Talk:Angela Merkel/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removal of media characterizations of Merkel from lead

Since my first edit to this page on 29 October 2018, the "leader of the free world"-issues have been constantly contentions and changed multiple times, and the talk page and its archives show it was also contentious before that. For those that does not now, the issue is whether Merkel is a/the "leader of the free world" and whether she is widely thought of as so, or only by some or many commentators. It is mostly the text in the lead that have been contentious, as it is in a very prominent position, being the third sentence in the article.

I suggest we remove the entire sentence from the lead, including the thing about de-facto leader of EU and the most powerful woman in the world. This will end the long-term content dispute (when it is not there, we cannot disagree on the wording), but it also well-founded in policy and precedent.

By WP:LEAD The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view. When one is to define Merkel in neutral terms, you would not immediately turn to these things. You would state the facts. A look at a number of randomly chosen featured articles on worlds leaders shows what is the best practice on Wikipedia. I have looked at Barack Obama, Yassar Arafat, Richard Nixon, Vladimir Lenin and Benjamin Disraeli. None of the first four says anything about depictions of them in the first paragraph, while Disraeli is said to be had been influential and to have made his party "most identified with the glory and power of the British Empire". This depiction is used in the context of the impact he had, not as listing the titles he is seen to have held (a subtle difference). Depictions are present in the leads, but at very end and mostly about their legacy. These are worded in a way that tells who have these depictions. Merkel's depictions does neither, and are not strictly about her legacy. The only comparable thing I have found in the other articles's lead, is that Barack Obama have been ranked the most admired man for 12 years in a row. ― Hebsen (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no reason to remove that sentence from the lead. It has been included in the lead in some form for at least a decade and serves a useful purpose in summarising the topic of the article and her political influence and role globally (merely describing her as the German chancellor wouldn't really do her justice; Schröder was also German chancellor but had nowhere near the international standing that she has). The descriptions of Merkel as the de facto leader of the EU and the most powerful woman in the world are so widely used, and have been for such a long time, that they belong there, and they are essential in a summary of the topic of this article. The description of her as the leader of the free world (or some variant thereof), a title which implies a symbolic leadership role related to liberal democratic values on the global political stage, is also very widely used since 2016, to the extent that she is far more commonly described in such terms than the sitting US president. Her moral leadership role and the fact that she is "one of the most widely admired and broadly influential statespeople of our time" as Harvard University's president described her is obviously a significant part of her legacy and something that the lead section should continue to summarise/address. --Tataral (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tataral. It is significant that Merkel became called "the leader of the free world" in multiple publications in multiple countries, as that phrase had commonly been used for the U.S. president, and that agencies and commentators chose to apply it to Merkel is evidence of her influence and impact on the world. Schazjmd (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Member of the Bundestag

From 20 December 1990 per German Wiki, not 18 January 1991. 2A01:E34:EE61:5F0:897D:F7AC:6D4C:AD59 (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you! I fixed the infobox. —Kusma (t·c) 21:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Corona Virus Quarantine

On Sunday 22nd March 2020, Merkel entered voluntary self-isolation as a precaution against spreading the Covid 19 coronavirus. On Friday 20th March, she had received a prophylactic vaccination from a doctor who later tested positive for the coronavirus. She pledged to continue working while remaining in quarantine to protect others.

Source: https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/coronakrise-kanzlerin-merkel-in-haeuslicher-quarantaene-a-bcde5f71-4c0e-468d-ae28-bce71dc5a9e8

Bob Baker Chocolate Addict (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

Please delete the Twitter link on Angela Merkel's Wikipedia page. It is a parody account. 73.233.7.253 (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. A find for "twitter" on both the article page and in source reveals no matches. If there's something else you're referring to, please feel free to clarify and reopen the request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Leader of the free world, again

For nearly a year the lead section has included the description "leader of the Free World." It is included alongside two other descriptions that have been very extensively used by reliable sources discussing Merkel, namely "de facto leader of the European Union" and "the most powerful woman in the world." These are all terms that are primarily used by English-language and other non-German media; whether they are used inside Germany isn't that relevant for us. Over the past year the description "leader of the Free World" has become as prevalent in English-language media as the two other descriptions, and it's now routinely mentioned in articles about Merkel in English-language newspapers; even Hillary Clinton has described Merkel in similar terms.

Occasionally new editors, usually IP addresses from the US with no other edits, attempt to remove this description, which they see as part of an American political debate, typically with a rationale that she "isn't" the leader of the free world (i.e. a personal opinion) rather than anything that resembles a policy-based reason. Since some of them may read this discussion, I would therefore like to point out that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on our own views and opinions. When discussing whether and how we should include the three descriptions of Merkel that I mentioned above, the issue is primarily whether and to what extent these descriptions have been used by reliable sources discussing Merkel, not whether they are "true" in an editor's own opinion. It's also not necessary that there is unanimous agreement that Merkel "is" the "leader of the free world" for us to mention that she has been described in such a way by some/many. And lastly, whether she remains the "leader of the free world" right now or in the future isn't relevant, because Wikipedia is not just about the present. The past years will be a major part of Merkel's legacy from an encyclopedic perspective, regardless of what happens with her current coalition talks or anything else. It is also perhaps helpful to point out that the term "leader of the free world", as used by those sources that have described Merkel as such, implies a symbolic role related to liberal democratic values, and that it doesn't in any way imply that a person leads the whole world or possesses the greatest military capabilities, or anything like that. --Tataral (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Commentators have said she is the "leader of the free world." This claim is not supported by any links to outside sources. And what commentators? They need to be named and cited or this claim should be removed.90.255.76.58 (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem. It seems this statement have been a source of edit wars in the past. I have adjusted the sources in the body concerning the claim, replacing opinion pieces with articles that just say that many view her as such. I have added these citations to the lead. (There were a comment discouraging from inserting citations in the lead. Why I don't know, but I have corrected it, as it is not following MOS:CITELEAD.)

I would like to contest the current wording, on the grounds that it links "widely described as" together with "leader of the free world". On the basis of sources, we can only conclude that "many commentators" see her as "leader of the free world". Claiming that she has been widely described as such is both a stretch (as the very act of describing someone other that POTUS in such a way is controversial) and original research (we cannot go from many sources saying something, to that something is being said widely). The wording should be: "Merkel has been widely described as the de facto leader of the European Union, the most powerful woman in the world, and by many commentators as the leader of the Free World" (emphasis is what is added). ― Heb the best (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It's been a week and noone have raised any objections. I will change the sentence. ― Heb the best (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I came here because I thought "leader of the free world" was really taking the biscuit somewhat, I'm sure a rendering "has been described by some media as..." would be more fitting.Lacunae (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm being too polite, this is ridiculous.Lacunae (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A Call for Civility

I was asked to look at the dispute about this characterization. It doesn’t appear that the dispute should be irreconcilable. The real issue appears to be the exact wording of how to state that she is sometimes referred to as “the leader of the free world”. No one appears to be saying that we should say, in the voice of Wikipedia, that she is the leader of the free world. So I will again ask all of the editors, including User:Tataral and User:Michael G. Lind, to engage in civil discussion of exactly how to word this statement in the lede section. There has not been vandalism, and using that term does not help. There has been too much name-calling, and it does not help. At this point, I would suggest either moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, or moderated discussion here, or a Request for Comments. Calm down. Comment on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't content or whether or how to include the phrase "leader of the free world" (there is already a long-standing consensus to include that, and the only difference in Michael G. Lind's recent versions is somewhat poorer wording). The issue is primarily the behaviour of Michael G. Lind here, specifically his refusal to seek consensus on this talk page and to engage in constructive discussion, focused on content and improvement of the article, instead of brute force edit-warring against a carefully crafted lead section that has been stable for a long time, in a high profile article where such behaviour is utterly unacceptable (any editor behaving in a similar manner when editing the lead section of the article on any American President would be blocked instantly – in the article on Donald Trump, we don't change a comma in the lead without, often extensive, discussion and consensus). It is the editor who wants to introduce changes who needs to seek consensus by participating in discussion, citing sources etc., especially after multiple editors have rejected his edits.

