Talk:Helmut Kohl

message: I removed:
: Kohl's foreign policy was pro-USA. 
that was recently added by an anomymous user. What is a "pro-USA" foreign policy? Is the statement supposed to contrast Kohl against Schröder? Then it's POV. djmutex 12:40, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  My guess would be that it should be seen as a policy of alignment with the countries led by the US including NATO, voting with the US in the UN etc. - as opposed to neutrality. It may sound bizarre that Germany could not be in the US led camp, but unthinkable it is not.  2001:8003:AC99:3B00:BDAE:454A:F795:B543 (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Kohl is known as a very arrogant and egoistic person who still overestimates his work and historical role. When a journalist asked him what he knew about illegal party finances he replied: "For you I'm still Dr Kohl" (he was addressed by "Mr Kohl"). He was never able to handle criticism and to recognize own mistakes, instisting that he was the greatest statesman ever. In fact he believes that german reunification was his own personal masterpiece, ignoring the development of the Soviet Union and the GDR in the 80's that led to reunification." 
I'm reverting the article back to before this section was plopped in, because it's blatantly POV and trolling/vandalism.  If I messed up by doing this, let me know. I'm still trying to get a feel for registered editing. --Sporkot 10:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is POV and your view is not shared by all Germans of course. --Avatar-en 10:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just to keep that clear: I'm neither a member of the CDU nor a friend of a party with similiar interests. --Avatar-en 13:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just FYI, I'm not German, nor do I follow German politics. I deleted your edit because it contributed absolutely nothing to the article. Baseless partisan accusations and (what I think was) defamation of character are POV, plain and simple. Just because you think Kohl is an egotist does not make him one. --Sporkot 22:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: On second thought, it makes more sense to flag this section as possibly NPOV and get a more broad consensus. --Sporkot 01:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about "Personality" section 

message: I've translated "Verdienstordens der Bundesrepublik Deutschland", from the German article of Helmut Kohl, as "Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany", that's a literal translation. Someone removed it because it was "communist propaganda", but it's a literal translation!
Furthermore I've reinstated the trivia section, not because I think this article merits a trivia section, but because the fact, that Kohl was the second longest chancellor, is rather trivial and should not be part of the articles introduction.
:This is untrue. You used the name "German Federal Republic", a GDR cold war derogatory term. Trivia sections are btw. frowned upon, because they are utterly unencyclopedic. It is not "trivial" that he was the longest serving Chancellor since Bismarck, it is actually quite important, and the fact belong in the introduction, not in a separate "trivia" section. Wilhs 14:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not used the name German Federal Republic" but "Federal Republic of Germany", the conventional long form and a literal translation! On a more constructive note, I've integrated the former trivia section in the text, a compromise, I hope, between our two positions.
C mon 20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First: The article history clearly says "German Federal Republic" . Secondly, you moved one of the most important things that are to say about Kohl from the introduction to an obscure place. What's the point of having an introduction when it cannot contain the most important facts? It has nothing with "trivia" to do that Kohl was the longest serving Chancellor since Bismarck, on the contrary it says very much about Kohl and his reign. Read the guideline for featured articles; a good article shall have a good introduction of a length like Pope John Paul II Wilhs 14:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Communist propaganda

message: I think this part of the article is biased against Kohl. It is anyway difficult to write such a paragraph without being subjective. Probably this part of the article should be deleted.
91.36.122.93 20:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public perception 

message: Hello LessHeard vanU,
I do not understand why you critize and even reverted my edit.
Helmut Kohl was voted as chancellor on Friday 01st October, his minister were confirmed on Monday 04th October 1982. On Sunday, our parliament Bundestag never has session on Sundays and there was definitely no session on the 03rd October 1982! 
Please explain to me why you consider the correction of a wrong date as vandalism?
Best regars
YOG'TZE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by YOG'TZE (talk • contribs) 11:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for mistaking your edits as disruptive. The previous date had been unchallenged for some time, and date changing is a frequent edit made by people wishing to invalidate Wikipedia. I would suggest, so that people like me do not make the same mistake, that you use the edit summary to explain your reasons for your edit. Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitution of the first cabinet Kohl

message: Please stop edit warring around the image to use. I'd prefer the Bundesarchiv image, it's smaller, but clearly of higher quality. The other one is just blurred. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 08:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The section about the CDU finance affair needs an update.
In the meantime, Schreiber was extradited to Germany and sentenced to eight years of jail.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.234.100.106 (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  section CDU finance affair needs update 

message: I was going to update the information on the Karlheinz Schreiber court case, but came to the conclusion that is not sufficiently relevant and should be removed. If it were to stay, its relevance would have to be indicated in the text. In any case, like most of the section it is unsourced. As I understand WP:BLP all of this unsourced text should be removed without delay.
--Boson (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant

message: It is general policy in a BLP that a "Dr." is not placed in front of the name. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles for more on this topic. I recently reverted someone's addition of the "Dr." in front of Helmut Kohl. Such addition not only goes against the policy as above, but also is a form of derision, given the recent story around Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who not only had to drop the title of Dr. following allegations of plagiarism, but also had to resign his presitigious post as Defence Minister in the German government.-- Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg: Baron without a title; German defence minister resigns over plagiarism --Skol fir (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Dr. in front of name 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Gedenkplatte Mitterrand-Kohl Douaumont.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Helmut Kohl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070720123425/http://www.karlspreis.de/index.php?id=12&doc=30 to http://www.karlspreis.de/index.php?id=12&doc=30
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: He obviously had one, so which one was it? Was he elected from a constituency or on a state list? Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kohl's seat in the Bundestag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Helmut Kohl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080919065319/http://www.time.com:80/time/europe/hero2006/kohl.html to http://www.time.com/time/europe/hero2006/kohl.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110521001052/http://www.monstersandcritics.com:80/news/europe/news/article_1639558.php/Clinton-praises-Germany-s-Kohl-at-Berlin-award to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1639558.php/Clinton-praises-Germany-s-Kohl-at-Berlin-award
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, the name of his second wife is Maike Kohl-Richter, see article Helmut Kohl in german wikipedia. Greetings--Buchbibliothek (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Names of spouses are given by their maiden names. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Zwerg Nase. Greetings--Buchbibliothek (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second wife 

message: I don't think  is a particularly good sentence. While it's true that his life in the immediate years after his chancellorship was overshadowed by the donations scandal, that affair has been rather ancient history and not really received much attention for well over a decade now, and it wasn't mentioned by any of the public figures who commented on his death (Merkel, Schröder, Schulz, Gabriel, and a whole bunch of current and former world leaders). Also, I don't think "estrangement" is an accurate description of his relationship with Merkel. When she became Chancellor, he was immediately invited to the Chancellery and lauded publicly by her, and they have met several times where she has paid tribute to him publicly. He has made some critical comments about her policies in recent years, but "overshadowed" and "estrangement" are far too strong words to describe his relationship with her since she became chancellor. --Tataral (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence on life after chancellorship

message: Helmut Kohl was born in Ludwigshafen in 1930. At the time of his birth, Germany's official name was the German Reich (commonly referred to as the Weimar Republic). Given the political upheaval and emergence of several 'German' polities (Kaiserreich, Weimar, Third Reich, East, West etc.) across the twentieth century, and in the interest of historical fact and accuracy, it would be prudent to have an underlying link directing to the German Reich/Weimar Republic page on his place of birth. In other words, the Germany he died in is not constitutionally, territorially or politically the Germany he was born in.
Some have argued that this is wrong - that historical 'time periods' should not feature in this respect. However, as a riposte to their refusal to reach consensus, I point to the Wikipedia page for Adolf Hitler. This details his place of death as 'Nazi Germany', however, this was never the official name of Germany. In fact, during the Nazi period, Germany continued to use the same official name as the Weimar Republic, the 'German Reich'. There is, therefore, inconsistency across Wikipedia's articles.
As a point of comparison, the articles of numerous historical and contemporary personalities on Wikipedia detail their places of birth as states that are no longer in existence today. This, I believe, is right and historically accurate. It enriches the general information about the person and provides the reader with convenient historical context. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For this particular article there is no benefit to go against the common rules at WP:OVERLINKING of a well-known geographical location. His place of birth being "Germany" is accurate and sufficient for the needs of this article. The politics at the time of his birth are largely irrelevant to his life. At the time of his birth the country was not called by the unofficial name of Weimar Republic, that was a later appellation meant somewhat as an insult. It has no bearing on his life. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 'The politics at the time of his birth are largely irrelevant to his life'. I think you'll find that is a stupid remark from a historical and biographical point of view. The country Helmut Kohl was born in and grew up in was about as politically charged and radical as one could imagine. Of course this had an enormous impact on his life - as, indeed, his commitment while Chancellor of West Germany to coordinating a honest academic review of Germans' knowledge of the Holocaust and Nazi past proves. As you will note from the original message, I am not calling for the place of birth to be detailed as the 'Weimar Republic', but by its official name at the time: the 'German Reich' 195.147.250.224 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What is important about that time in his life is covered in this article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia uses common names (in English usage), not official names. The country's common name in English was Germany then and it is Germany now. --Tataral (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

