Talk:Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classic liberal[edit]

"Its political orientation is classical liberal and conservative (as far as such description still makes sense today)" - the parenthesis should be removed, liberal and conservative politics in Germany have a long tradition. In contrast to the US, liberal and conservative are not opposing each other, instead they both have formed long coalitions, normally against left-winged social democratic and socialistic positions. See the corresponding articles for clarification. --Schoelle 10:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this newspaper isn't national conservative, it's only conservative. --80.128.95.190 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, as nobody objected. --Schoelle 07:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think such labelling should not be used in the first place. The best way to describe the FAZ's political line is to list the current seven (and up to 9) shareholders of the FAZIT private foundation, which owns the FAZ. --L.Willms (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Price[edit]

The newsstand price of the newspaper is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrodesIII (talk • contribs) 02:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Version[edit]

Does the FAZ have an English version or does anyone offer a translation of it's issues?

67.161.205.67 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know too. Is there an English version? This is a great newspaper and it should have one.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17.08.2007[edit]

"Kommt der Kreationismus aus der Bibel?Von Christian Link Die wissenschaftlichen Leiter des Bonner Museums Koenig, der großen naturhistorischen Sammlung, baten unlängst den Bochumer Theologen Christian Link um eine Stellungnahme in der Kreationismusdebatte. Wir dokumentieren den Vortrag leicht gekürzt. --86.218.110.149 (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Eine biblische Lehre von der Schöpfung, die sich auch nur entfernt mit dem kohärenten Wissen moderner Naturerkenntnis vergleichen ließe, gibt es nicht. Von der Schöpfung wird in der Bibel erzählt. Erzählungen aber bewegen sich im ...[reply]

F.A.Z. vom 18.08.2007 2158 Wörter 


 Dieser Beitrag ist für eingeloggte Abonnenten der Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung frei zugänglich.

Sie können sich in der linken Spalte direkt einloggen.


Auch wenn Sie die F.A.Z. nicht abonniert haben, können Sie diesen Beitrag zum Preis von 2,00 € für 24 Stunden nutzen 

 Abrechnung über Firstgate "

86.115.13.145 12:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Faz logo.png[edit]

Image:Faz logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Famous writers[edit]

Richard Sorge a correspondent for the FAZ ? Very funny.

Frankfurter Rundschau[edit]

"The F.A.Z. is one of several high-profile national newspapers in Germany (along with Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt, Die Zeit, Frankfurter Rundschau and die Tageszeitung) ..." I don't know whether the Frankfurter Rundschau is still among the high-profile national newspapers in Germany after many years of decline and filing for insolvency in 2012. It is still being printed, though. Ironically, the remnants of this clearly left-leaning newspaper are now (or in the near future) controlled by its local rival FAZ, which promised not to change the political orientiation. 92.230.58.118 (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such labelling is always questionable. I would suggest just to report the sales numbers or the number of printed copies, and if the sales are spread nationwide or only in a given region. And the circulation of all print media is declining, the FAZ and Süddeutsche and NYT, and every other printed newspaper sells much less printed copies today than 10 years ago.
The FR (Frankfurter Rundschau) is still living three years after the insolvency. Economically controlled by the Frankfurter Societät and FAZ, but editorially independed as per company statues. FAZ took over the FR for two reasons: a) to close the FRs printing works, which was one of Germany's most modern and largest in order to salvage their own printing enterprise; and b) to get the FR's subscriber and reader base for their regional advertisement sales company RheinMainMedia. --L.Willms (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent introduction[edit]

The first paragraph of the current version says that the FAZ "is a national left wing German newspaper". The third paragraph says "The newspaper has a slight centre-right or conservative bias". I appreciate that someone might have tried to make two not necessarily contradictory points here, but I don't think that the paper can be left wing and have a centre-right bias at the same time. Could someone with more familiarity with German newspapers and politics please do something about this paradox? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.223.173 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orientation[edit]

The first two sentences of the paragraph:

"The F.A.Z. promotes an image of making its readers think."

According to whom? And how do they promote this "image"?

"The truth is stated to be sacred to the F.A.Z., so care is taken to clearly label news reports and comments as such."

Where is the source? Where is it stated? Care is taken, how?

I think it's better to keep such kind of sentences out. They only confuse the reader, and they only create bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.161.133 (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 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:

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) 13:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. 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:

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) 19:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting the abbreviation[edit]

The abbreviated name of this paper appears both with and without periods and in both straight and italic type at various points in the article. Which format should we use? --Khajidha (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, I'm just a reader. It's common to read and speak FAZ, like BBC, but the paper insists on the dots, - in a way we need both, italics when used as a newspaper's name. It has been proposed (today, not by me) to move the article to FAZ (newspaper), which might be a good idea if we go for common international name [1], [2], [3], linguee.de translate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "like BBC" do you mean that the abbreviation is spoken as a string of individual letters? "The paper insists on the dots". I'm not sure how much influence the German language formatting would have on English language formatting. "Italics when used as a newspaper's name". Could you explain what other uses you are contrasting this with? --Khajidha (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to q1, many speak it pronouncing the individaul letters, less fancy people pronounce it one syllable. The paper has/had the dots in it own publications, but now runs faz.net.de. Compare a party with dots, de:Freie Demokratische Partei, F.D.P. from 1068 to 2001 (which the English article doesn't mention, at least not in the lead). An abbreviation, when introduced, should probably not be italic, - but I confess I never know about italics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frankfurter_Allgemeine_Zeitung&oldid=1213823880"