This became evident in his last comment above[1] where he said outright that he refuses to discuss his edits or even read or reply to other editors' comments on the talk page(!), and by his continued disruptive edit warring. In my comment that he said he refused to read I actually agreed to include the material that he was most recently seeking to include, about Merkel's government temporarily being an acting government, but said it didn't belong in the first paragraph but rather in the third paragraph, together with other closely related material. It's also evident that he hasn't even properly read the version he edit wars to force on the article, where the same material about the government being an acting government is now included twice. This is really the main problem with his recent edits, and it's more about (low) quality than content itself.

Michael G. Lind has been asked countless times to argue his case and seek consensus for his proposed changes here on the talk page. If he did that I don't even think it would be difficult to find an agreement over most of his proposed changes, as in the case of the "acting government" issue. But until he is willing to do that, and as long he refuses to participate in any actual discussion on content (based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policies) or even read other editors' comments on the talk page, it isn't possible to engage with him and his edit warring is just disruption, and so far he has only wasted my and other people's time. --Tataral (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Of course I am willing to discuss things in a civilised manner. I proposed this early on to Tataral. Sadly he ignored this, shouting „vandalism", „highly disruptive user", „ban" my account and so on. He never apologised for using abusive language & threats nearly every time he writes on this issue. Furthermore he constantly tries to bully me and regularly twists the facts. Therefore I decided to ignore him and feel more inclined to report on him.--Michael G. Lind (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to seek consensus for your proposed edits here on the talk page and engage in constructive discussion instead of personal attacks and other irrelevancies (e.g. about other editors' academic credentials). Otherwise there will be no changes, and continued edit warring without any willingness to engage in discussion on the talk page and to seek consensus for your edits will certainly lead to your account being blocked from editing. --Tataral (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

why does the fact that liberal anti Trump newspapers call her the leader of the free world because they hate Trump so much mean anything? עם ישראל חי 19:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It means a lot to Europhiles working for the EU and Trump-haters. Otherwise it is pretty much irrelevant.--Michael G. Lind (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just propaganda. Who needs facts when you have journalists? Reedlander (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I used to be a journalist, of the old school and we would have never used that description of de-facto leader of the Free World. It is not a position that exists. It is also not democratic because there are no elections to be this kind of leader. Of course in German that is not at all used because leader translates to Führer and we all know who praised himself like that. The tag leader of the Free World is a propaganda term, some people want her to be that. I had to laugh though, because at the same time there were youtube videos in German where she could hardly be heard over the boooohs and protests. Language barriers are funny things.

I came here because anybody who knew East Berlin (like I did from West Berlin) found that meteoric rise of Angela Merkel 'interesting'. I had an aunt where her parents worked. Her father's many trips to the mother church in the West and also the funds that he had at his disposal to bring people in that Missionshaus in Friedrichshain presents caused people to wonder. My aunt had to hold the services while he was away. It was and is widely believed (in German language comments) that they, and then Angela, knew very well on which side her bread was buttered, probably buttered on both sides and that's why Kohl chose her over Friedrich Merz. Circumstantial yes, but maybe someone will talk one day, but whether it will be translated into English is a second matter. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AC99:3B00:FCDB:C6A9:2880:37DC (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yet another "leader of the free world" dispute

So it happened again. Unsurprisingly. The consensus at it stands now is to keep it, but I have kept the context w.r.t Donald Trump that Lacunae added. I do believe it is necessary to have it. If somebody opposes this, please show some sources that call her "leader of the free world" without referencing Donald Trump.

I would like to reiterate that I believe we should remove it altogether from the lead. It is an opinion by "some commentators", and a very controversial one, so it should not be anywhere near the first 10 sentences of the article. It should be included in the article, but it is grossly WP:UNDUE to do it at such a prominent position. The recurring disputes about it shows why. ― Hebsen (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Any in-depth discussion of context for "leader of free world" should be in a different section (Comparisons?) not in the lead. I see absolutely zero reason to mention Donald Trump in the first paragraph of an article about Angela Merkel. —Kusma (t·c) 14:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I do that too, but I think it is even more absurd to call her "leader of the free world" without mentioning Donald Trump. When people call her that, it is always in reference to Donald Trump and his isolationist America First foreign policy. Can you provide sources calling her "leader of the free world" without mentioning Donald Trump? ― Hebsen (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No. I would rather not mention "leader of the free world" than mention Donald Trump before Helmut Kohl. —Kusma (t·c) 15:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I do think it requires context, if it is to be included in the lede paragraph. The moniker is clearly not intrinsically about Merkel's leadership abilities, which is why I first thought it prudent to be removed. This was countered by it being sourced, so I tried to clarify that this is not universal and pretty much in the context of Trump (with sources) though this sourced material can apparently be removed. I'd also point out the term has also been used in print for Jacinta Ardern of New Zealand, so I really don't think it is especially relevant.Lacunae (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Also relevant may be the term "leader of the free world" is also regarded as a propaganda term by Wikipedia see Free World and has been rejected by Merkel herself as grotesque and absurd.https://time.com/4598467/angela-merkel-donald-trump-liberal-democracy/ Lacunae (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Also Biden's use of the term towards Brussels on that page suggests the epithet is a generic one, and not unique to Angela Merkel and her foreign policy.Lacunae (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we have enough reasons to keep the statement in the article (it is in the "International status" section, which also contains the pre-Trump election "Chancellor of the Free World" moniker), but being considered "leader of the free world" by some people is not defining enough for the lead paragraph. This isn't a real title, just recycled Cold War propaganda turned against the USA. Unlike the "most powerful woman in the world" and "de facto leader of the EU", "leader of the free world" doesn't seem likely to become a long-term description for Merkel, especially once she leaves office. I'll remove the sentence from the lead. —Kusma (t·c) 21:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I do think that is the better place to deal with this particular title, but perhaps some Trump context would be informative as it is generally used not to denote her achievement, but rather an alleged abandonment of it by him.Lacunae (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a good solution. The mentioning her as the de facto leader of the EU and as the most powerful woman in the world is sufficient to summarise up her international status, and not really controversial. ― Hebsen (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 Sept 2020

Please add title "Her Excellency." thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiscid (talk • contribs) 04:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This was added then removed in May. Can you provide a source says she holds/use this title, and explain why it should be included? ― Hebsen (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

reorganize article

the article currently is not easy to read, informatoin is scattered around. can we please reorganize the article, a little bit like the german language article is organized? two main topics:

