origins, although Ludwig clearly didn’t share those sentiments. As a result he made a decision that was to have far-reaching consequences. In 1919, after the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles, Posen once again became part of Poland. In the years that followed, much of the German minority emigrated from the region – including those who didn’t want to return to Poland. Ludwig Kazmierczak was one of those who left his native land and part of his family behind and set off for Berlin, where he met his future wife Margarethe. Their son Horst was born in 1926. But it wasn’t until 1930 that Ludwig Kazmierczak decided to adopt the German version of his surname and began calling himself Kasner."

→Stefan Kornelius, Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography, Alma Books Ltd, Richmond, 2013, page 14, ISBN-13: 978-1846883071, here

Fact: Ludwig Kazmierczak was a German citizen born in Posen, German Empire in 1896. (In 1793, Posen came under the control of Prussia. With Prussia, the province became part of the united German Empire in 1871.)

Fact: Ludwig Kazmierczak officially changed his name to "Ludwig Kasner" - meaning - his name is "Ludwig Kasner", and that is how the article should refer to him.

The Guardian: "Not only was her grandfather of Polish origin, the chancellor almost was born Angela Kazmierczak. Her grandfather was a Ludwig Kazmierczak, born 1896 in Poznan – then part of the German Reich. The family was proud of its Polish roots. Obviously not grandpa Ludwig who emigrated to Berlin when Poznan 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." see

Fact: "Ludwig Kazmierczak was one of those who left his native land and part of his family behind and set off for Berlin, where he met his future wife Margarethe." (Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography, p. 14) He did not take his "German-born fiancée Margarethe with him to Poznan ... to later settle in Berlin".

Another fact, Volunteer Marek rather prefers to stifle, because it does not fit his glorious "grandpa did fight for the Poles only" propaganda:

n-tv: "Ludwig was mobilised into the German army in 1915 and fought for the German Empire in France, where in 1918, he was taken prisoner of war or deserted" see

Deutsche Welle: "According to the largest Polish daily "Gazeta Wyborcza," her grandfather Ludwig Kazmierczak was Polish and is believed to have fought against the Germans as a Polish soldier in 1918." see

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "...during the First World War, [this army] was formed under French command, from German POW's of Polish origin, and at least some of their units, have fought in 1918 ... experts, like the Polish historian Wolodzimierz Boriodziej did confirm to this newspaper, that it is not ruled out that Kazmierczak could have raised his arms against Germany." see --IIIraute (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You can bold the word "Fact" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that your comments are beside the point.

1. No one's disputing that Merkel's grandfather was a German citizen - of course he was, what else would he be? That's in the article and no one's proposing it be removed.
2. No one's denying that Merkel's grandfather changed his name from "Kazimerczak" to "Kasner". That's in the article and no one's proposing it be removed.
3. No one's denying that Merkel's grandfather moved to Berlin and that he met Margarethe there. That's in the article and no one's proposing it be removed.

None of these facts! of yours are relevant to the discussion. You are providing evidence for something else. Something, which is not under discussion and is not controversial.

The discussion is about the Fact that Merkel's grandfather was of Polish ethnicity (per sources given above) and was a member of the Polish Blue Army (per sources given above and the image).

As to your "Another fact" - "to stifle" means "to suppress". Am I trying to suppress something? Absolutely not! On the other hand YOU are very much trying to stifle and suppress encyclopedic info in some misguided info to protect the purity of Angela's "Germaness".

And I'm sorry, in regard to this: "glorious "grandpa did fight for the Poles only" propaganda:" - I don't even know how to properly respond. Grandpa did fight for Poles. Never said it was "only". It's not propaganda, unless you think Der Spiegel, Deutsche Welle, Frankfurter Algemeine, Die Welt, Suddeutsche and German TV are all in the business of spreading Volunteer Marek's "propaganda". Somehow I doubt that's the case. A more likely explanation is that *your* POV diverges widely from *mainstream German* sources/viewpoints.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The diffs speak for themselves (and there are many more): here, here here, here, here, here - I think enough has been said. Why don't we let other editors comment, what they think. I am so bored by this. --IIIraute (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

How in the world do "diffs" establish whether a piece of text is supported by reliable sources or not? You're obfuscating. Sources speak for themselves, like above. Diffs just show there is disagreement and it would be trivial to link to all the reverting you've been doing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't we (the two of us) withdraw from this for a while - don't you trust; i.e. don't you think the other editors are smart enough to sort this out? --IIIraute (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

May I ask why this is so important? It seems to me to be a topic so distant from the subject's notability that it might even be considered trivia. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If, say, Obama's grandfather fought for Germany in WWI (or in the Mexican revolution or something) wouldn't you think it worth mentioning?

It's important precisely because of its historical interest and relevance. It illustrates an interesting fact about the nature of ethnicity in central and eastern Europe. It's an aspect which is encyclopedic and of possible interest to readers.

"Trivia" would be something like "Merkel's favorite My Little Pony is Pinky Pie" or something. This ain't that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

...or "Merkel is known to dislike dogs.[23]". Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The story of Angela Merkel's grandparents is one paragraph. We could end this debate by simply not adding any of the images. I do find the background of Merkel's grandfather interesting, but if we are going to show a picture of Merkel's early life, shouldn't we simply show her with her parents? It really depends on the goal of adding the image. Also, I would check the deletion nomination page for the image IIIraute wants to add. Alot of developments have taken place. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

While Merkel's grandfather's colorful First World War career is definitely important in his own biography, and possibly also deserves mention in Merkel's fathers biography, its a total trivia in relation to Merkel's biography.--Staberinde (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not so sure that Merkel's grandfather is notable himself, per WP:NOTINHERITED. I also don't see how adding half a sentence about an interesting historical fact here is "trivia". Especially when he have stuff like Merkel's opinions on dogs in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Then we can remove that too. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 23:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Merkel's dislike of dogs is about as relevant as Elizabeth II eating nuts (there was even a minor scandal related to that!) so I removed it too.--Staberinde (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

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)