Talk:Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

Article name
I created this article with the German name of the company, but now I wonder. Should it be moved to its English translation? Jorge Stolfi 05:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer: The GTZ uses abroad the original term for their company. It is not common to translate it. In english speaking countries they mostly use the appendix "German Development Cooperation"

New structure and name
From January 1, 2011 GTZ is officially renamed to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH following the fusion with two other German organisations (DED and Inwent). I am not sure how to change the article so could someone else do it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujanovic (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I request an article move from Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit to Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit. The Company name has changed, see here http://www.giz.de/ (German) or http://www.giz.de/en/home.html (english)

I would do it my self, but I am not allowed to, as I my account is new.

SimonG597 (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Renamed.--Mario Žamić (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sentence about surpluses generated
I have removed this sentence as it does not make sense and is not referenced: All surpluses generated by GIZ are channeled back into its own international cooperation projects for sustainable development.[citation needed]

There are no surpluses from these projects. There is a commercial arm called GIZ-IS which should perhaps be mentioned in this article. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of violations
The section about "Programmes violating human rights" has three sources. Two of these merely confirm that GIZ is working with the Namibian Government on land issues. Only the third source, Earth Peoples, levels accusations of human rights violations in a very one-sided tendentious manner. So, point out the Namibian Economist is a respectable publication is immaterial because no-one said it is not and that is not the source that contains any of the allegations. So, please take the time to read what each source has to say and also please pay attention whern reading edit summaries. That would be appreciated. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Major overhaul of article on January 2017
User:Arbraxan you have been pretty (WP:BEBOLD) in changing this article which is of course encouraged but I don't agree with some of your changes. Before I go to some specific points can you please explain here what the main things you wanted to change in this article and why? For example, why did you remove the section "facts and figures"? Is there a standard section naming convention for organizations that you followed? Also, you removed this part from the lead which I actually think is pretty important "or just GIZ in short, is a company that specializes in international development. The German name of the company translates to English as "German Corporation for International Cooperation", however the German title of the organization purposefully has no official translation in the company's publications. " - You've also completely changed what was called "Fields of activity" and lost important wikilinks in the process. Please re-insert them. Also I think we are not meant to use italics in articles in the way you have used italics? EvMsmile (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My goal was to overhaul the article in order to (a) update its information (most figures were from 2012!!!), (b) add a section on its organizational structure, and (c) expand information on its clients. The "Facts and Figures" section was disgracefully outdated; in fact, it will become outdated at the latest within a year, which is precisely the reason why most articles on organizations don't have one. The first part of the lead that you describe largely corresponds to what you wrote, except that it has been slightly expanded and is now written in an encyclopedic style. The second part from the lead certainly doesn't belong at the beginning of the head paragraph of an article describing an organisation; it is at best worth a footnote. The "Fields of Activity" section was completely outdated (see the links used as references") and I will thus not re-insert any part of the older section. If you can point me to any convention on how to use italics, I will gladly adapt their use in the article. --Arbraxan (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information which makes it somewhat clearer. However, this needs to go back in, in my opinion: "The German name of the company translates to English as "German Corporation for International Cooperation", however the German title of the organization purposefully has no official translation in the company's publications." You will not find this English translation anywhere on GIZ's website! - Also my other point about the wikilinks in the former section on "fields of activity" you didn't address. I think having wikilinks in that section, for example for the word sanitation - which needs to go back in (it is part of their activities on "water" - you can see that on their website); I can add that back in. But also for many of the other technical terms, like capacity building. Basically all the wikilinks that we had before plus more. EvMsmile (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * about the italics, I don't have the guide at my fingertips but I was under the impression that we do not use italics and bold anywhere in the articles (only bold for the first sentence title terms). Am I wrong?EvMsmile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) On the use of italics, see MOS:ITALIC. I removed the italics from the article. (2) I included the explanation concerning the use of the English translation in a footnote, but I maintain that this doesn't belong into the first sentence of an article's leading paragraph. (3) I added the wiki-links where appropriate (feel free to add more). Currently, the article only describes GIZ's product areas and their sub-product areas, but not really specific activities or services; do you think that it would make sense to expand on the sub-product areas and name the specific activities that GIZ performs in these sub-product areas? --Arbraxan (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am really happy with these changes. About (2) that's a great idea to convert it into a footnote (I have now made it into a real footnote, not a reference); (3) I have added the sub-themes for the theme of water as I find those quite important; if you have the time could you also add the sub-themes for the other "products"? They can be found on their website. I think it's useful especially if we add wikilinks to all the important topics for which we have wikipedia articles. EvMsmile (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the good work. I have added the sub-topics for each product area with corresponding services, but I am not sure whether the current structure and content fits an encyclopedic structure. --Arbraxan (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130915125908/http://www.bmz.de/en/press/aktuelleMeldungen/2010/december/20101216_pm_184_fusion/index.html to http://www.bmz.de/en/press/aktuelleMeldungen/2010/december/20101216_pm_184_fusion/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)