• political career, which includes demokratischer aufbruch, alliance for germany, join CDU, beeing secretary general of CDU, president of CDU, opposition leader, then 4 times chancellor i.e. cabinets
• political positions, which includes all topics listed now in chancellery

the reason beeing that a certain position of merkel has an effect on national german policy, as well as on european policy, mostly interconnected. take the two topics euro crisis, and then covid. merkel blocked european liability for national debt, but helped that germany, with others, borrow money to italy, portugal, spain. in 2020 the merkel government handled the crisis, in the beginning, slightly different from many others on a national level, and helped negotiating that the european union can borrow money to handle the covid crisis. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Minor Edit for Strasund - Nordvorpommern - Rügen

Hello, I would like to suggest a minor edit for the Bundestag- Stralsund – Nordvorpommern – Rügen part of the page and state Abolished and became “ Vorpommern-Rügen – Vorpommern-Greifswald I “ Which is a constituency newly formed and from the looks of it it’s the same as the old Constituency I tried to do so myself but I don’t have editing permission so if anyone could do that for me I would greatly appreciate it EmiliaPains (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• President Joe Biden and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Spitting Image (2020)

Under the section "In The Arts And Media", I beg to add her puppet caricature: "Merkel was portrayed in puppet form in the first two series of Spitting Image. Her puppet was performed by Jess Robinson. 73.117.48.151 (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021

Change the spelling from "Valdimir Putin" to "Vladimir Putin" in the caption of the 8th picture of the article, which shows Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin together in 2002. --40thReaganator (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC) 40thReaganator (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 04:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021

Add at the bottom of Honorary degrees section that "In October 2020, Merkel Merkel was awarded an honorary doctorate from The Technion - Israel Institute of Technology." Source - https://www.technion.ac.il/en/2021/10/german-chancellor-angela-merkel-receive-honorary-doctorate/

The Chancellor's acceptance speech if required https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=337203874761968 Daniel.Belokon (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

Chancellor of Germany

Caretaker: October 26. 2021-Present 112.202.79.111 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

Just after the name remove the title of MdB. Specifically from the source remove 'MdB'. She is no longer a member of the Bundestag as she did not stand for reelection. Her Membership formally ended with the first meeting of the newly elected Bundestag. Xunalebarender (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done 15 (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021 (2)

Angela Merkel received the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour. Accordingly add the following Lines to the Honours and Awards Section:

• France:
  • Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour Xunalebarender (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems to have been taken care of already. PianoDan (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021

X Merkel enjoyed good relations with US presidents George Bush and Barack Obama. Obama described her in 2016 as his "closest international partner" throughout his tenure as president. Obama's farewell visit to Berlin in November 2016 was widely interpreted as the passing of the torch of global liberal leadership to Merkel as Merkel was seen by many as the new standard bearer of liberal democracy since the election of Donald Trump as US president.

Y Merkel enjoyed good relations with US presidents George Bush and Barack Obama. Obama described her in 2016 as his "closest international partner" throughout his tenure as president. Obama's farewell visit to Berlin in November 2016 was widely interpreted as the passing of the torch of global liberal leadership to Merkel as Merkel was seen by many as the new standard bearer of liberal democracy since the end of the term of Barack Obama as US president.

Reasoning: Misinterpretation of citation. Listed sources refer to Barack Obama being the former 'standard bearer of liberal democracy' and passing the name on to Merkel. The way it is written alluding to Trump confuses the information presented in the sources and confuses the meaning of the writer. Donald Trump has no connection with the type of 'liberal democracy' described by the articles' author.

'Analysts said the meeting could be seen as a kind of passing of the torch from Obama to Merkel, who the outgoing president has called "probably... my closest international partner".' https://www.france24.com/en/20161117-usa-germany-obama-passes-torch-merkel-farewell-tour

'In this once divided city, Barack Obama, the outgoing President of a now divided USA, came bearing a baton, a torch of global international leadership to pass on to Chancellor Angela Merkel.' https://news.sky.com/story/has-baton-of-global-leadership-passed-from-us-to-germany-10661050 141.89.251.245 (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I think this bears further discussion. In my opinion, the current wording IS correct. The reason the commenters see this meeting as a passing of the liberal democracy torch is because they perceived Trump as fundamentally illiberal, not simply because Obama was leaving office. To put it another way - had Secretary Clinton been elected president, the ending of Obama's term would NOT have caused this meeting to be perceived as a transfer, even though Obama's term would still have ended. PianoDan (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021 (2)

X Upon the election of Donald Trump Merkel said that "Germany and America are tied by values of democracy, freedom and respect for the law and human dignity, independent of origin, skin colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views. I offer the next president of the United States, Donald Trump, close cooperation on the basis of these values." The comment was characterized by policy analyst Jennifer Rubin as manifesting the psychological principle of reintegrative shaming.

Y

Reasoning The statement is misleading and irrelevant. It is only a personal statement Angela Merkel made at the beginning of the election of Donald Trump. Since then, many claims of discrimination and civil liberties abuses have been made against Trump. The statement contains no actual information about the actual Presidency of Trump and how it related to the foreign policy of Angela Merkel. A wikipedia page should contain general information about the subject. This statement contains only accusations of verbal 'tricks' used about an American leader, and no concrete information or knowledge of the actual outcome of the election. When people are looking for brief and accurate knowledge, it is ineffective for them to find a statement with no concrete, current or historical facts. It should be taken down until it can be replaced with something more factual. 141.89.251.245 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The statement was made by the subject of the article, and is properly sourced. The point of the article about Angela Merkel is not to contain information about the "Presidency of Trump" except as it relates to Merkel. Further discussion is of course welcomed, but I do not support this proposed change. PianoDan (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Mercedes S-Class...

Merkel's governments' tenures years are similar to spans of Mercedes S-Class models... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.144.247.79 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• -FsA14 - Freiheit statt Angst 060 (15062050686) (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

CHANGE German retired politician TO retired German politician [reason: order of adjectives] 2A00:23C7:CC0C:5F00:C1E1:64EA:A760:2C6E (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Happy Editing--IAmChaos 15:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

“Is Chancellor Angela Merkel A Former Communist Spy?” By Trowbridge H. Ford – ANITA – Rosewood/Rosenholz Files

