Talk:Gerhard Schröder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gerhard Schröder:

Translate German Wikipedia article on Schröder and merge useful information.


I stumbled onto this site. It is great. What would be even greater would be having the email address, and mail addresses, faxes, of the government officials for the different countries.

Remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - It would be a royal pain in the ass to keep all the information up to date, and it is beyond the scope of general information on a person to list their contact details. The tiny percentage of people that would be interested in this information can just do a search for the persons official page. --snoyes 00:35 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

'Gerhard Schroeder SPD

My English is not good enough to be sure of that, but 'intellectually mediocre' sounds like an insult to me, not to mention 'career-advancement tool'. Besides, the German article does not mention the CDU thing, although this doesn't mean anything. However, I removed the paragraph and put it here for discussion, in case there is any truth in it. ---de:Benutzer:Ein_anderer_Name

Yes, that was proper. intellectually mediocre is, indeed, an insult. john k 15:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By definition, "mediocre" refers to the average or median of a set of people. If everyone is outstanding, nobody is. Thus, taking "intellectually mediocre" as an insult means discounting the vast majority of intellectually mediocre citizens as mere "masses". A very elitist approach to things, I conclude. Besides, "atheist" does not count as an insult?

To me, in French, médiocre is sub-average, unworthy. I didn't know whether the English has a different nuance, since after all the word looks like having something to do with middle, medium, thus average. However, speaking/writing is not quoting dictionary entries: when I just say 's/he is average' without a special frame of reference, I am impolite. And voluntarily impolite language in an encyclopedia entry (which elsewhere uses 'neutral' language) may be considered insulting/deprecating, thus not NPOV. I mainly put the sentence here in case there is any truth (and relevance) in Schröderian projects of joining the CDU, but I strongly suspect it was just made up (by a Christian intellectual ;)?). -- ashamed for poor knowledge of etymology, de:Benutzer:Ein_anderer_Name

Forget political correctness, believe me, it *is* impolite and derogatory to call somebody "mediocre". If this term appears in your report card (e.g. "this employee has mediocre reliability"), you are in deep trouble. It is close to an insult, no rephrase that, it is a socially accepted term to express that you suck. -- A Native English speaker

Bundestagswahl 2005 news:

Re: Gerhard Schroeder and German elections 2005... (by the way I think this wikipedia is just the best Idea!!!)

I just followed the german elections and being a german living abroad ( Australia) I was amazed how these elections are manipulated by the media.Much of the media in germany like Deutsche Welle are highly sophisticated,but strongly pro-american and at the moment they would like to see Gerhard Schröder lose the election to a pro-american Angela Merkel of the CDU / CSU Union.

Your view of Schröder and Merkel aside, but calling Deutsche Welle (DW) pro U.S. is plain nonsense. DW always tries to maintain a neutral point of view and manages this in more than 99% of all cases. I watched/listened DW during the election campaign period and didn't see any taking sides. Furthermore, the fact the Merkel doesn't hate the the US (like you do) doesn't mean she is pro-american. Her views on many issues (e.g. environmental politics) are in contrast with the current US administration.

Here I must say for the record that in the Bundestagswahl 2005 Gerhard Schröders SPDParty won 34.3% of all votes, while Angela Merkels CDU only got a disappointing 27%!!! The CSU led by Edmund Stoiber wich is the CDU Sister-party got only a meagre 8% of votes!

Yes, but it doesn't matter because CDU and CSU always run together. Therefore they are counted together (35%). Counting them individually makes no sense since the CDU does not run in Bavaria and the CSU does not run in the rest of the country. Some SPD politicians used this stupid argument to justify Schröder claim for the chancellory.

Edmund Stoiber ,who during the run up of elections had offended many east Germans, or Ossies as we call them,by saying that this time their stupidity and unhappyness with their high unemployment rates in the east would not be allowed , to influence the outcome of the elections as previously.

While Stoibers comment was stupid, it hadn't much effect on the outcome of the election (no one takes that guy serious anyway).

