Talk:Germany–United States relations

Locator map
Does someone have a chance to get a Germany-USA Locator world map? Would be nice.

Thanks

Is not are
I changed "United States are" to "United States is", in order to bring this article up to date with post-American Civil War conventions.
 * Well, I guess it's right, but it's stupid however
 * No, it is NOT - does one say 'the Soviet Union are' - of course not.50.111.31.53 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

karl may banned in the gdr?
this clearly needs a source, and an information on how long the ban lasted (maybe it was in the first years or so, but later the books were readily avaliable and widely read)...

Further deterioration of relations
It seems that the relations have deteriorated even further, see Germany Denounces The United States Under Trump’s Leadership, Releases Historic Statement. There are also links to other related news sources within the text.

Perhaps this development of events should be incorporated into the article. 109.60.39.114 (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Decorative PR photo of Trump and Merkel
This image doesn't really add anything substantial to the current article. It has no direct contextual significance in a nearby section, and it doesn't add any new information about the topic. Even worse, as a staged PR photo it is actively misrepresenting the difficult relations between Germany and the current US administration, and it is certainly not representative for a topic that is supposed to cover over 300 years of German-American relations (see also WP:RECENTISM). I have removed the image again, but of course other opinions and additional feedback are welcome. GermanJoe (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Move the image to the section "Post-1990". – Vami ♜  _IV♠  19:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done that, thank you for the suggestion. The image itself is still not great, but that's atleast an improvement. GermanJoe (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC on lead image

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Should File:Angela Merkel and Donald Trump in the Oval Office, March 2017.jpg be used as lead image, or in the later "Post-1990" section, or not at all for this article? GermanJoe (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Please indicate your order of preference for the listed alternatives. As I rarely do RfCs, please feel free to fix eventual syntax or procedural errors. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As mentioned in the thread above with additional thoughts, this is a bland and staged press photo that is not representative for the current American-German relations, let alone for the entire article topic covering 300+ years of relations. It also fails the guidance of WP:RECENTISM with an undue and unencyclopedic focus on the current situation. This image should not be used, or only in the "Post-1990" as a reasonable compromise suggestion. GermanJoe (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not representative of the entire article. Move it out of No. 1 position. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Germany Coordinator speaking. Move the picture out of the lead position. There is already that template there and, per above comment, it is not representative of the whole article. Move it to the most relevant section, "Post-1990". Per German Joe's reply to my comment, replace with better-quality photo if possible. I nominate this one, by Jesco Denzel (might be in fullscreen when you open this link). – Vami ♜  _IV♠  23:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a great shot of course and it was somewhat iconic in critical reporting about this particular conference, but unless the photographer releases the image for free usage we can't use such a photo here. GermanJoe (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Remove from the lead, as it gives undue weight to the last 2 years of German–American relations. No opinion on whether to use elsewhere in the article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove it altogether from the article. The photo is from the oval office in March 2017, the para in post-1990 section is about Trump's meeting with EU leaders in Brussels, May 2017. If there is no content in the article discussing their March 2017 meeting, it doesn't belong in the article. Isaidnoway (talk)  17:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove entirely, or only use in the "Post-1990" - Agree with rationale from GermanJoe. NickCT (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in to agree with GermanJoe's rationale. KeseysGarageSale (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but I've provided a cropped verion, above, which is better than the original, in the context of this article. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. Is usable in the article - but is a staged press photo op (and one would assume of no particular lasting value once Merkel/Trump are out of office - it isn't as if the relationship between the two (to date) has been a defining one). I would prefer to see a more interesting photo in the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in the lead per WP:recentism, and several other reasons. They also seem to swap their hand gestures in the photo for some reason. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  12:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

kristallnacht
The section suggesting that "The key event was American revulsion against Kristallnacht" is simply not backed up by the cited text, which states "Six months after the November pogrom, a poll published in Fortune magazine revealed that 83 percent of Americans were against changing immigration quotas to allow more Europeans into the nation. Legislation proposed by senators Robert Wagner and Edit Rogers just after Kristallnacht to bring 20,000 German refugee children under the age of 14 to the United States never made it out of committee. Moreover, thousands of endangered Jews who might have secured refuge under existing quotas were denied entry into the country due to the barriers raised by bureaucratic officials, many of whom were antisemitic. When reports of mass killings of German Jews began trickling through government institutions and the media, they were often greeted with disbelief".

Note that I'm not making any judgement on this, many countries including my own behaved similarly appallingly, I'm simply objecting to the simplistic statement and the abuse of citation that I don't believe says what the citer represents. gwinkless (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Public opinion regarding Nazi Germany and US government policy turned sharply negative after Kristallnacht. The article is about US -German relations and that statement is true. It's also true--and a separate issue-- that policy regarding Jewish refugees did not change--but that is a separate topic covered by History of antisemitism in the United States and related articles such as Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, third and fourth terms, Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, MS St. Louis, Hillel Kook, We Will Never Die etc . Rjensen (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)