“Whenever a sovereign nation is conquered by another, its inhabitants, whether they be from its elite or dregs, ultimately have a hard time adjusting to foreign occupation because they don’t know how long it will last, and what it may be replaced by. The process is made more difficult if it seems that there is no alternative to the conquerers, especially if they appear to represent some wave of the future. But then, there are always surprises in history, and some seemingly sure things turn out to be nothing more than delayed dead ends. Of course, the alternative to such a course is to continue to fight the occupiers tooth and nail as there seems to be no choice about the matter, but the costs of such a course are usually devastating. The best example of the latter is the sad fate of Poland when it was confronted by nemeses on both its borders as World War II approached. It refused to compromise with either of its threatening neighbors, and paid heavily for its choice. The victim of yet more partitions of Poland, it still refused to accommodate with either of its invaders. Poland was the only country in Europe, when overrun, refused to recognize and cooperate with its conquerors. In fact, it proved so obstreperous to its Soviet occupiers that it felt obliged to execute the leading officers of its military in the infamous Katyn Forest massacres for fear that they would fight with the invading Nazis when the showdown between Berlin and Moscow finally occurred. The uncooperative Poles in the German occupied areas fared even worse as they were forced to fight back because of the Nazi liquidation of increasing numbers of its Jewish citizens, culminating in the infamous elmination of the Warsaw Ghetto. The Poles preferred, in sum, partitions of their country aka Polonization rather than experience some kind of ‘Quisling’ rule – the sobriquet given the German occupation of Norway under the collaborationist administration of Vidkun Quisling. Traditionally, the term Polonization had meant the political and cultural expansion of the country at the expense of its neighbors, especially Germans and Lithuanians, but now the term was used to identify the reverse process. Ever since the failed Warsaw uprising of 1831, except for the chaos left after the collapse of World War I, the Poles had been resigned to the fate history had dictated for them, as was amply demonstrated when neither the French nor the British supplied the help they had promised when the Nazi blitzkrieg struck in 1939. The trouble with this passive, go-it-alone strategy by the Poles when it came to improving the nation’s fortunes was that it could easily be sidetracked by others. When the prospects of its government in exile in London started to improve, its head, General Wladyslaw Sikorski, was conveniently assassinated in Gibraltar by the Brits, it seems, in July 1943. Sikorski was a courageous leader who was willing to make hard choices, deciding better ‘Stalin than Hitler’ immediately after the Nazi forces invaded the USSR, and his vigorous cooporation with them promised some hope for the Poles in the postwar settlement – what Churchill recognized, and had MI6 apparently sabotage the plane’s controls while it was refueling, making it look like a Soviet plane, parked next to it, had been its source. Without Sikorski, the anti-communist Poles tried to go it alone when the Soviets forces approached Warsaw, but Stalin would not hear of it. The postwar settlement in Poland was the most repressive of all in Eastern Europe. The country itself was a convenient hodge-podge at German expense which just provide another example of Polonization. The terms of the Yalta Conference guaranteed that its politics would be Soviet-dominated, and the consequences were the least troublesome to its authorities when it came to anti-regime efforts, as the Vasili Mitrokhin files from the KGB demonstrate. There is hardly any mention of Poland in the book Christopher Andrew wrote about it, The Sword and The Shield, until the revival of Catholicism during the late 1970s under Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, and the rise of Lech Walesa’s Solidarity Movement in the 1980s. Until then, the Polish regime had essentially bought off its opponents under the watchful eye of Moscow. When the fear of Soviet military intervention collapsed in Poland, the regime fell surprisingly quickly, like a stack of cards. For anyone living in Europe after WWII, especially in the Soviet bloc, Poland offered the least insights into how to deal with Soviet Communism domestically, and how it would fare in the world. Poland seemed like the worst place to choose as a jumping off spot for some kind of better future as the soft, repressive character of its communist regime appeared like a fixed monolith, quite impervious to change, because of the immediate presence of the USSR right next door – what turned out to be a paper tiger when Mikael Gorbachev took over. Actually, a more flexible, compromising attitude towards an invader seems like a more profitable course for an subject country, as France experienced under Nazi rule, and after its liberation. Paris, always worried about the discontinuaties of its turbulent past, always kept a lifeline to its republican past, no matter how comforting the autocratic ways of Marshal Pétain, and the prospects of the Nazi-invaders seemed while it too experienced partition with the creation of the Vichy regime. The duplicity of all concerned was well-illustrated by the behavior of the National Assembly which voted away its power after the fall of France, only to try to restore itself after the departure of the Germans. The Marshal’s infamous Deputy Premier, Pierre Laval, and then his successor, Admiral Darlan, were quite prepared to work for the Nazis until it seemed much more profitable just to work for themselves. The same transition occurred within the population at large, as the chorus of support for Pétain turned slowly in favor of a unfied resistance, General de Gualle was transformed from a troublesome traitor into the nation’s savior, insignificant resistance groups became the National Resistance Council, and right-wing hopes of an administered autocracy were dashed by the Vichy fiasco. One can still only wonder if liberation would have turned out so well if Churchill’s dealing with the difficult General had resulted in this one’s assassination too. When Churchill only informed de Gaulle of the D-Day landings after they occurred, he reacted so furiously that the British Prime Minister wrote him “..a letter,” Gordon Wright has written in France in Modern Times, “breaking off all personal relations and ordering de Gaulle off British soil.” (p. 394) Fortunately, the letter was not sent. The experiences of Poland and France during WWII, and in the post-war world must have influenced everyone growing up in their mutual neighbor, Germany, West and East, especially one who moved from zone one to the other. The whole socializing process on either side of the border would have created all kinds of problems between peers and parents. And it would have become even more disruptive if there was an ideological-religious difference between parents and children. The divided character of the country would have proven most vexing to all Germans, as they seemed caught up in an endless quandry of occupation – what no one really knew the outcome of, and when it would occur. This analysis seems germane while trying to put together the life of Angela Kasner, eldest daughter of Lutheran priest Horst Kasner, and current Chancellor of the German Federal Republic, especially since she is most reluctant to talk about it. Born in Hamburg in 1954, and moved to East Germany shortly thereafter as her father obtained a pastorship in Quitzow, near Perleberg, in nearby Brandenburg, she had the Cold War almost embedded in her very bones. He was born in the Pankow district of Berlin, then part of the Soviet sector. Her mother’s parents still lived in Elblag – formerly East Prussia’s Elbing – in Poland when Angela was born. At the nearby Teutonic Knights’ fortress of Malbork – what Nazi Germany received under the terms of the September 1939 Non-Aggression Pact and its Secret Protocols – 1,900 German Communists, who were returned to Germany under its terms, were apparently executed there, helping explain why Angela was so eager to adopt hard-line Marxism. Her similarly-minded maternal grandparents, it seems, must have not only known what happened to the like-minded returnees before the Soviet conquered the fortress in 1944 but also why they stayed on in Poland, unlike so many other Germans. The Kasners’ move to the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was apparently an effort to better position themselves for whatever happened to their divided country, particularly since they lived further in the GDR, setting up a household in Templin, 80 kilometers north of Berlin. While Horst was trying to improve relations between the West’s and the East’s Lutheran churches, Angela was attending state schools, becoming a member of its Free German Youth (FDJ) program, though she did not take part in its Jugendweihe, the secular coming of age rite, preferring to be confirmed in the Lutheran church. Apparently, there was growing tension between the stern father, and the ambitious, talented daughter. Angela became so proficient in Russian that she even won a prize. After Angela graduated from secondary school in 1973, though, details about who she was becoming, and what she was doing become few and far between. She attended the University of Leipzig. She also married in 1976 fellow undergraduate student Ulrich Merkel, explaining that it was considered the thing to do, though they never had any children, and the marriage started breaking down as soon as she got appointed to Berlin’s Academy Sciences where she became FDJ’s secretary for recruiting aka ‘agitprop’ children of its members into its program, showing that she was covertly supporting the GDR’s future. In fact, she was so busy doing other things that it wasn’t until 1986 that she finally completed her Ph.D degree. Quantum chemistry aka quantum physics is a highly theoretical field which combines quantum mechanics with general field theory, and has all kinds of practical applications regarding plasmas, nuclear rehabilitation, and electromagnetism. The Soviet Union had built all kinds of nuclear devices on a crash basis – weapons, power plants, nuclear-powered submarines, radioisotope thermo-electric generators (RTGs), etc. – and