In the past few years Gerhard Schroeder has brought many Reforms to Germany and there are also signs of improvements in the east since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 when there was derelict and redundant Industry and high unemployment in the east.Leftovers from the DDR - SED Sowjet ERA . Right now the German economy is the Powerhouse of the EU European Union! Much of this is due to Gerhard Schroeders work after the re-unification !

Yes, Schröder realised the need for reforms. But his reforms came too late and he even reverted some of the reforms made under the Helmut Kohl adminsitration. Germany has lost jobs during his reign. Germany is a powerhouse only because of its sheer size. It lacks any vitality. The current standard of living/welfare system cannot be upheld with current growth rates and budget deficit.

Germans are also very proud of their Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schroeder because he took a stance against George W. Bush and opposed the USA strongly by demanding more time for Weapons Inspectors in Iraq and together with the UN Security Council Schröder argued strongly ,that to invade Iraq would be illegal and against the will of the UN , since NO WMD had yet been found!

I wouldn't say that Germans are proud of Schröder. Yes, they agree with his view on Iraq. But many feel that he could have expressed his concerns in a much more diplomatic fashions.

Schröder showed strength and political backbone by saying NO to War on Iraq and therefore Gerd won the hearts of many Germans who could see the truth and through the hazy media hype of an embedded USA journalism .

Wrong. He mainly said NO (reflecting public opinion) to win the 2002 elections. It was convenient, that public opinion matched his personal view.

During the election of 2005 this same biased journalism led by CNN , FOX and the likes is trying to influence and manipulate with one sided opinion polls and by prejudice reporting,that Angela Merkel of the CDU with 27% of votes had won the election, and Gerhard Schroeder SPD with 34.3% of votes had lost the elections, wich many germans strongly dispute and debate right now.

Wrong. Merkel was the candidate of CDU and CSU and therefor won with 35%. The fact that she now is chancellor speaks for itself.

CDU and CSU , although Sister Parties, are two seperately registred Parties , funded by german Taxpayers!

As any other party CDU and CSU are funded based on the number of votes they receive. The fact that they are two parties is irrelevant.

The CDU Leader is Angela Merkel The CSU Leader is Edmund Stoiber

The SPD Leader and present Chancellor of Germany is Gerhard Schroeder

The fact is that Germany 2005 voted more left than right as follows:

SPD Gerhard Schroeder 34.3%, Die Grünen The Green Party Joschka Fischer 8.1%, CDU Angela Merkel - 27% , CSU Edmund Stoiber 8.2%, PDS ( left) Oskar Lafontaine 8.7%, FDP Guido Westerwelle 9.8%, other minority groups 3.9%

Counting the Greens as a left party is arguable. Their agenda could likewise be considered liberal. That would the conservative/liberal camp the advantage.

Angela Merkel was expected to get at least 40% of all votes, according to most media and opinion polls. When Angela Merkel only got 27% for herself, she and her voters were bitterly disappointed. But most disappointment seemed to be expressed by the media !

Gerhard Schröder argued,that he is the one whom the german People gave the mandate too, since he got 34.3% of all votes for his SPD, plus the rest of votes were predominately to the left!

Angela Merkel looked therefore suddenly very weak, and even more so due to a lack of political experience and economic policy. (She had "lost" her "25% overall Tax" Finance Minister to Heidelberg University Dr. Paul Kirchhof who quit politics after the dismal result for the CDU.)

Saying that Merkel lacks political experience is nonsense. She is part of the polical circus since reunification, served eight years as a minister in a federal government, was party secretary, and later chairwomen.

At present Schroeders Red/Green coalition is still in Government for the next 30 Days,while all Parties are talking to each other ,to look at possible Party-alliances,to eventually form a majority working Government for Germany.

Whatever the outcome , the biggest problem is the high unemployment rate in the east and that seems also the reason why the majority voted more to the left, than for the "neu - liberalen" , or neo-conservative rights, who seemed to be favoured so much by the reporting Media!

Calling the CDU neo-conservative is wrong and misleading because this term is mainly used to describe the political landscape in the US.

