Talk:Sigmar Gabriel

Prime minister vs. minister-president

why does en.wiki call all German Ministerpräsidenten minister-president exept for the Ministerpräsidenten of Lower Saxony which en.wiki calls prime minister - that does not make much sence doesn't it?178.210.114.106 (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hallo Breidten, Hallo Briten, Hallo Britten, Hallo Beid

Bei Euch auf dem " Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland", Britannien, London, Vereinigtes Königreich, United Kingdom, Wales, Schottland, Ireland leben 17.000.000 Millionen Menschen "Yes Brexit". "Die sagen all, wir leben auf der Insel im Atlantik" (siehe Karte https://www.google.se/maps/@52.8061121,-1.2638921,397089a,35y,270h/data=!3m1!1e3). Der Deutsche Bundestag hat ein Bundesgesetz verabschiedet, die Europäische Union ist sich nicht einig (EU-Kommission sagt JA, Europäisches Parlament sagt NEIN), dass die 35 Millionen Menschen die vom Deutschen Staat bezahlt werden (25 Millionen deutsche Rentner) auf der Insel (ohne Ireland) in den Monaten Juni 2017, Juli 2017, August 2017, September 2017' fuer jedes Auto 50 Pfund und fuer jede Person 50 Pfund pro Person pro Tag (24 Stunden) (100 Pfund) bezahlen muessen fuer eine nach Deutschen Vorbild Jahr 2017 per Bundesgesetz verabschiedete Infrastrukturabgabe (Fahrzeug (PKW, LKW, BUS)- Maut) bezahlen sollen. Eine Bahnfahrt von Hamburg (SPD) nach Muenchen (CSU) bei der Deutschen Bahn (deutschebahn.de; db.de) kostet pro Person 120 Euro (Zugfahrtzeit 5-6 Stunden ICE) 192.121.232.253 (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"Devoted crypto-fascist"?

I don't speak German, so I didn't want to mess around with the citation without knowing what it says, but it seems like this part should be removed from the "early life and family" section:

"and, in honor of his father, devoted crypto-Fascist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:9205:E00:418C:42E6:FA7B:C227 (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sigmar Gabriel. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160621174812/http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/germany-s-socialists-russia-s-fascism-and-ukrainian-deaths to http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/germany-s-socialists-russia-s-fascism-and-ukrainian-deaths

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sigmar Gabriel. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830195700/http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/abgeordnete17/biografien/G/gabriel_sigmar.html to http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/abgeordnete17/biografien/G/gabriel_sigmar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the following information belong to Sigmar Gabriel#Arms exports

The outgoing administration has approved more weapons sales than any other in the history of the German Federal Republic.

A Wikipedia editor I know from German Wikipedia already has deleted the whole information about the increase in arms sales, so I only restored the old information (i.e. the information before my edit) to avoid an edit war and retain the bigger part of the information. But I think that my information is based on a reliable source (Deutsche Welle) and does belong to that section.--Nov3rd17 (talk) 12:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not belong there! The german government is not a dictatorship where the viewpoint of one person is the same as the governments viewpoint. Just because the government did XY and Sigmar Gabriel is part of the government doesn't mean he fully supports XY! Especially if the sentence starts with "Merkel's government has approved..." I strongly doubt that here is the right place for this information. --TheRandomIP (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

First but of minor importance here, so I type it in small: As you were the one responsible for my block in German Wikipedia and couldn't resist to bring it up in your edit summary here. Your edits of Peter Tauber in September 2017 in German Wikipedia were clear edit warring. (In English Wikipeda your edit was unopposed: Peter Tauber#Insulting mini jobbers.) And you couldn't resist to bring up again his one sentence failure -- where he made a mistake (or confessed what the higher-ups think about the common people, others might say), but he's not the one who's responsible for the deterioration of social security, called Hartz IV! In German Wikipedia you finally re-added it on 31 December 2017, months after the former edit-war. Why are Gabriel's deeds regarding weapons exports, the big fish, exempt from criticism and Tauber, who got seriously ill and whose presumed misdeed consists of only one sentence so important for your criticism? That's incomprehensible for me! --Nov3rd17 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And now to Mr Gabriel. According to German law, the minister for economics has to approve the arms sales. Without his approval there would have been no arms exports increases (or no arms exports at all, but that would be unrealistic, he would have been fired by the chancellor in that case).

So it was in his responsibility (albeit not his responsibility alone, that's clear!) that the arms exports increased by 21%. Whereby the sum of all exports declined by 6.3%, so the share of arms exports increased by the factor 1.21/(1-0.063)=1.29 i.e. by 29%. And the German ARD had a reportage, that Rheinmetall, the leading German arms company exported via its factory in Sardinia bombs used in the Yemen war and via South Africa they even shipped a whole weapons factory to Saudi-Arabia. See Bombs for the world (in German) So the official numbers are underestimating the real volume of arms exports of German industry.

Mr Gabriel has said that he's against arms exports and the numbers report what he has achieved.

