Talk:Foreign relations of Germany

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article contains information from WikiProject Library of Congress Country Studies, an attempt to incorporate useful information, text, and images from the Library of Congress Country Studies and the related Country Profiles. These are public domain documents with extensive information on many countries. You may see what other Germany-related contributions have been made by looking at the project's subpage for Germany, which tracks progress for articles on Germany, and look for what contributions you can make, including updates to this article.

can't we write that Germany has excellent relationships with its neighbouring countries or is this too much of an opinion and not factual enough? Andries 14:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gan we move this article to Foreign relations of the Federal Republic of Germany? Andries 14:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Whats that drug thing ? I don't think this fits here. The text about drugs doesn't even consist of full sentences. There are no references for the facts mentioned. In Germany these drugs are illegal, so it is unlikely that the german government is involved in that.

This page needs to be updated, Schröder isn't president any more. Cameron Nedland 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Just finished a lot of updating (including a new structure) - the old article was a joke. But some paragraphs needs some work

Feb 13 - 2006

[edit] "Centerpieces"

German Foreign policy is characterized by "Eckpfeiler" = corner pillars; this term doesnt fit in English language - "centerpieces" as in "Zentralstücke" better descibes what is "Eckpfeiler" is supposed to describe. Any better suggestions are apprechiated.

21 February 2006

Cornerstones of policy, perhaps? HAM 15:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

To the unidentified user: If you have important additions to this article or would like to participate in a discussion of the article, to register at Wikipedia. However, be aware that Vandalism is not tolerated at WP. According to the guidelines, "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." If you have questions about passages of the article or would like to discuss them, feel free to do so an the talk page. However, please refrain from mindlessly removing passages of the article without further explanation. Cheers, Something Wicked 22:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Da du entsprechend deiner Benutzerseite auch Deutsch sprichst kann ich Dir in Deutsch antworten:

• • bezgl "Vandalismus" -- dito: Ich habe zw Feb1 und Feb17 den gesamten Artikel aus der Versenkung geholt und jede unbegruendete Aenderung von diesem Text ist ein Vandalismus! insbesondere der Text auf dem Du bestehst!!!!!!
  • dieser Text ist ein inhaltlicher Spam; wie auch bereits im History-Logbuch durch meine nichtbeantwortete Frage deutlich gemacht! Nochmal fuer Dich: es sind nur rechtsextreme britische Kids die die Aussenpolitik andere Laender in den Dampfkreis ihres Landes setzen! England ist fuer die dt Aussenpolitik de facto so relevant wie Italien oder China und es ist Dreck wenn soetwas in den 2 satz dieses Artikels kommt! und es ist eine Schande dass ich setwas noch erklaeren muss !!!! die besten Gesundheitswuensche nach Bayern! 70.19.100.111 01:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dies ist die englische Wikipedia und es gibt hier Leute, die nicht deutsch sprechen, also würde ich doch bitten, bei Englisch zu bleiben. Ich werde es jedenfalls tun.

You are clearly arguing from a biased point-of-view, claiming tales about "extremist right-wing British kids". I'm sorry but I've got no idea what you are talking about. The sentence only states that Germany is considered a major power (as evident in the article of the same name; for sources see there) as well as Europe's primary regional power, along with the United Kingdom and France. This has nothing to do with Germany's foreign relations with the United Kingdom, it is just a statement about Germany's status in the world.

If you have any questions (sorry, I wasn't able to decipher your "question" and therefore couldn't answer it), please pose them on the article's talk page or on my own. By the way, I don't see how the UK could "get lost" in any way in "the first sentence" of this article. Sorry about that. ;)

Cheers, Something Wicked 22:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont say sorry for your "opinion" if you dont mean it! Again: Dont you see putting (to whatever content-wise extend it might be generally correct) that putting such a statement into such a position is making it prominent in a way 1) most Germans do not agree on (who cares about being a regional or major power and who cares about the relationship particularly to GB in this extend?) and 2) is distracting from Germanys very own European and Global affairs: Why do YOU (and tell me who else wants this!) need to put them into relation with other countries IN THE SECOND SENTENCE? Just leave that sentence alone! 162.84.192.14 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not express my opinion, I just emphasised that I have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to pose questions, you should consider phrasing them in a manner that everyone can understand. You seem to "know" quite a lot about the sentiments of the German people. Did not the majority of Germans support Gerhard Schröder's bid for a UN Security Council seat for Germany? What makes you think, that you, dear unidentified user, represent the opinion of the majority of Germans?

Anyway, it doesn't matter; an encyclopedic entry doesn't about foreign relations doesn't concern itself chiefly with what exactly the sentiments - if any - of the German people are on these matters. It's a fact that Germany is a major power in the world as well as one of Europe's foremost regional powers. Why should such a setence that explaints Germany's place in a geopolitical context, not be included in an article about the foreign relations of this country?

For example, the article about the Foreign relations of the United Kingdom states in the first sentence that "The United Kingdom is a major player in international politics, with interests throughout the world." The French article states: "A Major Power in international affairs, it wields considerable clout in especially African and Middle Eastern affairs." Foreign relations of India specifies India's role in the world ("The Republic of India, the second most populous country and one of the fastest growing economies in the world, is considered as a major power and a potential superpower.") like Foreign relations of Japan does for the State of Japan: "Despite the burst of the Japanese asset price bubble in the early 1990s and the subsequent slow economic growth, Japan remains a major economic and cultural power."

Despite having no arguments for your thesis (what exactly your thesis is, except an obvious personal dislike of the United Kingdom, I have not yet understood), you continue undoing edits. I will add some content in the near future to flesh out parts of the article and if you, again, begin reverting without sense or argument, I'll have to request semi-protection for the article (which, for me, looks rather childish - but WP cannot tolerate people trying to impose their personal biased point of view on the encyclopedia.). Cheers, Something Wicked 09:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Your argumentation is just wonderful!!! Flesh out whatever you like just dont put foreign nations in the second sentence! If you have to do the regional-power-status to make the article look more in line with others I have at least made my point how inappropriate it looks to me! 162.84.192.14 16:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)