Talk:Olaf Scholz

Despite allegations, Olaf Scholtz is not the first irreligious German Chancellor
Even the Religious affiliations of chancellors of Germany, which I borrowed some sources from, notes the lack of religion among Weimar Republic era Chancellors Hermann Müller Friedrich Ebert and Gustav Bauer. I also used this source from the Friedrich Ebert which noted how he left the Catholic faith long before his final illness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:4080:10:7c0d:3f26:47a2:f78b (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022
I think it should be added that Scholz was a member of the SPD's local executive in Hamburg-Altona in the early 1990s.

Source: Both my sister and me were members of the Green's local executive at the same time, and we met Scholz in talks to negotiate a red-green coalition for the borough council in 1993 and in some subsequent discussion to discuss arising issues. I vividly remember the first meeting as his first contribution was a 10 minute monologue full of Stamocap rubbish. But shortly afterwards, when we came to the difficult issues in the discussion, it quickly became very clear that he was more intelligent and a better politician than all of the us together - and I say that as someone who sat on the other side of the table! Greenpousse (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires a better source than a users say-so. It does not need to be English, a German source will do just fine. Kleuske (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2022
Change justification: Articles with clear deficiencies should bear tags that both serve to draw editor attention, but also to warn readers of flaws that may mean an article is less than fully reliable. Per WP:VERIFY, the validity of our information derives from its being traceable to source. In particular, the editorializing and presentation of new content in the lead is an issue, as are presentation of content unsubstantiated by source, and presentation of URL-only sources.

Change from:

Article opening is—

Change to:

Article opening is—

Alternative edit: Since we non-logging editors cannot do this, those managing the restricted nature of the article could, instead,
 * (i) complete the URL-only sources, [1] and [2],
 * (ii) ensure all information in the lead also appears in the main body of the article, so the lead summarises rather adding to the main body (starting with the completely unsupported Zeitenwende mention—per WP:VERIFY, wikilinks cannot replace in-article sourcing—and the unique, unsupported editorial statements regarding "restrain[t]" and "cautio[n]" in the closing sentence of the lead), and
 * (iii) generally check the lead and article for these issues, on the wikieditorial principle of "like breeds like" (laxity in any article fundamental both raises question of prior-existing, less obvious examples, and the question of the others following the example of poor form, and adding further noncompliant/unsupported content).

That is, the article needs be checked for all lead content appearing only in lead, all content in lead unsupported by citation in lead/main body, and all content in the main body—sentences, paragraphs—where content is not fully supported by the citations appearing (including "citecheck" tests of the correspondence of key sentences to sources appearing).

Otherwise, as is often done, you could, in your authority and management here, call status quo good enough, and take no action at all. (This unfortunately conveys one of two messages to we who read and teach—either that "We don't care enough to do anything that takes time.", or that "WP:VERIFY or not, I know it's true, so its good enough and can stay." But such messages make the article untrustworthy, and so unusable for students.) 2601:240:CD08:6739:B5A1:10C9:A0B2:75F9 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

His Excellency
1. There is no source for this "title". 2. Neither the US president Joe Biden nor the German president is listed as "His Excellency" 3. No German would address the chancellor as "His Excellency" (just like Americans would not address their president as "His Excellency" 4. Everybody from another country is supposed to call every head of state of another country "Excellency" (except for monarchs). This very old protocol. Olaf Scholz is not head of state btw. 5. The western press does not on a regular base and that's ok. Deutschland2023 (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)