Talk:Deutsche Welle

message: Klingon??? Not only is this implausible but I can find no information about it anywhere on DW's website Johnzw 23:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For really unlikely stuff like that that is unsupported by research (In this case, your checking DW's website), you can usually safely just remove it. 68.39.174.238 20:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deutsche Welle had a Klingon page for the 10th anniversary of their online services: . Kusma (討論) 09:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's bizarre but I don't know if It's appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Johnzw 16:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as nobody else has written about it, it qualifies as original research. Anyway, it is trivia that should not be included unless some reliable source thinks it is a notable fact about DW. Kusma (討論) 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The DW itself has written about it, so no original research. If an international broadcaster uses an "orchid language" (like Interlingua de Peano - not Esperanto; Klingon; Eldar) and lets its whole Webpage be translated, it IS a notable fact (as long as Klingon language is a notable fact). --129.13.186.1 (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implausible 

message: http://www.cbc.ca/programguide/program/cbc_radio_overnight
I don't know where this should go, but I think it belongs on the page. I'll try add it sometime, when I can figure out how to work it in properly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.200.81 (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: DW on CBC Overnight

message: It might be valuable if we could obtain information on Deutsche Welle's editorial policies on the Mideast conflict, which is a controversial topic in contemporary journalism. ADM (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mideast conflict

message: Well I am not to familiar with wikipedia but when I found this article I noticed the following passage:
"In 2008, a Chinese-born vice-director of the Chinese department of DW was dismissed because of her pro-China speech during a TV show. Chinese Media called this event reflecting that the "Nazi" propaganda soul still exist in the German media. After that, the report coverage about China of DW shows obvious bias. Consequently, in 2009, the DW website was blocked in the People's Republic of China.[citation needed]"
Well I just looked for the event and a reliable source and found a German article in Der Spiegel that would be something that could work as a source for citation. However, whenn I login the above mentioned passage wasn't shown anymore. Don't know why and wether it is normal or not or just coincidence. I actually just wanted to give you the link so that people who have more expirience with wikipedia can check wether the link would work as a source. Jack04 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone who tries to strictly enforce a law is called a Nazi. Let the good times roll.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.114.202 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Events

message: The broadcast languages chart is not accurate. If it covers the history of radio broadcasting it should contain the switch-off dates for German in 2008, for Russian and Ukrainian in 2011 and for some other languages. If TV broadcasts are counted there should not be a switch-off date for Spanish service as it still broadcasts via DW-Latinoamérica. Finally, some services, including the Russian one, have turned to distributing their content exclusively via the DW website and this should also have some reflection in the chart. --Taras Ashurkoff (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The broadcast languages chart 

message: DW promotes vehicles with helices, without to reveal helix-mauling statistics, rates of injury and death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4102:8000:ECC8:C904:E226:F026 (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Tomorrow Today (TV series)'': Vehicles with [[helix|helices]] 

message: When DW turns off comments on social media, it turns its 'news' into propaganda. There is no reason for it to do this other than to control the message and block out further information. Please see the DW youtube video attached for evidence of this. Link 203.131.210.82 (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some DW media is news and other DW media is propaganda 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Deutsche Welle is a public broadcaster, so it's not a State (owned) broadcaster.. Like it's claimed right now: ″DW is a German public, state-owned″.. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike a “regular” public broadcaster like Das Erste, the existence of DW is tied to the Deutsche Welle Act, a federal law. According to § 4 DWG, it is DW’s declared mission to promote Germany, Germany’s POV, German language and the ideology democracy abroad, in one word: Propaganda. Although there’s no direct influence on the contents aired, state representatives have a substantial share in all boards, the government has to be consulted about upcoming programs, and, last but not least, if they don’t like the channel anymore, the law can be repealed or amended any time. This is pretty much in line with § 903 BGB: Ownership is the exclusive privilege to exercise power about property. This definition is borrowed from property law, but Germany, the Federal Republic of, does indeed exclusively determine the fate of DW.‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 02:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the Deutsche-Welle-Gesetz is a evidence for branding it as state owned.. Especially as it announces, that DW is a public-law institution with the right to self-administration. --Jonny84 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, according to Wikipedia, there’s no universally agreed upon definition of state-owned media. Of course German politicians [esp. of governing parties] will tell it’s not state-owned, but it’s really not up to them to decide. My argument is how quickly could the service be dismantled? The treaties establishing channels like ZDF actually contain a two-year notice period, so it’s to some degree decoupled from an administration’s will. Ultimately you’ll need to sources to substantiate either statement and I actually find easily multiple sources corroborating the claim “state-owned”.‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 11:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: it is financed directly from the federal budget == state owned. Legal spaghetti and interpretation should be left to courts, In the public eye it is a government owned media outlet Pixius  talk 00:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public bradcasting 

message: Is this the latest official DW logo #5, including as it does the new DW motto "Made for minds." If so, add it to the article Deutsche Welle#Logos. 
The new logo includes the DW motto which replaces the words "Deutsche Welle" in the 2012 version. The motto is in English, which works particularly well because:
* it is succinct
* has alliteration
* avoids special characters such as umlauts which are difficult to type on a standard keyboard.
* logo #5 is an evolution from logo #4
* You might be able to have both the words "Deutsche Welle" as well as the words "Made for Minds" which might be called logo #6.
*
* Is this new logo official? It is use on the Deutsche Welle documentary Great Toilet Battle..
File:Deutsche Welle Logo.svg          |Deutsche Welle logo #4 (2012–present)
File:YT GTB DW Deutsche Welle logo.png|Deutsche Welle logo #5 - "D" and "W" inside overlapping circles - Motto = Made for minds. ----~~~~
 
---- MountVic127 (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newest Logo ?