Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 02:54, 21 July 2024

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

IDGR frequently blamed to be Far-left

see the german article the english article is based on, have a look at the history , have a look at the discussion history (Yes, they realy do reverts on the discussion) too. IDGR claims to be anti-Fascist, its oponents say it is Ultra leftism. (Not my personal opinion, I do share none of them) Foreigner 15:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

New passage is a translation; sources see german article

pleases goto

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#IDGR_needs_care_and_a_good_translator_german_-.3E_english

and, if you like compare it with the orgiginal lemma http://de.wikipedia.org/Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus

you are more than welcome to proof the history and the facts if u can read german, for sample http://de.wikipedia.org/Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus

of course, there's a little debate too, u can also find a plenty of sources there http://de.wikipedia.org/Diskussion:Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus

Wish you a lot of fun retracing the evolutionary history of the lemma. I haven't got the nerve for never ending debates with Slim about obviously evident facts, please see the history and discussion of David Icke and the "doubts" concerning ayahuasca. Will give you a better understanding bout slims "approach". Thanks for attention and goodbye. Foreigner 07:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreigner, if you want to edit the English Misplaced Pages, you have to edit in accordance with our policies. We need sources for any contentious edits. See WP:V and WP:NOR. SlimVirgin 07:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The sources are all given. See above and proof it if you are able to read german. Foreigner

But, alas!, I'll give you a original source which is also quoted in the German Article, please see

• Kritik am IDGR von Claus Wolfschlag, einem Publizisten der Neuen Rechten

in translation it means roughly speaking

• criticism concerning the IDGR by Claus Wolfschlag, a publicist who is conciderd to be New Right

Foreigner 07:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We need them in this article, not in the German one. Please review our content policies. SlimVirgin 07:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

see the source by Claus Wolfschlag I've postet above. Please also note, Claus Wolfschlag is not just anybody but quite an important Person of the New Right in the Federal Republic of Germany Foreigner 07:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going on here. Please place sources in the article, either in the form of footnotes or Harvard references. Not on the talk page. SlimVirgin 07:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going on here either. Sorry of being used to work in a different way sometimes for I'm only used to the regulations and policies of the italian and the german wikipedia. Editing there is much less complicated then here and nearly every source is given on the talk pages; hope I didn't give offense by not knowing every little detail right off the bat.

Please note also, that the existing article hasn't got a single source as yet, exept the link to the IDGR-Website and thus would urgently need the category 'Category:Articles with unsourced statements

I would suggest you (ore somebody else) implement the references in the article - if you like to - or we'll let the lemma unworked as it is. It's really up to you now. Ciao, forse alla prossima volta Foreigner 08:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

unwarranted edit war

User:I like Burke's Peerage edit summary:

"for sample there's an achieved and very well worked out consensous about the sample Silvio Gesell. Altogether your edits are to be considerd a deterioration, awfully sorry"

Gesell isn't mentioned here, a consensus can only be achieved on talp. If you mean a(r)chieved, please give me the link.

Most blatant of the contended edits:

"There are also files on persons who are not at first glance to be described as right wing extremists or antisemites, such as Silvio Gesell.<ref>The IDGR insists in Silvio Gesell being an antisemite (notwithstanding some of Gesells closest comrades-in-arms such as Berta Heim und Ernst Frankfurth where jews) </ref>"

1. It's not up to wikipedians to judge who is "at first glance to be described as" whatever. That's WP:OR
2. "notwithstanding some of Gesells closest comrades-in-arms...": A WP:POV qualifier infering (WP:OR) on the source's legitimacy.
3. "very well worked out", "Altogether your edits are to be considerd...": opining without reasoning.

Particularly the Gsell issue is in disregard of elementary WP principles. --tickle me 12:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As I yust told you in the field for "Edit summaries" your changes are very unhappy ones. I like Burke's Peerage 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC) And please note: if anything ist to be considered blatant, it's that barefaced edit I like Burke's Peerage 15:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"your changes are very unhappy ones": that's no answer as it gives no reasoning whatsoever.

