Talk:Germany–United States relations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germany–United States relations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

International relations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Allied-occupied Germany#American Zone of Occupation|major role]] The anchor (#American Zone of Occupation) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Anti-Americanism#"Liberators" poster'']]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Locator map

Does someone have a chance to get a Germany-USA Locator world map? Would be nice.

Thanks

Is not are

I changed "United States are" to "United States is", in order to bring this article up to date with post-American Civil War conventions.

Well, I guess it's right, but it's stupid however

No, it is NOT - does one say 'the Soviet Union are' - of course not.50.111.31.53 (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

karl may banned in the gdr?

this clearly needs a source, and an information on how long the ban lasted (maybe it was in the first years or so, but later the books were readily avaliable and widely read)...

Further deterioration of relations

It seems that the relations have deteriorated even further, see Germany Denounces The United States Under Trump’s Leadership, Releases Historic Statement. There are also links to other related news sources within the text.

Perhaps this development of events should be incorporated into the article. 109.60.39.114 (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative PR photo of Trump and Merkel

This image doesn't really add anything substantial to the current article. It has no direct contextual significance in a nearby section, and it doesn't add any new information about the topic. Even worse, as a staged PR photo it is actively misrepresenting the difficult relations between Germany and the current US administration, and it is certainly not representative for a topic that is supposed to cover over 300 years of German-American relations (see also WP:RECENTISM). I have removed the image again, but of course other opinions and additional feedback are welcome. GermanJoe (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move the image to the section "Post-1990". –Vami♜_IV♠ 19:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done that, thank you for the suggestion. The image itself is still not great, but that's atleast an improvement. GermanJoe (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on lead image

There is a clear consensus that File:Angela Merkel and Donald Trump in the Oval Office, March 2017.jpg should not be used as the article's lead image because, as summarized by Black Falcon, "it gives undue weight to the last 2 years of German–American relations".
There is no consensus for or against including the image in the "Post-1990" section owing to the lack of discussion specifically about that and the split opinion among editors who did discuss it, so there is no prejudice against a new RfC to specifically discuss inclusion in the "Post-1990" section.
Cunard (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should File:Angela Merkel and Donald Trump in the Oval Office, March 2017.jpg be used as lead image, or in the later "Post-1990" section, or not at all for this article? GermanJoe (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate your order of preference for the listed alternatives. As I rarely do RfCs, please feel free to fix eventual syntax or procedural errors. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the thread above with additional thoughts, this is a bland and staged press photo that is not representative for the current American-German relations, let alone for the entire article topic covering 300+ years of relations. It also fails the guidance of WP:RECENTISM with an undue and unencyclopedic focus on the current situation. This image should not be used, or only in the "Post-1990" as a reasonable compromise suggestion. GermanJoe (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not representative of the entire article. Move it out of No. 1 position. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Germany Coordinator speaking. Move the picture out of the lead position. There is already that template there and, per above comment, it is not representative of the whole article. Move it to the most relevant section, "Post-1990". Per German Joe's reply to my comment, replace with better-quality photo if possible. I nominate this one, by Jesco Denzel (might be in fullscreen when you open this link). –Vami♜_IV♠ 23:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great shot of course and it was somewhat iconic in critical reporting about this particular conference, but unless the photographer releases the image for free usage we can't use such a photo here. GermanJoe (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from the lead, as it gives undue weight to the last 2 years of German–American relations. No opinion on whether to use elsewhere in the article. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove it altogether from the article. The photo is from the oval office in March 2017, the para in post-1990 section is about Trump's meeting with EU leaders in Brussels, May 2017. If there is no content in the article discussing their March 2017 meeting, it doesn't belong in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove entirely, or only use in the "Post-1990" - Agree with rationale from GermanJoe. NickCT (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in to agree with GermanJoe's rationale. KeseysGarageSale (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but I've provided a cropped verion, above, which is better than the original, in the context of this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Is usable in the article - but is a staged press photo op (and one would assume of no particular lasting value once Merkel/Trump are out of office - it isn't as if the relationship between the two (to date) has been a defining one). I would prefer to see a more interesting photo in the lead.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the lead per WP:recentism, and several other reasons. They also seem to swap their hand gestures in the photo for some reason. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 12:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

kristallnacht

The section suggesting that "The key event was American revulsion against Kristallnacht" is simply not backed up by the cited text, which states "Six months after the November pogrom, a poll published in Fortune magazine revealed that 83 percent of Americans were against changing immigration quotas to allow more Europeans into the nation. Legislation proposed by senators Robert Wagner and Edit Rogers just after Kristallnacht to bring 20,000 German refugee children under the age of 14 to the United States never made it out of committee. Moreover, thousands of endangered Jews who might have secured refuge under existing quotas were denied entry into the country due to the barriers raised by bureaucratic officials, many of whom were antisemitic. When reports of mass killings of German Jews began trickling through government institutions and the media, they were often greeted with disbelief".

Note that I'm not making any judgement on this, many countries including my own behaved similarly appallingly, I'm simply objecting to the simplistic statement and the abuse of citation that I don't believe says what the citer represents. gwinkless (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion regarding Nazi Germany and US government policy turned sharply negative after Kristallnacht. The article is about US -German relations and that statement is true. It's also true--and a separate issue-- that policy regarding Jewish refugees did not change--but that is a separate topic covered by History of antisemitism in the United States and related articles such as Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, third and fourth terms#Reaction to the Holocaust, Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt#Failure to do enough for the Jews of Europe, Franklin D. Roosevelt#Jews, MS St. Louis, Hillel Kook, We Will Never Die etc . Rjensen (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]