By the Way,at this Stage all the Votes from Dresden are still to come in by the 2nd October,therefore the german Bundestagswahl 2005 is still not over! at this date -written by Guss 04:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

And these votes went straight to the CDU. For the record, I did vote for neither the CDU nor SPD. My responses are solely ment to prevent this discussion page into a reality-distortion device. 23:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC) A concerned citizen

Personal life[edit]

In this article Schröder is called the "Audi man". Is this true? I am a German, but I've never heard this name for Schröder.-- 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Gerhard Schröder[edit]

Should the disambiguation notice about the older politician be at the top of the article? john 07:09, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, but he is -- sorry to say that -- rather irrelevant for the Politics of Germany (or only important for Wikipedia because of same name, other party). But I tried a switch. -- till we *) 08:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He was an important German politician of the 50s and 60s. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of contemporary politics. Of course, it's unlikely that someone looking for him would expect to find it at the main Gerhard Schröder page, but they'd also probably be uncertain where, exactly, they would find him. Disambiguation notices are supposed to go on top. john 17:47, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be Gerhard Schroeder? --Hemanshu 18:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe. It seems to be more common in English-language contexts. --Camembert
Gerhard Schröder returns 678 000 hits in Google, while Gerhard Schroder (missing umlaut) returns only 18 600 and Gerhard Schroeder returns 688 000 hits.--Lucky13pjn 19:22, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

What exactly does this sentence mean?

In 2004 a teacher slugged in Mr. Schröders face and gets a jury appearance.

--Lucky13pjn 00:56, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

At a new party members meeting, one new SPD party member, a (unemployed) teacher, went to Schröder who was speaking there and pushed him into his face. -- till we | Talk 14:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Move Schröder to Gerhard Schroeder?[edit]

I ask for moving this page to Gerhard Schroeder, because it is more used in English.

yes please! The german umlaut ö is spellt oe in english ! my german Name is Häffner but in english its Haeffner... and the correct way of Schröder in englisch is Schroeder ,thanks Guss 04:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The Googletests above are not correct, 241000 of 407000 "Gerhard Schröder" in the .de domain. On the other hand, only 20500 of 132000 "Gerhard Schroeder" are in the .de domain.

If you check or domains, "Gerhard Schroeder" is much more used.

The initial Googletest failure may be easily explaned by the facts that Germany is a highly developed country with many internet sites (not only in the .de domain, but also in the .com one), and Gerhard Schroeder is a much more interesting subject for Germans than for English speakers, and this causes the parity between Schröder and Schroeder through the net.

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 14:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just for clarification: do you mean "Gerhard Schroeder" (with the 'ö' (o-umlaut) becoming the usual transliteration of 'oe'), or do you mean "Gerhard Shroeder" (which you wrote in the first sentence). A move to "Gerhard Schroeder" would be okay (but not necessary, in my opinion), a move to "Gerhard Shroeder" is something I find unthinkable, as unthinkable as a "Schorsch Dabble-Ju Busch" article in de.wikipedia would be. But I think you are speaking about "Gerhard Schroeder", not "Shroeder". I am interested in the reason you think this page should be moved -- okay, we say: use the most common form in English, and maybe "oe" instead of "ö" is more common -- but on the other hand, "Schröder" would be more correct, and #redirect allows to make on a redirect for the other, so I don't see the real problem. Could you elaborate a bit? -- till we | Talk 14:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Schroeder of course. It was just a typo.
I'd like the rule "use most common English name istead of the maybe much more correct local names" to become even more strict than now. This might help to eliminate many revert wars caused by nationalists - the name dispute is a very common source of revert wars/moving wars...
Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 15:24, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Schroeder is not an English version of the name. It's just a transliteration commonly used by lazy people who have no umlauts on their keyboards. Just like other diactricless versions of people's names. If the only spelling difference is the lack of diactrics, then I would suggest keeping it here. Ausir 18:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I wouldn't qualify whether they are lazy or not, but to the my knowledge Shroeder is the most common spelling used in English mass-media. You are not an American, aren't you? Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 19:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(on a sidenote: Could this image look any more photoshopped?! It looks like handpainted, and scary too.)