Last but not least: Have you ever watched the Milgram Experiment about the dilemma of effectively refusing orders? If not: Youtube link. There are three people shown in the video who finally said no and acted accordingly. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why Peter Tauber has anything to do with this. Once again your bring up stories that have nothing to do with this article and this is exactly the reason why you have been banned from the german Wikipedia. Please don't escalate it again. Stay on the topic, which is the article about Sigmar Gabriel.

You say that Gabriel is responsible for the increase in arms exports but in the article it was written otherwise. It said "Merkel's government has approved..." and this has clearly nothing to do with the person Gabriel. In fact if you read the sources you will find: "Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who heads the Social Democrats, had tried to stop the delivery to Qatar but was outvoted by other ministers on Germany's Federal Security Council." So if you want to expand this article, please read the sources, then find out what affects Gabriel as a person and what affects the government in general and then only add those information that actually affect Gabriel to the article. And please explain why something affects Gabriel right in the article, so that other readers, who are not an expert in german politics, can see the relations.

And I don't care if you or someone else added this to the article. This paragraph was misleading, it was only little related to Gabriel and even this small relation was not even explained. Therefore I removed it. --TheRandomIP (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

O.K. then here is an article of Die Zeit with his name linked verbatim even in the headline. Sigmar Gabriel: Der Rüstungsminister. As we are here in English Wikipedia I found it more appropriate to link an English text from Deutsche Welle. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. What Gabriel voted for in the Germany's Federal Security Council is mere rumor, because its sessions are secret. Please read Rüstungsexporte Ein Rekord, den keiner gewollt haben will: "Damit bleibt unklar, wer wie abgestimmt hat." ("This leaves it unclear who has voted how.") And according to §11(2)Nr.4 Krieswaffenkontrollgesetz the minister of economics is normally the one responsible for approval. I must admit, that I was in error that he could have prevented that like Mr Sessions could resist Mr Trumps orders regarding Mr Mueller. But to overrule the minister is very unusual (according to many accounts in the press, e.g. "Per Amtes für den Export von deutscher Rüstungstechnik zuständig war damals Sigmar Gabriel als Bundeswirtschaftsminister." in the Die Zeit article obove) and he could have said: If I loose that authority I, the chairman of the SPD, will quit this post! (With or without the break of the coalition.) --Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And according to [http://dipbt.bundestag.de/doc/btd/18/057/1805773.pdf §1(1)sentence 3 in addition with §26 GG and §11 Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz, the security council cannot decide alone! --Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

We are now touching WP:OR. We should only include things that are published by secondary sources (i.e. newspapers or books). The article from Die Zeit is quite nice as it considers the whole picture and not just single events. I think it can be used to expand the article if done in a neutral way. --TheRandomIP (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

And can you please stop using meta sites like Third Opinion this early? You initial post there was 18:09, 4 March 2018, at which the discussion here has just started! I know you always ignore rules (e.g. "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page.") but please stop wasting other user's time! --TheRandomIP (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Should the content till Feb. 20 in section "arms exports" be part of the article?

The user TheRandomIP wants to have it out, I disagree with that. Therefore I ask for others to look at it. --Nov3rd17 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've read the above and would appreciate some clarifications: What sources does each of you have, irrespective of language, to support their position? Please quote as accurately as you can in English. Also, could you please summarize your understanding of the relationship between the office of the German Minister of Foreign Affairs and the exportation of arms from Germany? François Robere (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The only thing you have to know is that the paragraph and their cites sources said "Merkel's government has approved XY" and from there it is clear that a conclusion like "and therefore Gabriel supports XY" (which is indirectly implied if something is written in a paragraph about Gabriels political positions) is invalid in terms of WP:SYNTH. Please note that the discussion is not finished yet as we are still exchanging arguments and trying to come up with a solution (e.g. rephrasing or using better sources that actually support the conclusion "and therefore Gabriel supports XY"). User Nov3rd17 is known to use meta sites like Third Opinion way too early (and he has been banned repeatedly for misusing meta sites, just saying...) Therefore I think it's too early to make a final decision. Sorry... --TheRandomIP (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: The War Weapons Control Act refines article 26 of the federal constitution. Arms exports must be authorized by the federal government. The federal government, i.e. the chancellor and the ministers decide by default as a body but can delegate that decision to the minister for economics and technology affairs, see section 11(2) number 4. And that was usually the case, that the minister of technology and economics had that authority. But responsiblities are now blurred with the federal security council (de:Bundessicherheitsrat), consisting of the chancellor and key ministers (including the minister for economics) where advance-decisions are made. Before chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the security council (whose meetings are secret) had to decide unanimously. So the minister for economics could at least prevent an arms deal. Now it decides by majority. It's unclear if the minster for economics can in practice oppose that decision. Sigmar Gabriel, who was chairman of the SPD and vice chancellor and minister for economics in the first 3 years (in the last he changed to minister for foreign affairs) said that he wants to reduce the arms exports, but the contrary occurred, they rose to an all time high whereby the whole exports decreased. But it is claimed that he has been outvoted in the federal security council. But most press articles still treat him as the one most responsible for the arms exports, e.g. Massive criticism of Sigmar Gabriel Arms exports on record course (2015) --Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