text: The parameter for "birthplace" in the infobox is about geography, and "Ludwigshafen, Germany" (as his birthplace was known as in English then and as it is known as now) is quite sufficient. The same goes for his place of death which 195.147.250.224 tried to change to "Federal German Republic" (a made-up name) --Tataral (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, both of you have appointed yourselves masters of the universe and refuse to listen to any criticism of your flawed logic. There can be no consensus if one side is refusing to acknowledge where the other is coming from. This is an encyclopaedia and it is its duty to accurately reflect the official and formal details of polities and their historical reality to credulous readers. 'Germany' is far too nebulous and flippant as a concept/word in this regard - especially when referring to a major 20th century figure like Helmut Kohl. There have been several, vastly different German polities over the past century. Given Kohl's reputation as a major personality within that century and his role in overseeing the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990, it is even more incumbent upon us to reflect the historical reality of the state he himself was born in. This enriches the reader's appreciation for the complex and turbulent times he lived through and helped define. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is already well-covered in this article and in proper context and order of presentation to the level of what is important to Kohl. What is important to this biography is what happened during his life. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it is important for the page to show consistency and attention to detail - to provide accurate and convenient facts to those who may not have the time to read through the entire article. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the exact purpose of the lead section of all articles. The infobox is for basic facts. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

text: This is not relevant for the purpose of briefly mentioning his place of birth and place of death in the geographical sense in the infobox. The common name of his place of birth in English was Ludwigshafen, Germany when he was born and it remains Ludwigshafen, Germany today. Also, the state that he was born in and that he died in was legally – constitutionally and from the perspective of international law – the identical state. This is uncontroversial among scholars of international law and has been affirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court, which ruled that . France got a totally new system of government and constitution in 1958, but of course France the country is still the same country as the France that existed before the Fifth Republic. --Tataral (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clear we are not going to agree on this. From a historical perspective, I believe this is absolutely crucial to understanding and contextualising a major figure of 20th century German history. Moreover, it is a basic biographical and uncontroversial fact that simply doesn't invalidate international law anyway. What is being proposed by you two is tantamount to retrospective editing and obfuscation of past realities - replacing them with what are essentially inadequate and misleading points. We can all agree that 'Germany' as an ideal is centuries-old - that is not the issue here. The issue is that the state Kohl was born in, the German Reich (Weimar Republic) is not the same state as the Federal Republic of Germany. In 1949, a new constitution was adopted and there existed a competing German state borne out of the Soviet Zone of occupation until 1990. Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union made the dubious claim that he presided over 'a thousand-year-old state', which, more accurately, was less than 80 years old at the time. I believe it is the duty of pages like this to reflect the contextual realities of the time in question. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Kohl was born in 1930 and died in 2017. East Germany did not exist when he was born and it did not exist when he died, so East Germany is not relevant to his place of birth. The Germany he was born into was the same country as the Germany that exists today; the fact that its system of government was somewhat different doesn't change that. If a country changes its constitution or adopts a new one, it doesn't mean that it becomes a new country. The President of Germany even uses the same presidential standard as the one used when Kohl was born, and some of the articles of the Weimar Constitution remain in force in Germany today. --Tataral (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not quite the same country: It was ruled by a Reichskanzler, not a Bundeskanzler. Federalism wasn't such a dominant feature of the State as it is in the Bundesrepublik. Edelseider (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the data of some other notable Germans, country of birth info is terribly inconsistent. So no general rule was applied in the past (I checked Scheel, Albertz, Brandt, Kiesinger and some others). --Nillurcheier (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