I agree that this is one of the strangest pictures. I put in a different headshot. -- EnemyOfTheState 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Schröders family[edit]

The adoption of Victoria didnt took place on August 16th, but at least one month earlier. Gerhard Schröder doesnt have his own children, neither with Doris Schröder-Kopf nor with Hildrud Schröder. Hildrud Schröder's daughters are from her first marriage.

"Power play"[edit]

Relations with some European countries have sometimes become strained due to Schröder's alleged "powerplay"; examples are Austria (2000), the Czech Republic, Spain and Switzerland due to air traffic noise spilling over into southern Germany.

- this paragraph should either be expanded to explain what actually took place, or be removed. Dan100 15:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

The British Issue[edit]

Has anyone got any hard info..on his attitude towards dealing with the extreme fringe elements in Germany; we, in the UK are having a real hard time at the moment-caught, in-between, far left; & far right-public mobilization groups; & their power is so strong, that, there is very little, as far as normality.

The Russian people, should be warned of this threat; after all; in the USA; they have the vastness of the Atlantic Ocean, to protect them from Albert Speer-mark 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Schroeder's success as lawyer[edit]

In the top part of the article Schroeder is referred to as an "unsuccessful lawyer". Further down he is described as a "successful lawyer".

- it is hard to measure success anyway. Why not leave out the attribute and label him "a lawyer"? --Punk sandwich 22:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


His four marriages and the fact that he served on the Volkswagen board, led to his being nick-named the "Auto-Chancellor". The Volkswagen part I understand, but what's the connection between the marriages and the nickname? Is this a German joke? Mark1 06:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's probably un-understandable for non-Germans. I gave an explanation.-- 2 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)
Audi-Chancellor seems to be a mistake. I never heard of it (being a German citizen). However, "Autokanzler" is a very common nickname for him and is extensively used by the German press. The whole explanation with Audi's logo referring to his four marriages escapes me. Google yields only 5 hits on "Audikanzler".

AUDI KANZLERbecause the Audi Logo looks like 4 Wedding - Rings heres a funny satyrical write-up I found ,from the Paris Press: 18 Sep 2005

Pariser rümpfen die Nase

Der Widersacher (den man in Paris doch dachte, gekannt zu haben) entpuppt sich als der Audi-Kanzler – vier (Ehe)Ringe – und hemmungsloser Liebhaber „diese niederträchtige Wurst mit Curry und Ketchup“.


Parisians turn up their Noses ( at Gerhard Schroeder )

That Devil! ( while everyone in Paris thought ,they knew him ) finally he reveals his true self: The "AUDI Chancellor" - four ( Wedding ) Rings - what a ruthless and shameless Lover - Look at him , this lowdown filthy Sausage in Curry and Ketchup!! Guss 05:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The nick "Auto-Kanzler" was also given because Schröder stated he is the "Kanzler aller Autos" The sense was "Chancellor of all car brands", not only of Volkswagen, but the his quote was used by some media in the sense of "Chancellor of all cars". Other nicks are "Cohiba-Kanzler" (because of his favourite cigar brand) and "Brioni-Kanzler" (because of his role as male model for Brioni.)


why is there nothing about his election in 98 and the ensuing controversy?

Which one? -- till we | Talk 4 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)

Term of office[edit]

An anonymous editor set the end of Schröder's term of office to October 18, 2005. Indeed, the tenure of Schröder's office ended on that date, however, in accordance with article 69 (3) of the Grundgesetz, President Horst Köhler asked Schröder to continue to manage the affairs of his office until a new chancellor is elected.

Going back through the history of chancellors of the Federal Republic, there seem to be no gaps between the terms of office. So either term of office is defined as the official term of office plus the extra time until a successor is appointed on Wikipedia (in which case the tenure of the office has not ended yet; whether we should use that definition might be worth a discussion), or this is the first time ever that such a gap occurs (in which case, Germany would be (at least officially) chancellor-less for the first time since 1949, which would be worth a mention in the article).