were becoming concerned about what to do with them when they were no longer useful. There were nuclear power generating plants all around the country whose safety was becoming questionable, nuclear-powered submarines around the ports of Murmansk and Archangel which were dangerously rotting away, and spent RTGs littering the Kola Peninsula. While the Soviets did not have the resources to deal with these problems, they looked to the East Germans – whose Berlin Academy of Sciences still had a great reputation in the field – to find the know-how, given its contacts in the West. The Berlin establishment traced its origins back to 1700 when the Prussian Academy of Sciences was started, and included among its membership such distinguished scientists as Gottfried Leibniz, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein. Even though it had been revived by the GDR after WWII, it still had over 200 members, including some two dozen from the West. It had grown now to include research in quantum chemistry – where Angela was working at its Central Institute for Physical Chemistry. To take advantage of Merkel’s potential, Markus Wolf’s foreign section of the Stasi, the Hauptverwaltung Aufklaerung (HVA), recruited her, it seems, to handle illegal agents the GDR was sending across The Wall to gather secrets from research facilities in the Federal Republic (FRG), France, Norway, and other Western countries – what she had learned about from her meetings and contacts at the Institute. The future seemed to be turning in the GDR’s favor since détente had been established between Washington and Moscow, and the two German states had recognized one another’s existence in 1972. Most important, the Stasi had nursed along Willy Brandt’s bridge-building government towards the GDR until 1974 when its spies in the Chancellor’s Office, the Guillaumes, were exposed, Gunter declaring proudly: “I am an officer of the (East German) National People’s Army!” (Quoted from Andrew, p. 445.) Despite Wolf’s claims after the GDR’s collapse that this was a grave mistake – what Andrew believes – it was deliberate, thinking that it would just enhance Eric Honecker’s potential in German reunification. Thanks to the KGB Archives that its librarian Vasili Mittrokhin supplied Andrew, we now know about the extensive use of Stasi ‘Romeo’ spies who provided the KGB with all kinds of information. The glaring exception was the performance of Wilhelm Kahle (codenamed WERNER), a laboratory technician who assumed the identity of a West German resident in the GDR, and worked in the West in various capacities, and capitals, particularly in labs at Cologne and Bonn universities. By the late 1970s, though, his intelligence take had become too thin, though quite extensive, resulting in a ten-volume file in the Archives, that the KGB became suspicious of his bona fides, especially when it learned through his communications with his mother in East Germany that he was fearful of being recalled to Moscow because of the wealth he had amassed in Paris. In 1978, Kahle was summoned back to Moscow, and given a lie detector test on a contrived basis just to determine how unreliable he had become. It proved that it was extensive, resulting in its putting its most accomplished agent, codenamed ANITA – who spoke both German and Russian fluently – on the case. It was one of putting a ‘Juliet’ on a runaway ‘Romeo’, apparently a first in intelligence history. After intensive questioning during their liaisons, Andrew wrote, “ANITA’s report confirmed the Centre’s suspicions.” (p. 450) She wrote that he had become an ideologically unreliable, completely self-serving agent who had no qualms about using others, even targets, for his own purposes. “As a result of ANITA’s report,” Andrew concluded, “Kahle appears to have been sidelined. He was formally removed from illegal work in 1982.” The trouble with Andrew’s treatment of ANITA is that he never explained how she had become such an important counterintelligence specialist, who she might be, and why he never explained in the notes the disposition of her case since the Berlin Wall had come down, and the Cold War was over. Then Andrew went out of his way in the notes to make it appear that all ‘Romeos’, except Wolf’s spy FELIX, had been identified – even going out of his way to account for the identity of “Franz Becker” aka Hans-Jurgen Henze (note 57, p. 649) – when there is no identification of either Kahle and his superior ‘Romeo’ ANITA. Also, there are questions about what she might have done for the KGB after Mitrokhin’s records ran out. She could well have been the KGB agent who infiltrated Egon Bahr’s entourage – what Andrew mentioned when he discussed SDP Chancellor Helmut Schmidt’s dealing with the newly elected President Reagan over a month’s delay of his visit to Washington – what KGB Chairman Yuri Andropov explained, thanks to the KGB agent’s report “of special importance”, to the Soviet chief Leonid Brezhnev, was “designed to enable Washington to gain time to build up its armaments with the aim of overtaking the USSR in the military field.” (Quoted from ibid, p. 455.) The KGB source also stated that there were all kinds of Western agents flooding Bonn to stop the growing commercial contacts between the FRG and the USSR, especially the proposed construction of a pipeline to bring natural gas from Siberia to the West – what Schmidt, to Moscow’s delight, was vigorously pressing ahead with. With the KGB’s agent – stationed in the GDR, and apparently Angela Merkel – tipping off Moscow about Washington’s new arms race, it was hardly surprising that she finally received her Ph.D. in quantum chemistry. Thanks to her contacts, and the input from various illegals in the West, she had obviously learned a lot about what was going on in the field. Just compiling her agent reports into a coherent document would have been enough for the Institute to give her the degree. More important, the whole field was becoming much more important with the Soviets having to face nuclear rehabilitation with its aging nuclear arms, and everyone having to worry about nuclear meltdowns of atomic plants – what happened at Chernobyl just when she received her doctorate. Unfortunately for Merkel, her hopes for Honecker’s all-German socialist republic did not work out, at least as far as we know now. Thanks to the Reagan arms buildup, and Gorbachev’s refusal to engage in an arms competition after the near fatal non-nuclear showdown with the Anglo-Americans – what was to be triggered by the assassination of Sweden’s statsminister Olof Palme – the communist Soviet bloc, and its individual states underwent deadly collapse, triggered by the fall of the Berlin Wall. Merkel, to cut her losses from potential blowback, suddenly got involved in politics, joining East Germany’s new party, Democratic Awakening. Following the first democratic election in the GDR, she became deputy spokesperson for the pre-unification Prime Minister Lothar de Maiziere, a long-time Christian Democratic politician, and suspected agent of Erich Mielke’s Stasi – an allegation which led to his disappearance from politics after Helmut Kohl’s CDU/CSU gained control of a united Germany. Kohl’s promotion thereafter of Merkel, aka his ” Madchen”, cost him dearly though. He had to engage in all kinds of bribes to get the Stasi to destroy embarrassing files, especially those relating to ANITA. and when he refused to identify who supplied the money, he was finished politically after 16 years in office. Then the intelligence coordinator of the Chancellor’s Office, Ernst Uhrlau – who went on to become the director of Germany’s foreign intelligence service (BND) – went to the greatest lengths to retrieve a Stasi index file of its agents (Operation Rosewood) that the CIA had, and was refusing to turn over. “It is unacceptable in the long run,” Uhrlau explained to the Associate Press on December 10,1998 regarding the possibilities of blackmail, “for the German government that relevant files are sitting in the United States, and a possible or likely double in Russia.” After a two-year effort, the files were returned to Berlin. It was not prepared for the fact that Moscow long had held the most dangerous ones, those regarding ANITA, and they had been released to the world by the tome that Christopher Andrew wrote, thanks to the Archive Mitrokhin he had access to. This book was doubly troublesome because by that time Merkel had married, it seems, her old flame, WERNER aka Wilhelm Kahle and now divorced Joachim Sauer. They had had at the same time similiar totally unexplained careers at the Central Institute of Physical Chemistry. Sauer is even more tight-lipped about his life than she is, even declining to mention that he was born in East Germany in Senftenberg, 50 kilometers north of Dresden – where he called his mother when he got into the KGB’s soup. Of course, this would explain why Sauer has adopted such a low-profile existence to Merkel’s growing importance and popularity. He seems afraid that someone, especially one of his ‘honey trap’ victims might still recognize him. It would also explain why his wife has the best relation with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and why she is apparently being blackmailed by the Mossad when it comes to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, EU policy towards Iran, and missteps by the Pope when it comes to The Holocaust. In fact, she has followed a policy so favored by the Social Democrats in the current economic meltdown that her CSU Economics Minister Michael Glos suddenly resigned two weeks ago – what the press explained in terms of an alleged lack of input when it came to economic policy-making, but he explained ominously: “She always believed I didn’t have a clue about a lot of things.” It seems that as other people learn more about who Angela Merkel really is, she will have increasing political difficulties. She seems to have taken just too many risks in our ever-changing world. End Of Citation The author published his essay in Cryptome on 1 March 2009 https://cryptome.org/0001/merkel-spy.htm Trowbridge Ford is a former US Army Counter Intelligence Corps analyst. Now retired in Sweden, he theorises about deep events and deep politics. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Trowbridge_Ford 2003:D7:4F28:29F2:4118:EA8F:5A87:6519 (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Spyon - COMMUIST ? UdSSR / SSSR ? Today ,- this is RUSSIA.SimpatisantNr432345 (talk) 10:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

