Talk:Deutsche Welle

Implausible

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)

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)

Deutsche Welle had a Klingon page for the 10th anniversary of their online services: [1]. Kusma (討論) 09:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's bizarre but I don't know if It's appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Johnzw 16:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

"Deutsche Welle or DW is Germany's Nazi international broadcaster." Obviously not true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.81.235.41 (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

DW-TV Expands Arabic Programming

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2422669,00.html

DW on CBC Overnight

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)

Mideast conflict

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)

Recent Events

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)
Edit: For the "Nazi" quote this article(Der Spiegel) might work.Jack04 (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

The broadcast languages chart

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)

Full URL or "simplified" version as website parameter in infobox?

The infobox should usually display the website's full URL, not a "simplified" short version or a sub-domain. And "www" is actually a part of the complete official website URL, even if that's often ignored in informal usage ("dw.com" actually redirects to "www.dw.com"). The argument that "dw.com" is somehow simpler for readers than "www.dw.com" makes really no sense: "www" is a common well-known URL element by now. The better value for an encyclopedic context is the precise full URL. GermanJoe (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: thank you for your patience on my long delay in response. Hopefully I did not seem rude in my terse ES responses. Here is some rationale to my behavior:

1. HTTP is unneeded in the url template, and HTTPS would be preferable if it were there. If the Reader is not just clicking the link, and remembering it, just DW.com is shorter. Some wp articles don't even display the URL at all, just "official link" for example, which is worse. "WWW" is just a hold-over from days of yore (the 1990s).
2. If the link were something other than http/s, such as an FTP, I would expect the whole URL displayed.
3. Capitalization is usually easier to read. D.W. is the acronym, so DW.com

X1\ (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Tomorrow Today (TV series): Vehicles with helices

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)

Accusations of Satanism in the documentary about the metalheads of Botswana

Being a Satanist or a Whateverian is not a crime. If you rape, slay, steal you are a criminal.

Personal belief and metaphysical worldview isn't a crime.

DW didn't elaborate on that. "Accusations of Satanism". If believing in mythology A and not B if you don't hurt others why is it bad? Even if it is you have to elaborate on it!

Accusations of Satanism by the community (not DW). DW patronises us about ecology, and some religions; they don't patronise us equally in all matters. Biased patronizing and pseudokindness.

Some DW media is news and other DW media is propaganda

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tor-logo-2011-flat.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No mention of Transtel?

I was looking Wikipedia for info on Transtel (sometimes called Transtel Cologne), a TV channel from the 1960s-1980s I think. There seems to be nothing about it, so at least I mentioned in the corresponding disambig. Now, doing some research, I found that at some point it was merged into DW. Currently, DW has something called DW Transtel but I'm not sure what it is. If it's a separate signal, a subsidiary or what. Also, for reference, here's the WayBack Machine's record for the channel's website, for which the last live snapshot seems to be June 25, 2009, in which it already appears as "Transtel DEUTSCHE WELLE". Any help incorporating this info into the article will be welcome. --uKER (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The ARD website's archive section has some info on TransTel [2]: "A limited liability company founded jointly by ARD (including DW), ZDF and the Federal Republic of Germany in 1965 as a company for German television transcription under the name TransTel, which adapted, dubbed and distributed German television programs for foreign countries until its dissolution in 1998, mainly for African, Asian and Latin American countries, and since the early 1990s also for countries in Central and Eastern Europe. At the beginning of 1999, DW took over the editing, dubbing and distribution of programs supplied mainly by ARD and ZDF. In doing so, it is entitled to continue using the TransTel name. Today, partner broadcasters all over the world take over several hundred hours of programming in many languages each year under the DW Transtel label."

See also Telematch.

Apparently TransTel itself did not usually produce original programs. They adapted and distributed existing German public-broadcast programs for international audiences. So the disambiguation is likely helpful to some readers, although it's in fact not a TV channel. I've edited the disambiguation page, someone should review it. I'm not sure the information about TransTel is interesting enough to include in this article. Lullsswazi (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Public bradcasting

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)

@Jonny84: 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)

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)

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)

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)

Newest Logo ?

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..

• 
  Deutsche Welle logo #4 (2012–present)
• 
  Deutsche Welle logo #5 - "D" and "W" inside overlapping circles - Motto = Made for minds. ----~~~~

---

MountVic127 (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Bro, please do this for me 64.18.126.18 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)