Does anyone know what's fact? --GrafZahl 08:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Schröder stays chancellor-pro-tem (is that the English word for it?) until a new chancellor is elected. See Art. 69 in the Grundgesetz; the tenure ends with the convention of the new Bundestag (which happend at October 18, 2005), but the president can ask the old chancellor to continue, which s/he has to do. -- till we | Talk 12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, certainly, but the interesting question is: was it the first time that this happened? Merkel will presumably be elected on November 22, 2005. I don't want to nitpick, but is the ensuing gap between the tenures as displayed in Merkel's and Schröder's infoboxes accurately conveying the facts, particularly with regard to no such gap presently being there (taking into account all chancellors since 1949)? --GrafZahl 13:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Foreign policy[edit]

Prior to Schröder's Chancellorship, no German military troops had served outside NATO territory since the end of the second world war. Schröder sent forces to Kosovo and to Afghanistan. As it stands, this seems to be false; for instance, the Bundeswehr participated in missions in Somalia and Bosnia while Kohl was chancellor. These were peacekeeping missions, however, so perhaps the point is that the post-war German armed forces didn't participate in any combat missions prior to Kosovo? In that case, one wouldn't have to stress that this was outside NATO territory since, to my knowledge, the Bundeswehr has never participated in any combat missions within NATO territory.

I've changed that to had fought in prolonged military actions. This should be accurate (prolonged because of a small engagement in Albania earlier under Helmut Kohl). 11:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


I have given this article a fairly severe copyedit. It was full of over-writing and inelegant sentences, presumbaly due to the efforts of editors English whose first language it is not. It also contained a lot of repetition and unecessary detail due to multiple edits by people who don't read articles before they edit. I have also moved the biographical section to the front, which is where people expect to find it. Adam 07:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


"Schröder is 172 cm tall."

This sounds rather irrelevant even for a trivia section. Remove? Ktai 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Schröder + Putin relationship[edit]

Garry Kasparov, interviewed by Spiegel Online:

Kasparov: It's a scandal that Putin is providing Schroeder with legitimacy in this way. From now on Putin can point his finger at the West and say: They are just as corrupt as we are. That’s a typical trick of totalitarian rulers in order to justify the corruption and lack of transparency in their own country.

Spiegel: Schroeder’s defenders in Germany say that the whole affair has nothing to do with Putin. They say that it merely concerns a normal business deal between a private individual and the enterprises Gazprom, E.on and BASF, which own the operating consortium of the pipeline.

Kasparov: Are they joking? Everyone knows that Gazprom is Putin’s personal instrument of power. The company is directed from the Kremlin and will therefore never be transparent. It's not altogether clear whether the Kremlin controls Gazprom or whether it's the other way round. It’s the same people.

So... is Schroeder more than putin's precursor? Has schroeder any ethical values?

I've seen an interview with him where he said with a straight face that "In last 8 years, there a lot more democracy in Russia" (8 years of Pitun's rule). I stopped listening past that. IMO, he is a political prostitute indeed. P.S. I can read in Russian and I know first-hand (by reading lots of Russian press and internet) that this is exactly the opposite. (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits by[edit]

The anonymous editor with the IP address removed a lot of significant information, claiming it to be wrong and biased (as can be seen by reading his edit summaries). I have checked his edits and decided to rollback all 5 edits as every single fact he removed can be verified. I will source all the facts removed by him ASAP. Poeloq 10:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be an idea, though, to condense some of the information that is not so topical now.--Boson 10:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Schröder's place in the ranking of all German chancellors[edit]

I cannot find any evidence for Schröder giving himself or being awarded a C grade for his performance. The only interview I could find on the TV talk show mentioned was in 2004, when Schroeder was awarded a D+ (German grade ausreichend (poor) / 3.8) by the public.

Gerhard Schröder interviewed by Johannes B. Kerner (2004-05-05). Gerhard Schröder bei Kerner (Windows Media Player etc.) (Television production). Mainz, Germany: ZDF. Event occurs at 17:00. Retrieved 2007-04-29.  (in German)

Actually, I don't really think the paragraph belongs in a Wikipedia article at all.--Boson 10:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.[edit]

I see the conservatives manipulated in the english-version, too. The Article isnt neutral and is written against Gerhard Schröder. The Article isnt written objective. The Bundestagswahl 2005 have a too much part. And a part of the Article haves no basic informations and gives back the meaning of the writer. Some Sentences has no real backround and are spectulated.