As I have already told you, if you have sources that criticize Gabriel for an increase in arms exports, you can add this to the article. The previous section in the article did not cite such sources. Just make a proposal instead of wasting other users time by unnecessary early inquiries to Third Opinion. We are not that far away from each other. --TheRandomIP (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Coalition governments vary considerably in their operation, depending on composition, political culture and legal requirements. This results in cases where a minister that has a de jure right to block or approve a certain policy, is de facto bound by some governmental arrangement, including in some cases the coalition agreement itself. In such cases the minister in question often compromises, for whatever reasons. This does not imply support, but it certainly implies responsibility; not complete, not sole, but responsibility nonetheless. Most of the removed text belong in Foreign policy of the Angela Merkel government or some similar article, but an implication of partial responsibility can be made here (eg. "failed to prevent", "has been criticized by"). I propose the following as an example, based on the revised current text: Gabriel is bound by pledges to his SPD to reduce arms sales to states that abuse human rights and the rule of law or where such sales may contribute to political instability. He has stated that controls over the final destination of small arms sold to such nations are still insufficient, and vowed a much more cautious approach to licensing arms exports, unnerving the sizeable defense industry and signaling a change in policy from the previous coalition government under which sales rose. However, he also indicated that the government would not universally block deals with countries outside of Germany's traditional alliances. Deals with such countries could be approved because of "special foreign-policy or security interests." Gabriel has been criticized by opposition leaders for failing to prevent several deals that resulted in a significant rise in German arms exports during his tenure. Gabriel has suggested that in the future the Federal Foreign Office may be a more appropriate body for deciding whether to allow exports, and called for common European arms exports controls. Notable deals decided during his tenure In August 2014, Gabriel withdrew permission for Rheinmetall to build a military training center east of Moscow. In late 2015, his ministry approved a merger of German tank maker Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) with the French armoured vehicle maker Nexter. Note that the "deals" section is lacking both content and a connection to the rest of the section, which makes it more appropriate for a subsection. François Robere (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This goes in the right direction. I would support the addition of "Gabriel has been criticized by opposition leaders for failing to prevent several deals that resulted in a significant rise in German arms exports during his tenure." to the article. However, I think it has to be discussed whether a separate section "Notable deals decided during his tenure" makes sense. Not only is merger not related to arms export (should be removed from the article altogether) but also can this draw an incomplete picture. For example he may have withdrew permission for Rheinmetall which is a single but notable event. However, at the same time he may have approved many smaller deals not notable enough in isolation but in combination exceed the volume of all the single, notable events. I would just leave it as it is and not create a separate section. --TheRandomIP (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The section as-is, I think, needs a bit more work: both paragraphs start with essentially the same topic - a reservation regarding arms sales - but continue in separate directions, with the deals being somewhat out-of-place in both (I'm not sure the first is an example of unusual caution, and the latter of unusual leniency). Hence my suggestion of either tying everything more neatly, or separating the deals from the explanation. François Robere (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see. I'd prefer to go the other direction and make the deals more connected to the rest of the chapter. But I think the Rheinmetall deal is already somewhat connected because it is temporally close to his announcement of a "more cautious approach"; to what it is already connected in the paragraph. The Krauss-Maffei Wegmann deal should be removed altogether, because as far as I can see here the question is not about arms export but about fair trading (cartel); remember Gabriel was head of the ministry of economics which includes much more than just arms exports. I you have no obligations I would implement the things we already agree on which is the addition of one sentence (and the removal of the Krauss-Maffei Wegmann deal if you'd also agree on this). --TheRandomIP (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with one inclusion (only highlighted here) : "Gabriel has been criticized by opposition leaders and the press for failing to prevent several deals that resulted in a significant rise in German arms exports during his tenure." and a press article (in English language) as source. Is that agreeable? --Nov3rd17 (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Which source do you mean exactly? --TheRandomIP (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

German Weapons Exports Reached Highest Level on Record in 2015 or 14-Year High: German Arms Exports Peak or The New Arab: German arms exports to Arab, Middle Eastern countries surge amid conflict or World: Germans up in arms about weapons sales to Turkey and others (Washington Post) and so on .. or best my first source: Germany's cabinet approved record-breaking arms exports (dw.com) --Nov3rd17 (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see critique by the press of minister Gabriel. As far as I can see, the press only reports about critique that others have voiced (in specific the opposition parties the Left and the Greens). Therefore I would not support the addition of "and the press". --TheRandomIP (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The articles in German language are critical: like Sigmar Gabriel: Der Rüstungsminister from Die Zeit. Or: Rüstungsexporte: Wie Gabriel seine Glaubwürdigkeit verspielt (But Google translation has formatting issues with both.) --Nov3rd17 (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, these sources actually support the addition, so I am no longer against it. It's important that the claims in the article are supported by sources, even if the sources are in a different language. What's the point of having an english source when the content does not support your text? --TheRandomIP (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

References