Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tickle me (talk | contribs) at 15:38, 3 August 2006 (→unwarranted edit war). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)