Hi! As you can see, I am the editor who reverted your edits previously. Let me guarantee you: I am not a conservatice and neither for or against Schröder. I carefully reviewed the sections you removed and did searches on them and all are verifiable and therefor sourceable. However, I can't do all the sourcing myself. Please could you be more specific about which points you find biased? Poeloq 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Holocaust survivor"[edit]

Democrat Tom Lantos, chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Holocaust survivor, likened Schröder to a "political prostitute" for his recent behaviour.[15]

How is Lantos' status as a Holocaust survivor relevant to the statement? It sounds like it's being implied this gives his statement or the person himself additional credibility of sorts. -- (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Photo[edit]

The article picture for Schroder should probably be a more professional looking phoo, rather than a close-up of his face. Can we find photo of just him in a suit or something that we can upload and use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpowers (talkcontribs) 09:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Obergefreiter isn't "Lance Corporal"[edit]

"Lance Corporal" is the wrong translation for Obergefreiter. -- (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

invasion of Afghanistan[edit]

Maybe the criticism of the German support for the US/NATO aggression in Afghanistan should also be mentioned. When you read the article, you get the impression that Schröders good relations towards Russia were more contradictory in Germany than the support of these imperialist wars.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus after 6 weeks, but majority. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Gerhard SchröderGerhard Schroeder — This is the most common spelling in reliable English-language sources (as acknowledged in the article itself), and should be used as the article title per WP:UE, WP:DIACRITICS, and WP:COMMONNAME. relisted. Dohn joe (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Dohn joe (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. WP:DIACRITICS directs us to look at various sources when deciding whether to include diacritics or not, with the main idea being to follow usage as found in English-language sources. Here, the majority of English-language references in the article itself use "Schroeder". Further, a Google Books English-language search for "Gerhard Schroeder" yields 8,200 results. A search for "Gerhard Schröder" minus "Schroeder" yields 9,650 results. BUT - of the first 100 results, I counted 33 that were still in German, despite the English filter. If that is representative, then about 6,400 results in English used "Schröder", meaning that "Schroeder" is clearly used more often. As for other sources, "Schroeder" is generally used by the BBC, NPR, CNN, the Washington Post, the Telegraph, and others. "Schröder" is used by the New York Times, the London Times, Encyclopedia Britannica, and others. So while it's split, the majority of English-language sources clearly uses "Schroeder", and WP:DIACRITICS supports that in the article title. Dohn joe (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Request is to move to the more normal English usage. Jamesday (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Even in German, "ö" is replaced be "oe" when it is not possible to type an umlaut. So, this move is proper even by German standards (as an umlaut is, practically speaking, not available in the English language). D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This wouldn't be so bad, as "Schroeder" is, indeed, not incorrect, but the evidence presented is not convincing for any sort of dominance of this form. As to umlauts being unavailable in the English language, that is totally absurd. The umlaut is used to render German names in English all the time. Dohn joe already noted that a number of well known reliable sources in English - the NY Times, the Times, Britannica, and so forth - use the umlaut for Schröder. Just looking at books I have here at home, Ian Kershaw says "Hermann Göring" in his biography of Hitler, not "Hermann Goering". Richard Evans does the same in The Coming of the Third Reich, and also refers to "Hermann Müller". These are books published in English by leading British experts on German history. I'm sure I could go on and find more, but suffice it to say that the umlaut is absolutely available in English, and frequently used for that purpose. The English version of the Chancellor's own website also uses Schröder. When there are two forms in very common use in English, I don't understand why we wouldn't want to use the more accurate form. john k (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:John K, User:Dondegroovily, and Mötley Crüe. As User:Dondegroovily said, "'ö' is replaced be 'oe' when it is not possible to type an umlaut." It is perfectly simple to type it at Wikipedia so no need for the substitute. For those readers alarmed by unusual typography, diacritics can be "read through". i.e., those unfamiliar with them can ignore them. Wikipedia is a reference work and not a newspaper. No compelling reason given for a move and no need for dumbing down. — AjaxSmack 01:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    If Shroeder is an alternative that has wider usage in reliable English language sources than Schröder or Schroder then we shoudl use it, (as we should for Goering which last time I checked was the common English language spelling). -- PBS (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    Do you have a source that says not using diacritics is a form of dumbing down? Is writing "hotel" instead of "hôtel" or a "U.S. army general" instead of U.S. army général" a from of dumbing down? Most people call it anglicisation. You may not like it but it is common in English and in many other languages to recast a borrowed word into a more familiar form rather than keep the word in the form used in a foreign language. We should base the name we use on that used in reliable English language sources, not on the wims of some editors on what is the "correct" form in English. I find it baffling that editors who would usually insist that original ideas in an article was backed up by reliable sources are willing to junk all of that because they know what is correct when it comes to spelling a name and state that following the usage in reliable English language sources is "dumbing down". I think that anyone who claims that following the usage in reliable English language usage is a form of "dumbing down" is being very arrogant over this issue, and given the source based policies of Wikipedia are going against policy. We may not agree on whether "Schröder" or "Schroder" is better but we should be able to agree on what is the most common usage in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:John K, User:Dondegroovily, Mötley Crüe and User:AjaxSmack. Encyclopaedias are supposed to be accurate.--Paul Marston (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Fidelity to native languages is not a primary criterion for article titles; recognizability and naturalness are. Powers T 14:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to imagine who would recognize Gerhard Schroeder but not Gerhard Schröder. — AjaxSmack 22:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • As I said on another talk page, that's a straw man argument. Powers T 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Then what is the basis for the move? Why should encyclopedic usage and accuracy be cast aside if not for increased recognizability? — AjaxSmack 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Article titles must serve a number of goals. They must be recognizable (though not all recognizable titles are equally recognizable), they should be easy to link, and they should ideally be easy to read. This is all summarized on WP:TITLE with the simple admonition: "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms." We can argue over which sources to prefer, but the basic principles still hold. Powers T 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Both Schroeder and Schröder are quite correct despite what is said above (dumbing down indeed!), and Wikipedia promotes neither the use nor the disuse of diacritics despite what is said above. The question is simply, what is current English usage? We seem to have a rough if grudging consensus that it's Schroeder for this particular individual. Andrewa (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unnecessary and pointless move. Schroeder is already a redirect to Schröder. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • It most certainly is not! Powers T 13:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I misled you there. Should have said Gerhard Schroeder is already a redirect to Gerhard Schröder. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've often seen disputes such as this cast in terms of whether we simply reflect our sources, or whether we attempt to correct them when they are orthographically... lenient. I note that whenever a mirror reflects a light, it also by doing so amplifies it, and that our choice will probably affect sources down the line. It's possible that our choice here will help determine what common use will be in the near future.