"if anything ist to be considered blatant, it's that barefaced edit": I fail to understand your wording - I reasoned my edit referring to corresponding WP rules: WP:OR and WP:POV, as I elaborated above. Where does "barefaced" come in, if not as incivility?

Related: why don't you react when you willfully distort sources, foisting Neo-Nazi's allegations into a reputable Historian's mouth? --tickle me 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Query

Does anyone know what's meant by "democratically inclined groups"? SlimVirgin 23:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is used as a source to say that Wolfschlag alleges that the allegations are used only to defame, or similar wording. Can someone point me to the sentences in the source that say that, please? SlimVirgin 23:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"democratically inclined groups" means "weaselese" in English :-). Earnestly, I could plaster some fact tags into the article, however, I'll expand and source it, ugh, later.

"Can someone point me to the sentences in the source ": It's the second sentence in this paragraph (the only) dealing with IDGR:

Man nehme den Weltnetz-"Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus" (IDGR), herausgegeben von Margret Chatwin als Beispiel, wie weit der Medieneinfluß gediehen ist. Dienlich ist diese Weltnetz-Seite vor allem der öffentlichen Anprangerung unliebsamer rechtsstehender Personen. Ein Blick auf die beim IDGR vorgestellten mitwirkenden Autoren verweist auf den weitreichenden Einfluß von "antifaschistischen" Leitbildern auf Autoren in bedeutenden Institutionen und Medien: Neben "Maegerle" findet man zum Beispiel Uwe Ruprecht, journalistisch tätig beim Norddeutschen Rundfunk, bei der Zeit oder dem Hamburger Abendblatt, ebenso Julika Bürgin, vorgestellt als Bildungsreferentin beim DGB-Bildungswerk Thüringen e.V. und viele andere. Auch Künstler und Musike, beispielsweise beim "Rock gegen Rechts", können sich profilieren, indem sie ihre mittelmäßigen Arbeitenunter das Motto "gegen Rechts" stellen. Etwas gutmeinende Medienöffentlichkeit und ein kleiner Stiftungspreis stehen so in Aussicht.

(This internet site is mainly used to denounce publicly disliked persons of the right)

OT - Funny wording of his: Weltnetz ("teutonised" for internet) is Neo-Nazi parlance - he claims to be ..."democratically inclined". The motto is Klick-Heil im Weltnetz. --tickle me 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't use Pen names

Margret Chatwin is a (weak) Pen name only. In fact her name is Anna Margret Bezold-Chatwin. Bezold-Chatwin can be found here http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//k/koch.manfred/1996/koch.1096.de ; please also compare http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/wir/weg/weg_log.html) Byzanz

By the way on the discussion page I found an IP-contribution

Nice additional information. Margret here claims that Misplaced Pages.de has stolen her material. -> keiner dieser dreisten Klauer, die so nach und nach alles vom IDGR - weil ja frei im Netz zugänglich - nach Misplaced Pages rüberschaufelten, zeigt eine Reaktion. Neben 1:1 Raubkopien, auf die ich jedesmal nach stichprobenartiger Prüfung mit mehrmonativem Intervall gestoßen bin, gab es eben die Fälle, in denen am Text ein wenig gefeilt wurde, während man in der Regel die von mir zusammengestellten bibliographischen Angaben, wie auch Zitate gerne übernahm, ganz so, als hätte man sich mit dieser Literatur tatsächlich befasst! Byzanz

Changes

The article here was obviously written with the POV of German users who were not successful in trying to include that POV in the German version in the past (like the above who tries to expose personal dates which have nothing to do with the subject). I corrected it as good as possible because IDGR is closed and we have to rely on secundary sources. Reasons for the new versions were given in the summaries. All last changes under IP came from me, I only forgot to log in. Jesusfreund 16:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete any relevant information. We never ever lie to our readers. This includes not to keep quiet about the fact, that an editor in chief always wrote pseudonymously. By the way: google can bee helpfull , and detailed. Regards Byzanz 07:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as "facts" are concerned

Friend of Jesus demanded: These facts are sourced in the German article on IDGR, please trust, I am participant of it as a German use.