text: This discussion is about where Kohl was born in the geographical sense, for the purpose of briefly stating this basic fact in the infobox. In that context, a discussion on how German politics has changed since 1930 is not relevant. No country on the planet looks identical today to what it looked like in 1930. France, Italy and numerous other countries have experienced constitutional changes of the same, if not greater, magnitude from 1930 to today. But that doesn't mean that we cannot state someone's place of birth as "Paris, France" if they were born in 1930. --Tataral (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Also, for the record, the title of the head of government doesn't mean anything in this context, and Germany wasn't "ruled" by the Chancellor, it was a parliamentary democracy where power was shared between the President, the cabinet, the parliament and the federal states. And federalism was indeed an important feature of the German state, perhaps even more so during the German Empire, but it was certainly still important during the Weimar Republic, in a way that is roughly comparable to today's system. --Tataral (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of birth 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Helmut Kohl. 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  tag to http://news.monstersandcritics.com/europe/news/article_1545619.php/Helmut-Kohl-Germany-s-Chancellor-of-Unity-turns-80-Roundup
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170616215641/http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/business/article156561279.html to http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/business/article156561279.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) 02:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: these are gleaned from many newspaper articles published over a period of many years, in Germany. OggenheimerWise (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted again these insertions by  
"During his time in Parliament and in opposition he failed to understand the nature of Germany's obligations and duties after World War II. The most glaring failure on his part was the lack of understanding and interest to make full retribution to the victims of Nazi Germany's atrocities against people in Europe, Russia and North Africa. This is especially true and a sad story for the slave labor of the Nazi era, numbering 15 million persons from Europe and Russia, who were actually members of the peace movement and loyal to the League of Nations. The final compensations that were made, reached those who were still alive in 2005, since the Free Democratic Party (FDP) failed to support this with the Governments of the Chancellors Helmut Schmidt and Willy Brandt.
and
The cabinet of Kohl's govt found it very difficult to maintain  law and order amidst violent attacks against foreigners and visitors, amidst high rates of unemployment in east German states, thoughtless errors and a poorly implemented program of reunification. It was also suspected, understandably, that childhood trauma from world war II, was lurking in the background among some members of government and administration.
Both paragraphs are not backed by concrete sources, only 5 very general autobiographies, mainly refering to SPD or Green politians are given as source. We need an adequate reference from leading historians or politicians and they should be mentioned by name and proper citation. --Nillurcheier (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I added the OR-template to clarify this issue. --Nillurcheier (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  After one week there was not a single comment or explanation for these ammendments, neither by the author, nor by any other person. Since there is no proper sourcing and also no comparabel section in the German Wikipedia, I will revert them soon. --Nillurcheier (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions made by OggenheimerWise

message: The article has: In 1993, Kohl confirmed, via treaty with the Czech Republic, that Germany would no longer bring forward territorial claims as to the pre-1945 ethnic German Sudetenland. This treaty was a disappointment for the German Heimatvertriebene. I dispute that. There was (some) disagreement about relinquishing the claims in Poland; one of the sources given after these sentences explicitly talks about the "Polish side". These territories really had been German prior to the Second World War, and had been given to Polish administration for the time being, that is before a peace treaty, at Potsdam. This peace treaty then happened, under Kohl, in 1990/1991. - The Sudetenland on the other hand had (setting pre-16th century Egerland aside) always been Bohemian, including, it is true, the long time when Bohemia itself was part of multinational Austria; it had been confiscated at gunpoint by Hitler in 1938 and definitely renounced by Brandt in the 1970s (whereas Brandt renounced the Polish territories only "until a peace treaty by a united Germany"). After that, and after definitely renouncing the actual former Eastern territories to Poland in 1990/1991, I doubt anything Kohl did about the Sudetenland two years later raised as much as an eyebrow. (I hadn't myself heard about that to begin with.)--2001:A61:3A4A:2001:E57C:586B:95E0:8024 (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Sląsk and Pomorze were originally part of the Kingdom of Poland and later after fragmentation as slavic Piast and Griffin duchies, also the regions were inhabited by Slavs prior to German colonization. So, these land may have been "German prior to the Second World War", but they were not intrinsically "German", as a matter of fact Sląsk was Polish, Czech and Hungarian before it was "German", and I'm not sure what you mean by German... is that a reference to German colonists or German state? --E-960 (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

text: *Also, regarding the Czech Republic "claims"... there were (and to a small degree, still are) people in Germany, who believed that any lands on which there were Germans should be German. Just like in the 1930's the excuse for taking the Sudetenland was that they were "German" due to the German population there, and later the taking of Bohemia and Moravia was justified, because it was historically really part of the Holy Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire was really German (the 1st Reich), because it had an overwhelming German population. So, basically any excuse was used to justify territorial expansion. I guess, using that logic you could say that Germany by invading France was only trying to re-united East and West Francia to recreate the old Carolinian Empire (I assume that's why you had the SS Charlemagne division). In any case, in Czech Rep, as in Poland there were concerns Germany would try to use any excuse possible to argue that these territories should be returned to Germany and/or Germany should be compensated... oh, just like Khol said in his March comments (before he was slammed by US and USSR, and threatened with a halt to the re-unification, also it was politely implied that if in the future Germany tried that sort of thing it will be met with an armed intervention). --E-960 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *So, to sum up, the German re-unification was conditional on many levels. --E-960 (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Sudetenland, etc.

message: User:Nillurcheier, pls note that the article text and the image caption don't even bother to mention who Kohl was meeting with, never-mind the significance of the location. Btw, this DW article covers the meeting; mentioning its significance and the Kreisau Circle, however it does not included "Kreisau" as a German reference to Krzyżowa . At this point it's Krzyżowa, this is the only official name of the village. --E-960 (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krzyżowa  

message: I can't help but feel that this image is better suited for the infobox image because it appears to be an official portrait whereas the current one used looks more like a candid pic that could be used in a section talking about his last years in office. Thoughts? 2601:249:8E00:420:ECE5:2C89:626D:50C3 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC Infobox image