    It's something to think about. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Would someone who cares about this title like to present a survey of what spelling is used in the article by reliable English English language sources, what is used in other general reference works and what is used in a search of Google Books since 1980? So that I and others who would like to base their decision on policy instead of whim can make an informed choice? -- PBS (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    See above, under "Support as nom" for survey under WP:DIACRITICS. In a nutshell: the majority of sources in the article use "Schroeder"; a Google Books search favors "Schroeder" by a 4:3 ratio; and reputable news and reference sources are split to some unknown degree. Feel free (anyone) to augment those results.... Dohn joe (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wall Street Journal Portrait[edit]

Raymond Zhong has an article about The Man Who Rescued the German Economy in the Wall Street Journal (July 7, 2012). Asteriks (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


The pronunciation of Gerhard Schröder's name appears to mix the rhotic and non-rhotic pronunciations, since the name "Gerhard" is pronounced non-rhotically and the name "Kurt" is pronounced rhotically. (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

prime minister or minister-president?[edit]

why does call all German Ministerpräsidenten minister-president exept for the Ministerpräsidenten of Lower Saxony which calls prime minister - that does not make much sence doesn't it? (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What seat did he hold in the Bundestag?[edit]

He obviously had one, so which one was it? Was he elected from a constituency or on a state list? Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

State list in 2002.[1]-- Dewritech (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gerhard Schröder. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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) 22:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)