I don't care what he regards to be souced on wiki.de. We need the soruces here and we need it as a citation in the text. I also can't see, why anybody should trust a person in advance only because he claims to be participant of it as a German user. But if the user calling himself "friend of jesus" should be willing to cite and quote correctly, he's more than welcome to deliver reputable quotes here. Regards Byzanz

Reasons

"Don't delete facts":

• "The Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus (IDGR) has been a privately financed German project on the Internet set up to counter anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial...": right wing extremism was deleted without reason.
• "...similar to the Nizkor Project" was restored although untrue and not sourced. Policy of IDGR was definitely different, it did not counter Holocaustdenial by answering Holocaustdeniers postings and countering them in newsgroups etc.; there was no direct dialogue with them at all.
• The former name of the editor was restored although without any relevance to the project itself - that it is a "penname" was not sourced and is irrelevant for the matter, too.
• "IDGR was widely regarded as the main German-language source of information on right-wing extremism": "widely regarded" by whom? Unsourced. There is no scientific statistics on how much IDGR was used in comparison to other German websites for right wing information.

• "Mission" was restored without reason: a POV expression. Better be called "purpose" or "goal".

• "Groups associated with German New Right..." was restored without source. Sources give only evidence for single critics, not groups.

• "After almost all former assistant authors of IDGR had left the project...": "almost all" is not sourced and probably untrue because IDGR had more than 40 co-authors, redok doesn't. And only some of them are identical with former IDGR-co-authors: These were also working for other projects against right wing extremism at the time they worked for IDGR (f.e. Maegerle and others), so to leave IDGR was nothing specific indicating disconsent with IDGR.

• "...because of internal fractionalism" was not sourced. Quarrels between editor and some co-authors don't have to indicate "fractionalism".

• "moaned" is POV-expression, unnnecessary.

• "Further reading" did not give further readings but only the final declaration of the editor: better linked as reference for the quote.

• External links only cite critics, not supporters of IDGR: POV.

• Section "Support" was completely deleted although exactly sourced: POV-intention obvious and unacceptable. Jesusfreund 09:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is to be blamed if he can't understand English well enough to contribute. But it would be nice to look up misunderstood words in a dictionary to inform about what's for sample a "mission"; the lemma Mission statement is helpfull too. Byzanz

Just add "allegedly" and most of the stuff can go. On the other hand how credible are sources like the IDGR anyway?! Was it not just a smear page against political dissidents garnished with some journalistic techniques?! --41.30.248.74 (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Chatwin and her friends are involved in the conflict here

As you might have seen, User:Steschke wiped out the correct IDGR-editors name. Plesase let me remark that that steschke got a german account too. An IP has edited his archives there. Having a closer look on the IP 129.187.15.196 you can see, it is the same IP who signed as Margret Chatwin reproaching wikipedia with plagiarism which also edited steschkes german archives. So we arrive at a conclusion that Steschke either is Magret Bezold-Chatwin or a very close frind of her.

This can easily bee proven:

Please allow me to show in short that Jesusfriend and Steschke are buddy-buddy. Steschke always allowed Jesusfreund to edit his site, please see , for sample. The exclamation mark you see always has been a code for Steschke to go to action. Regards Byzanz

Oh, what a bad hoax

It was tried to establish Andreas K. as an reputable historian without giving any sources for his "reputableness". Of course I've done away with the hoax. Pitohui

Encyclopedic content must under all circumstances be verifiable. The German Lemma and it's partial translation can't be verified. Please excuse me wirting German:

Der deutschsprachige IDGR-Text ist ein Musterbeispiel für Adminwillkür. All diejenigen, die kritisch hinterfragt hatten, ob Magret Chatwins private Hetz- und Meinungsseite tatsächlich gegen Nazismus gerichtet war, wurden langfristig von politisch linkslastigen Admins und Chatwinfreunden kaltgestellt. Heraus kam ein extrem antifa-orientiertes Lemma, das praktisch ausschließlich von Chatwin-Freunden unbehelligt bearbeitet wurden durfte.