In that regard. Poisoning with methyl - mercury. On 15 Dec . 2011. (Banket, EU - Sammit.) And everything else. Are significant ! How do Union Sowetique use/exploit its people (high ranking people!) .SimpatisantNr432345 (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

OH a little former eastern german MFS Agent and SED Party (now Linke) Member try to protect Angie anonymously ?, lol. Do that in the socialistic german wikipedia, they will like ya so very very much ;) 2003:D7:4F3A:16A5:B895:81B:BC97:52F2 (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2023

1. The picture of Ludwig Marian Kazmierczak does NOT show Marie Margarete Poerschke, his later wife. It is an unknown woman.

"Ludwik Marian Kaźmierczak in Polish Blue Army uniform, with an unknown girl friend".

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Kasner

2. Typo: Margarete is not spelled Margarethe.

3. Willi Jentzsch was not a politican but a teacher and later school principal. For a short period he was also senator of the city of Danzig.

"the Danzig politician Willi Jentzsch"

"the Danzig teacher, school principal and from 1926 - 1927 senator Willi Jentzsch"

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willi_Jentzsch

4. Merkel moved to Quitzow when she was six weeks old. see: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4a8b1u SeanLeCarnet (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

1. You will find evidence of the woman not being Margarete in the following article with a picture of the real Margarete:

https://www.welt.de/politik/gallery114504294/Das-private-Fotoalbum-der-Merkel-Ahnen.html

2. In the Kazmierczak's marriage certificate Nr. 542 of August 11, 1925 you will find Marie Margarete Pörschke being her name.

3. You can read about the profession of Willi Jentzsch here.

http://www.der-westpreusse.eu/de/assets/17-03_der-westpreusse_e-paper.pdf

4. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4a8b1u 07:00 SeanLeCarnet (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Angela Merkel

Proper German pronunciation of Angela. Not the same as for Angela Lansbury

The IPA rendering of the pronunciation of Angela has the stress on the first syllable. The recording has the stress on the second syllable. One (or both) are incorrect.

Native speakers of standard German tell me that the recorded version is correct. Stress on second syllable and hard G.

If so, please correct the IPA version. Arbtrader43 (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2023

In the section "Personal life", last paragraph there is a small typo: it says: "She has instead focussed on travelling, attending only "feel-good appointments" ("ohlfühltermine") in a private capacity."

ohlfühltermine isn't a German word, there is a W missing here. It's supposed to say "Wohlfühltermine". You can also find this word in the article provided in footnote 254, so it's simply a typo.

Change ("ohlfühltermine") to ("Wohlfühltermine") Lostomat (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Hadal (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Angela Merkel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Llewee (talk · contribs) 10:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Llewee! Thanks for taking on this review, and for your helpful suggestions. I've addressed all the problems you pointed out so far. Thanks again for working on this nomination with me :) Actualcpscm (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Llewee, just a quick FYI that some stuff has come up and I might be a little busy in the coming days. I am by no means abandoning this nomination, and I will return to working on it within a few days at most. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Actualcpscm Ok that's fine. Your getting through the review a lot quicker than I tend to. :)--Llewee (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Llewee Nevermind being busy, I had a surprising amount of time today. I think I'm done with the concerns and suggestions that are currently listed here, although the NPOV stuff could use a second set of eyes. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Part one - up to (and incl.) "1998–2000: General Secretary of the CDU"

Part one Hi Actualcpscm, I have suggested some changes to improve the first part of the article up until the end of "1998–2000: General Secretary of the CDU". Please use the  Done template or strikethrough to indicate that a problem has been dealt with and add any comments/questions after the points. Thanks, Llewee (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC) Early years [14] As far as I can tell Newsecho.de seems to have been quite a obscure and short-lived website. Either add a publisher or change it for something else.  Done [15] needs a page number or replacement  Done Found a replacement source, but I suggest leaving in the reference to the book with a missing page tag (as it is right now). "Her paternal grandfather, Ludwik Kasner, was a German policeman of Polish ethnicity, who had taken part in Poland's struggle for independence in the early 20th century." It appears based on the source that he was in a army supported by the allies in the First World War and probably fought against Germany. If you add a brief mention of that into the text then it could be a good hook to nominate to DYK (along with the image of her grandparents) when this review is done.  Done great idea! "in Quitzow [de] (a quarter of Perleberg in Brandenburg)", if you mean "quarter" in the sense of "area" then it may be a good idea to use a more precise term (e.g district, suburb or village).  Done [26] Encyclopedia Britannica isn't considered a great source to use (See WP:BRITANNICA). Replace if possible but in this case it would probably be safe to just take it out.  Done As you mention, this is well-sourced even without that citation. Education and Scientific Career "At school Merkel learned to speak..." I think this paragraph probably fits better in the previous section. You could then change the title of this section to something like "University and Scientific career" or "Early adulthood"  Done I also rewrote parts of this to make it more readable. "officers of the Ministry for State Security (Stasi)", their is no need to include both the full and shortened names here, use one or the other  DoneMOS:ACRO1STUSE is relevant here. I think it's more well-known as Stasi, so the full name can be omitted. [38] It would be better to use her profile (https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=24432527000) rather than search results.  Done Also [38] doesn't explicitly state that she was researcher so you might want to find a different source for that claim.  Done Early Political Career "1989–1991: German reunification" change the second year to 1990  Done "The DA sank" change this to something more literal (e.g "The DA's support collapsed")  Done "Merkel was therefore appointed deputy spokesperson", "therefore" isn't needed  Done On a related note, I am not happy with the wording of this sentence: "She subsequently impressed de Maizière with her management of journalists investigating Schnur's role in the Stasi." I already re-wrote it, but please let me know if you have any suggestions for a clearer / more readable version. "backing of then-influential CDU minister" "then" is also fairly superfluous  Done "She has won re-election from this constituency (renamed, with slightly adjusted borders, Vorpommern-Rügen – Vorpommern-Greifswald I in 2003) at the seven federal elections held since then." tenses and wording need to be updated, also I think you need a more up to date source for this sentence as the two sources at the end of this paragraph are both from before the last elections she participated in 2017.  Done "ran for the leadership of the neighboring CDU in Brandenburg." Clarify where "neighbouring" is relative too.  Done It might good to add more information about what she did in these 1990s positions (bills she supported, her public image, ext).  Checking...  Done "it resulted in Germany's first post-war left-wing government, led by the SPD." This section could do with a clarification, Their were other German governments led by the SPD why is this one described as left-wing while the others aren't.  Done; let me know if you think this is a fair representation. The Greens (which the SPD formed the 1998 government with) are usually described as centre-left. "Merkel oversaw a string of CDU election victories in six out of seven state elections" how much was she involved in these elections?  Note: A quick check didn't yield any results on this. Since she was SecGen, I think her level of involvement is roughly clear, but if you think that more detail is needed, I can try to look into this.

