Talk:Angela Merkel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Angela Merkel was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
September 29, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Leader of the Free World[edit]

She has been described as the leader of the free world but so has Trump and Obama Not to mention her posistion as the second most powerful person, she has also been third, sixth as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talkcontribs) 08:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

So? Why should it matter for this article? The first paragraph of the lead section is not intended to list every trivial detail of a magazine's list over the years. It's sufficient with the most notable/widely used descriptions in the lead, namely "de facto leader of the European Union" which has been used by numerous sources over the last decade, "most powerful woman in the world" which has also been widely used by many sources, and "leader of the free world" which has been very widely used since late 2016. We don't need a fourth "one of the world's most powerful people" because that is self-evident and the description itself isn't particularly notable (perhaps because it's so self-evident). --Tataral (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Was the original comment was implying that Merkel is not the only person who has been called the leader of the free world and using that as an argument against inclusion? I don't think we need Merkel to the universally agreed upon leader of the free world to make it relevant to the article. Important sources have referred to Merkel that way and it is reliably sourced in the article. Knope7 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"In 2007, Merkel was President of the European Council and chaired the G8, the second woman to do so" - fair enough; would mentioning the first woman to chair the G8 be merited? Auto asks - 2017 July 04 1948Z 86.177.37.161 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The first female President of the European Council was Margaret Thatcher in July to December 1986. Apuldram (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Merkel being President of the European Council should be integrated into the body of the article. Right now it appears to only be mentioned in the lead. This goes to a larger issue with the article: there are plenty of useful facts, but they are not necessarily integrated into a narrative nor are the always sourced. Knope7 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Until December 2009, President of the European Council was not an elected or appointed position, not an honour. It happened automatically to the leader of the government of the country that is for six months by rota the host country. Apuldram (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't really address my point. Something being an honor is not the only criteria for inclusion. The point I am making is we should provide greater context for facts and connect facts where appropriate. The article will be more cohesive if we can connect ideas. Knope7 (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Relevant article by the Economist: The Merkel Doctrine -- Germany is not the new leader of the free world Nicolas Perrault (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Angela Merkel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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

Comparisons[edit]

In my opinion it is wrong to claim that any of Merkel's predecessors was a military officer in the sense of being a professional soldier. The claim can only refer to Helmut Schmidt, who, indeed, rose to the impressive rank of lieutenant during WW II, but - as the article about him correctly mentions - was conscripted in 1937. All autobiographical and biographical texts about Schmidt state that he had never had a career in the military on his mind when he left school. In fact, he wanted to study architecture. When the war began there was, of course, no way out for him to get out of the army (except by defecting and very probably being executed right away or sent off to a concentration camp). Given his intellectual powers it seems that he should have climbed to a much higher rank during the war; the modest rank he actually obtained indicates that at no point in his life he aspired to a military career. Even in the case of John F. Kennedy, who voluntarily joined the military in WWII, I would find it ridiculous to place him on one level with, say, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who is indeed among the former American presidents who had been military officers. The fact is, that none of the German chancellors had been soldiers by profession, if I'm not mistaken, not even between the world wars. (The only exception may be Dönitz, the successor of Adolf Hitler for a couple of days.)

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

Dubious assertions in LEAD[edit]

I went ahead and removed "Merkel has been described as the 'de facto' leader of the European Union, the most powerful woman in the world, and the leader of the free world" from the LEAD.

The discussion two days ago, above, was not conclusive regarding insertion of leader of the free world in the LEAD. Certainly, including such a highly subjective and hotly debated label in the LEAD, not to mention in the first paragraph and written with such implied assurance, isn't merited.

Until or unless that discussion is resolved, I'm going to leave the sentence here. Happyme22 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Counting chancellors[edit]

please give a qualified scientific source that this kind of counting is used anywhere in politics, history or newspapers. At least in Germany it is utmost unusual. If there is no scientific source, it might be TF and should be avoided. --Nillurcheier (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nillurcheier, I see you have been busy changing every German Chancellor article you have found (8 so far) that uses this style. Without first obtaining consensus! Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to assert your own point of view. The articles should be restored until there is a consensus that supports the change. Apuldram (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree, we need a consensus. Starting point should be the style on the German pages where there is no counting. But I am open to changes if reliable sources support this counter. --Nillurcheier (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This has already been discussed. Here is the policy. All these arbitrary numbers should be removed. Mewulwe (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
There you find
"The parameter |order= is used in conjunction with |office= to state that the officeholder is the nth holder of the office, for example "42nd President of the United States". This should only be used when there is a well established use of such numbering in reliable sources. Do not add numbers simply based on a Wikipedia list of holders of the office, because (1) the list may not be accurate and (2) even with a definite list, different numbering systems could be applied (as to how various categories of "irregular" officeholders should be counted, and as to the counting of those serving for multiple non-consecutive periods) making the numbers arbitrary; and even where such issues are not yet present, they are bound to be in the future, making this unsustainable. Per WP:SEAOFBLUE, is not recommended to wikilink |order= to a list of officeholders, even if such a list exists."

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