I strongly suggest to source every little detail with sources in form of harvard-citations or delete details which can't be verified. Quellnymphe 09:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that users which are banned indefinitely on German Misplaced Pages abuse this site for their personal campaigns. The subject here is IDGR and nothing else, if you don't contribute to it you should simply shut up. 84.136.75.124 10:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Would u please be more detailed? Even if Quellnymphe should have been banned on an other wikipedia, she's not banned here. Pitohui

Interesting that you know that banned German user is a SHE.

Interesting that some Germans think they can carry their fight into the english Misplaced Pages and continue it here.

I strongly agree with IP 84.136.75.124 that this is an abuse of this page and has nothing to do with the matter.

Also I can only see your edit behavior as vandalizm because you simply delete sourced information without any good reason. 89.166.151.197 09:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't vandalize the lemma!

Refrain from vandalizing the lemma. Don't delete the editors propper name. You can addd sourced information, but don't delete any proven information. Your are not allowed to delet the tag "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality." Pitohui

@Steschke: Sorry, but I can't assume good faith any more now. Pitohui

The editors proper name under which she always edited IDGR is the name in the actual version of the article.

No proof of other actual names or proof that "Margret Chatwin" is only a "pen name" was given. Links to postings years ago with older names don't proove that these names are the actual one.

Also, no neutrality tag was removed.

Also, the lemma was not "vandalized". It still is the same as before.

Instead, earlier removed information was sourced.

You did not give any reasons here why you reverted this sourced information. If you gracefully allow others to add sourced information (which permission does not depend on you) then why did you revert it?

Usually to do what YOU did here is exactly to be called "vandalizm", and as such it will be treated next time you repeat an irregular revert. 89.166.151.197 09:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The editors proper name is Magret Bezold-Chatwin, Magret Chatwin is a pen name (may bee her former maiden name), please use google and you'll see, Bezold-Chatwin is the actual name. The oldest retrieves are from 2006. Quite actual, isn't it?. On Nizkor she frankly has posted her name , the Mailadress is still valid. Pitohui

All links I find with that double name - especially the ones on Nizkor - are years old and don't proove that this is her real actual name today.

We don't need a possible former maiden name here because we inform about IDGR and not about former names of the editor.

The name under which she edited IDGR is completely suffient because this is prooven to be her name with which she decided to edit IDGR. If a person possibly (so far not proven) has used another name to edit a website we have to respect that.

The only reason I can see to inform about other names is to publish personal dates which would incourage personal harassment by right wing extremists. This is definitely not Wikipedias task. 89.166.151.197 09:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All links I can find with the acutal name Bezold-Chatwin are either years old or brand new. The proove that her real name has been B.-C. years ago and is still today the name of the editor. Both names, the pen name Chatwin as well as the proper name Bezold-Chatwin can be found frequently. Margret Chatwin might be the former maiden name, the correct name of course is Bezold-Chatwin. I can't find a hint about harassement giving the correct name. It's evident the IP provides a far-fetched conspiracy theory. A pen name alone is never sufficient if the real name is common knowledge. It's not our task to lie at the reader. Byzanz

...and that's exactly what you do if you pretend to know another real name and a "pen" name without any reliable proof for both.

The links you insist on only show there is a person with a double name, but none of these links seems to be related to IDGR.