Part two

Part two Hi Actualcpscm, well done dealing with the points for the first section of the article, below are some points covering the next part. Obviously same rules as previously. Thanks,--Llewee (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Early sections On the sentence you asked for advice on, I would say a better way of wording it might be "De Maizière was impressed with the way Merkel handled journalists investigating Schnur's role in the Stasi."  Done. That's much better, thanks! [68] is this a reliable source?  Checking... I've commented out the paragraph in question until I get around to this.  Done, found a better source and amended the paragraph. Early political career (part two) "2000–2018: Chairperson of the CDU" - I understand this name reflects the time period she was in the position for but it is slightly confusing given the section only covers the period before she became leader of the opposition.  Done "the CDU was not able to win in subsequent state elections" this reads a bit odd, change "was not able" to "did not"  Done "As early as February 2001," change "As early as" to "From", the reader has no reason to believe that February 2001 is especially early or late.  Done "her rival Friedrich Merz had made clear", I don't think "had" is needed here.  Done "She was subsequently outmaneuvered politically by CSU Leader Edmund Stoiber," It might be good to clarify what happened here  Done; funny enough, it was almost like the opposite of that. Really interesting story. "He went on to squander a large lead in opinion polls", the word "squander" comes across as a moral judgement change it to something like "He went on to lose" or "In spite of".  Done "a razor-thin margin" I would change this to something less dramatic e.g "small margin"  Done "Merkel supported a substantial reform agenda for Germany's economic and social system" rather than linking to the page reform movement it may be more helpful to link the phrase "reform agenda" to the page Agenda 2010 on the relevant reforms.  Done "She advocated German labour law changes," a link to the page German labour law may be helpful here.  Done "Merkel won the CDU/CSU nomination as challenger to Chancellor Gerhard Schröder", change "as" to "to be"  Done "of the second votes to the SPD's 34.2%." It might be good to clarify what "second votes" means  Done Chancellor of Germany "severely undermined his position as a Merkel rival." change "Merkel rival" to "rival of Merkel"  Done removed this paragraph entirely, it's unsourced here as well as in the article on stoiber (both the english and german version). coulnd't find any good sources and it doesn't seem particularly relevant here [89] doesn't cite most of the text before it  Question: Since I reworked much of the text, which citation / part of the text is this referring to?  Done, since the section was rewritten almost entirely. It's now in much better shape, and this sourcing issue is no longer a concern. "The second Cabinet of Angela Merkel was sworn in on 28 October 2009." not clear why this is here  Done "2005–2009: First CDU–SPD grand coalition" This section focuses on the establishment of the government. It would be good to include more information on what she and her government did between 2005 and 2009. Did they achieve their promises? How did they respond to events (e.g the 2008 recession)?  Done Also, this section is a bit confused/repetitive and could do with a reorganisation generally.  Done "39 percent Seehofer (CSU), 35 percent Gabriel (SPD), 32 percent Schulz (SPD), 25 percent Özdemir (Greens), 20 percent Wagenknecht (Left Party), 15 percent Lindner (FDP), and just 10 percent Petry (AfD)" I don't think it necessary to list the figures for all these opposition politicians.  Done In general throughout this section their is a focus on elections and forming coalitions without much information on what happened in-between.  Question: I think this raises an important general question for articles about politicians (an area of interest for me); in terms of their structure, should they separate History and Policy (like here), or should they be combined? I suggest we agree on a general approach for this article before I start moving stuff around. I don't mind the separation, but what do you think? Actualcpscm (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC) I take the view that a "political positions" sections is for a politician's general policies and political views. Readers will expect their response to specific events to be in the main timeline of their career and specific positions will often interactive with their career. For instance in Ruth Davidson, a article on a far more minor politician I recently improved to good article status, the "Leadership of the Scottish Conservative Party" section includes subsections on the Scottish independence referendum and Brexit referendum as well as touching on her political positions when relevant. The "policies and views" section goes into more detail.--Llewee (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC) That makes sense, thanks. I'll work on that soon. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)  Done Actualcpscm (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Political positions "This has added to a growing debate within Germany on the levels of immigration, its effect on Germany and the degree to which Muslim immigrants have integrated into German society"- change to past tense  Done "2015 European migrant crisis", "2018 asylum government crisis", "COVID-19 pandemic", "Eurozone crisis" and "Succession", I'd suggest moving these section on events into the main section on her chancellorship.  Done " Merkel repeatedly highlighted a need for cooperation between EU member states," change "highlighted a need for" to "encouraged"  Done "She coined the phrase Wir schaffen das ("We'll manage this")..." I assume this was a reference to Germany specifically not the EU in general in which case this sentence may fit better at the end of the next paragraph where it might fit better.  Done "Seehofer estimated as many as 30 percent of asylum seekers" change "estimated" to "believed"  Done " for migrants with low chances to get asylum approved" change "to get" to "of getting approved for"  Done "The issues are in conflict" change to "The issue caused a conflict"  Done "the SPD who opposes them" change to past tense  Done "a reevaluation of German officials' stance", if this just means government ministers then say that  Done "There appeared to be a consensus among officials," according to who?  Done "Literature argued that the increased right-wing preferences" clarify what "Literature" refers to  Done "the European migrant crisis which has brought thousands of people, predominantly from Muslim countries to Germany," this repeating information already given  Done "A policy Seehofer announced is that he has a" change this to "Seehofer announced that he had a"  Done "who have already been deported" change "have" to "had"  Done "Seehofer backed down from a threat to bypass her in the disagreement over immigration policy" clarify how he was planning to bypass her  Done "and to negotiate bilateral agreements with the specific countries himself." maybe add a footnote clarifying why he had the power to do this  Done, in a way. Since I rewrote these sentences, that would no longer be necessary. "established a crisis team to create containment policy." add an "a" before "containment"  Done "Eurozone Crisis" I would suggest expanding this section as from an outside perspective it was one of the most significant and controversial periods of her chancellorship  Done, unless you think more is needed there (?) "Since then, this comparison has become a" change to "After this, the comparison became a"  Done "International status" I think this section could probably be balanced with a bit criticism.  Checking... There might not be that much, I think she has largely received praised on an international level, but I'll investigate to make sure the section reflects reporting in a balanced way  Done, see below. I would also say that some of the language used in this section can come across a bit non-neutral.  Question: Do you mean the "international status" subsection or the entire "political positions" section? I mean the throughout the political positions section.  Checking...  Done, I think. I cut back on the praise a little and introduced some criticism into the "international status" section (now "legacy"). given the sheer volume of praise she has received, I would hesitate to add more criticism in that section, though (cf. WP:FALSEBALANCE). If you think there are still NPOV issues, could you point out a more specific problem area for me to look at? Actualcpscm (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Part three

Part three Hi Actualcpscm, this should be the final round of changes to the body of the article. I will do the lead after this is done and then it will be a couple of final checks away from passing.--Llewee (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC) I'll take care of these as soon as I can, thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Promise I‘m not abandoning this nom, just busy irl and with Wikibench on here. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Hi @Llewee! I'm finally done with these, at least pending your feedback. Let me know what you think, and thanks for understanding that it took a little longer. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Hi Actualcpscm. I've responded to a few of your comments below.--Llewee (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC) Hi @Llewee. Sorry to ping again; I've responded to your comments :) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC) @Llewee Last requested changes have been made. I've gone over the lead for a minor copyedit, what else did you have in mind for it? :) Actualcpscm (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC) Apologies, this is probably something I should have flagged in the previous part but it is more obvious now the sections on events have been moved. The political positions section doesn't seem to have much discussion of her views on domestic policy. I'm aware that Germany is quite a decentralised country so it is possible that the central government doesn't do much in those areas. However, I'm sure you could add more coverage of her views on the economy, taxation, health , education, ext.  Done for the most part. I added sections on the important policy stuff, particularly climate and fiscal policy. So much of this would warrant its own article; "Climate policy of Angela Merkel" could easily be a standalone topic, for example. I'm not sure how in-depth you think this article should be. Even at high standards of completion, the article needs to be comfortable to navigate. I've seen it a hundred times and written almost a third of it, so my judgement of this is somewhat suboptimal. Do you think the article needs more on these topics? Have I missed anything important? Actualcpscm (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC) In terms of making the content more concise it may be a good idea to summaries the "Foreign Affairs" into a couple of paragraphs and move any content which isn't already there into "Foreign policy of the Angela Merkel government". It may be a good idea to move "fiscal policy" and "climate policy" into the policy positions section.--Llewee (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC) I thought it would be more useful (and much clearer) to have the fiscal and climate policy info in the sections on their respective cabinets, partially because they changed a lot and are best considered in the context of a specific timeframe and government. Thoughts? Actualcpscm (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)  Done Nevermind, we talked about this earlier. It's in that section now. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC) I would suggest splitting the "legacy" subsection into it's own section, combining it with comparisons and adding information on perceptions of her in Germany. You could then potentially change the name to something like "legacy and public image" split it into subsections if it gets to long.  Done – There is an article on her public image; I don't think it's necessary to copy over much content from there. As I've said above, the Angela Merkel should probably not be expanded in places where it isn't necessary. I feel their needs to some discussion of attitudes to her in Germany.--Llewee (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC) There's a lot of information on opinion polling in the sections on the governments she led. The article already mentions the "Mutti" nickname; I'm not sure what else you mean for this. Could you give me an example? Thanks :) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC) I've added some content on "Merkelkinder", i.e. how Merkel has shaped German politics. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)  Done, I suppose. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC) "termed the Putinian aggression"- change to something like "said that Putin's aggression was" or something similar  Done "Sciences Po", I know this is the article's name but I thing it would clearer to use the full name.  Done " Joachim Sauer, who has remained very private during and after Merkel's political career." the source for this is from 2009 so it may be good to find a more up to date one  Done The inclusion of a series policies in a "Controversies" section seems to cast a bit of a moral judgement. I would suggest moving the information here into the rest of the article and getting rid off any repetition.  Question: Do you mean breaking up the section entirely? I agree that some content there is repeated from elsewhere, particularly re. NATO and Ukraine/Russia. Yes, I think so. I'm not sure why that would be necessary; the section is very well-sourced, and I don't think there are significant issues of NPOV imbalance in the article. Merkel has experienced her fair share of controversies, not because she was particularly divisive (I personally don't think she was) but even just because she was in office for so long. If someone holds this kind of office for decades, that's to be expected imo. Is there anything specific you see an NPOV issue with? Actualcpscm (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Actually, after double-checking, the content re Ukraine/Russia in that section is not repeated from elsewhere. I'm also not sure where it would be appropriate to move it to, and I don't think it should be removed. That paragraph in particular is exceedingly well-sourced, and outright removing it would violate NPOV, imo. We do need to report on her controversies somewhere in the article. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Its a question of personal taste really and I won't fail the review based on it. I just don't think that having a section called controversies is ideal because it comes across as if we are passing moral judgement on the sections content.--Llewee (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Oooh, now I get it. Yeah, I'll find something better for that. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) I've renamed the section to "Criticism" and (re)moved irrelevant content. I think now that it reports only instances where Merkel was actually criticised, it's a lot better. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC) "Muslims should deliberate on the question why so many violent people refer to the Quran" - change "deliberate on the question" to "consider"  Done change "Under her open-borders policy several women were murdered by the unchecked immigrants like the" to "Following her response to the migration crisis several women were murdered by migrants. For instance, the"  Done, in a way. I removed this entirely; it's mentioned elsewhere already, and it probably doesn't belong in this section. The direct link between Merkel's migration policy (and criticism thereof) and these events is not present in the source and thus OR. "On the British sketch-comedy Tracey Ullman's Show, comedian Tracey Ullman has parodied Merkel to international acclaim with German media dubbing her impersonation as the best spoof of Merkel in the world." - I think several sources are needed to evidence this broad a claim.  Done

Part four

Part four --Llewee (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Lead: The lead mentions health reform. This may be me missing something but I can't find any mention of this in the body of the article. Copyright: Text: I put the article through earwig. You can see the results here. The one with the most overlap seems to be a copy. The next one is quoted in the article. Others seem coincidental or include quotes used in the article. Images: The copyright on all the images seems broadly fine. You're right about healthcare reform, I added some content on that. As far as I can tell, there were two distinct rounds of reforms, so I've added them to the relevant time periods. If you think they'd be better in the "policy positions" section, I can move them there; however, the sources I found mainly analyse the positions of the government parties, not Merkel herself. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC) Ok, it can stay as it is then. Thanks for sorting it out--Llewee (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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.

This sentence is grammatically incorrect and should be reworked.

During her tenure as Chancellor, Merkel was frequently referred to as the de facto leader of the European Union (EU), the most powerful woman in the world, and beginning in 2016 was a contended as the leader of the free world. 2405:6580:380:3500:6D04:E2A2:3965:43EF (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done The sentence has been reworked as seen here. --Wow (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)