If Mrs. Margret Chatwin edited under "Margret Chatwin" and is known under that name as the editor of IDGR, this is the only information we can give, it's not our task to build new theories for other names of her which can't be proven just by Google. Google is not a reliable source. 89.166.148.69 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I really wonder if this is intended to be dadaism or a running gag. Everything has been sayd now, please don't vandalize the lemma again. Byzanz 15:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems you speak with yourself only, YOU are the one who vandalizes the article by deleting sourced information without any substantial arguments for your privat theory of other names. (And even their spelling was wrong, by the way) 89.166.148.69 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to be a little more polite. Thank you very much. Byzanz 15:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

After reverting the lemma because important information went lost I reinserted step by step sources the IP has given. By and large it should be complete now. Regards Byzanz

Comments

After multiple complaints of "vandalism", just a few comments from an outsider:

• Content disagreements are not vandalism. Never.
• The editor's name is not a "pen name" or a pseudonym. Even if her legal name is the double name as claimed, it is quite common in Germany to use shortened versions like that. I agree with the anon on this one: If it is true that she always edited under the short form of her name, and all reliable third-party sources refer to her under that name, there is no reason why we should use any other form. I haven't seen any reliable source for anything else (the one page cited at that point is not a reliable source), and even if there was I don't quite see what the relevance would be.
• To both sides: please, shorten this article. This topic does not need more than a single paragraph. The purpose of a Misplaced Pages article is to describe what the IRGE is, it is not the purpose to amass as much negative or positive information about the IRGE as you can find. We don't need to list every single opinion about the IRGE ever expressed. If there's anything contentious here, the way forward is to shorten, not to lengthen. Stub it down. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to be sure who's who here, I take it that "Jesusfreund", "Steschke" and the 89.* anon are all the same person, and that "Byzanz" and "Pitohui" are the same person, is that correct? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If not somebody is doing a complicated bluff, "Jesusfreund" and "Steschke" are de:User:Jesusfreund and de:User:Steschke, long-time contrubitors at de: and not the same ;-)

"Margret Chatwin" is the name used by the editor herself -- any further speculation would require reliable secondary sources, not original research by Googling. Also this may be a WP:BLP issue.

Pjacobi 20:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The stubbed article looks fine with me. --Pjacobi 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Steschke just told me he was also acting on BLP grounds after ORTS contacts over at the German Misplaced Pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Stubbing is OK, but perhaps now the whole article isn't relevant enough for the englisch WP. Check of Neutrality is probably irrelevant now, too. (And speculations about "who is who" are only interesting if you don't want to contribute content. At least I know who I am ;-) Jesusfreund 19:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jacoby, but its a fact "Margret Bezold-Chatwin" is the name used by the editor herself - be it on IDGR, be it elswhere Regards Pitohui (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (have a look to the PDF, under A u t o r e n dieser A u s g a b e it says clearly MARGRET BEZOLD-CHATWIN, no doubt about it)

As we determined a year ago, she apparently used the single name in the role of her authorship of that website, and apparently she has some real-life reasons why she doesn't want the longer name associated with it. This was important enough to her to contact Misplaced Pages OTRS over it. I don't care what her official name is or was or has been and which forms she has been using elsewhere. We will stick with the name she used publicly in that context. You, on the other hand, seem to have an axe to grind about this person, and are insisting on this inclusion only in order to follow the well-known off-wiki campaign to hurt her. We here on Misplaced Pages don't like people who have axes to grind to hurt people, so please go away and grind it someplace else. Have I been clear enough? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's an outright lie and absolutely missleading. The PDF I posted is a clear proof she uses her full Name Bezold-Chatwin in real-life and has no problem to be associated with her name. Have I been clear enough too? Regards Pitohui (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (And let me point out I don't knwo Margret Bezold-Cahtwin personly and neither have an axe nor a sword tto grind with anybody.)

Go with the secondary sources. The PDF is your original research, how is she identified by the indpeendent sources that cover this site? That's all we care about. If they are wrong, we are wrong - verifiability not truth. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, I really didn't no THAT. If the PDF which proofes her name is B-C and she uses B-C as an author is really to be regarded "orginal research" (is it?) I have to confess we have to tell wrong things. All right, d'accord, understood. Pitohui (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a primary source, and you're interpreting the primary source as meaning she self-identifies with the hyphenated name. No biggie, I suspect she probably does so identify, but as I say the way to fix it is to find secondary sources which use the hyphenated name. If all recent secondary sources use that, then you've got your answer. If they still use the unhyphenated name, then I guess we have to live with being wrong. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles