Lokalkosmopolit (talk | contribs) |
Lokalkosmopolit (talk | contribs) →Edit warring & POV pushing: comment to volunteer marek |
||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
:Incredible. Volunteer Marek just goes on POV pushing with revert warring against consensus and reason. IIIraute explained perfectly why the content is inappropriate.--'''''[[User:Walkee|walkee]]'''''<sup><font color="#009900">[[User_talk:Walkee|talkee]]</font></sup> 10:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC) |
:Incredible. Volunteer Marek just goes on POV pushing with revert warring against consensus and reason. IIIraute explained perfectly why the content is inappropriate.--'''''[[User:Walkee|walkee]]'''''<sup><font color="#009900">[[User_talk:Walkee|talkee]]</font></sup> 10:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Agree with Staberinde's assessment of the situation. Also IIIRaute's detailed explanation helps further. No need to enter such irrelevant trivia, which also seems controversial. [[User:Lokalkosmopolit|Lokalkosmopolit]] ([[User talk:Lokalkosmopolit|talk]]) 22:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC) |
::Agree with Staberinde's assessment of the situation. Also IIIRaute's detailed explanation helps further. No need to enter such irrelevant trivia, which also seems controversial. [[User:Lokalkosmopolit|Lokalkosmopolit]] ([[User talk:Lokalkosmopolit|talk]]) 22:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
::PS. Just a few hours after my comment here, Volunteer Marek proceeded to revert my changes to an article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N%C3%B8rrebro&diff=598772146&oldid=598763260 he had never edited before]. Tell me, Marek, is it your habit to perform 'revenge' edits against everyone who happens to disagree with you?[[User:Lokalkosmopolit|Lokalkosmopolit]] ([[User talk:Lokalkosmopolit|talk]]) 11:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:50, 9 March 2014
Angela Merkel was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moved here from article
Notable facts
- In her office Merkel has a picture of the German-born Russian Empress Catherine the Great, who is described by Merkel as "a strong woman".[1]
- In July 2006, during the G8 Summit proceedings at Konstantinovsky Palace, United States President Bush strode up behind Merkel and clasped his hands upon her shoulders in a massage-like way. Bush's action startled Merkel, causing her to flail her arms. The awkward exchange became a popular viral video on YouTube[2]
- At the 2006 WEF (World economic Forum) in Davos, Switzerland the newly elected Merkel was dubbed "Queen of Davos" by the other attendees and subsequently the World's media.
- On the 8 June 2006, Merkel launched her video podcast via the Bundeskanzlerin website, making her the first head of government to launch a regular video podcast.[3]
Discussion of NSA Cell Phone Bugging Scandal and Germany TOR network initiative ?
Unexplained change to introduction
I see that the text
- "She is the first woman to hold either office."
has again been changed to
- "She is the first woman to hold both offices."
without any explanation. In my opinion, the changed version means that no other woman has held both offices before, stongly implying that some unknown woman has held one of the offices before. The original text was the most concise way of expressing that she was the first woman chancellor and the first woman leader of the CDU, which is, in my opinion what the statement is meant to say. I suppose it is possible that one of these statements has a different meaning in some variant of English, but I would like to see third-party confirmation if that is believed to be the case. If no convincing explanation for the change is forthcoming, I will again revert. I suggest compliance with WP:BRD. --Boson (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- I concur with Boson. That said, as I haven't edited the article myself, I will just warn here that the nascent edit war is not a solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Support for Iraq War 2003
Merkel was in support of the Iraq war und wanted to join the USA in case she was elected in the year 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.240.124.39 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Proper English, family history and name change to Kasner
Looking at the archives of this page, past discussions seem to support inclusion of her family history, with only one person objecting for unconvincing reasons. Indeed, articles on American politicians such as Obama include vast information on their family (there is even an entire article devoted to the subject: Family of Barack Obama). The name change to Kasner from the original Polish name in 1930 seems particularly relevant. Also, I see no consensus not to use proper English grammar in the article. Elizabeth Cumberbatch (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Elizabeth Cumberbatch's version of history seems more than a little disingenuous. Please see Staberinde's → [1] or Sandstein's → [2] edits, for example. The content belongs in the article about her father, Horst Kasner.
- I would suggest following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted until a consensus is reached on the talk page. --IIIraute (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle → "which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted"; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante). --IIIraute (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is to include the material, so kindly stop removing sourced material. You do not have a veto on whether to use correct English grammar or on whether to include sourced and relevant information that sources have reported widely on. Leaving out that the family changed their name to Kasner in 1930 is nothing but historical revisionism. That this essential part of her family history only belongs "in the article about her father" is just wrong. Elizabeth Cumberbatch (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Would you please be so kind to refer to the exact passage of this consensus? --IIIraute (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- You do not own or have a personal veto in regard to this page, so kindly stop being disruptive. You know very well that your unilateral actions were opposed by other users in the past as well. Elizabeth Cumberbatch (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please show the consensus you are referring to - I hope you do not mean our Eastern European mailing list friends, aka Volunteer Marek , for example - do you?
- If you'd care to read the Horst Kasner article, for example - or the talk archive → [3] - you would see that the story regarding her grandfather is a bit more complex. --IIIraute (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)06:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Illraute, everyone who's come to this article and tried to deal with this issue has disagreed with you. You're removing sourced text, edit warring, and engaging in disruptive behavior. The consensus is clearly against you, as are Wikipedia policies. Please refrain from further reverting and edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please refer to this consensus - who are the editors you are talking about? Newly created accounts that have only edited the Angela Merkel articel so far, like Elizabeth Cumberbatch → [4]? Obviously far to experienced to be a "new" editor ... and a minute later you turn up?! Quite early London time when you did your first Merkel edit today, Elizabeth - [5] - wasn't it? Other editors do not agree - please see Staberinde's → [6] or Sandstein's → [7] edits, for example. You know exactly that the story regarding her grandfather is more complex. And you, Recruit Marek should be banned from editing Germany related topics! --IIIraute (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Illraute, everyone who's come to this article and tried to deal with this issue has disagreed with you. You're removing sourced text, edit warring, and engaging in disruptive behavior. The consensus is clearly against you, as are Wikipedia policies. Please refrain from further reverting and edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- You do not own or have a personal veto in regard to this page, so kindly stop being disruptive. You know very well that your unilateral actions were opposed by other users in the past as well. Elizabeth Cumberbatch (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Neither Sandstein's nor Staberinde's edits - which restore the info - support your reverts - which are removing it. That info was removed recently by an anonymous IP [8]. You are now edit warring to keep that info removed. Additionally, I don't see neither Sandstein nor Staberinde discussing the issue on talk.
- In addition to Elizabeth above, other users have likewise disagreed with you, reverted you, and described your behavior on this article as disruptive. For example: [9] Sorry IIIraute, but Marek is, indeed, right. Your behavior is a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Obviously far to experienced to be a "new" editor ... and a minute later you turn up?! - if you are trying to imply that User:Elizabeth_Cumberbatch is a sock puppet (of myself or anyone else) then put up or shut up. Present evidence, file an SPI report whatever. Or at the very least have the courage to make that kind of accusation explicitly. If not, then please refrain from making such baseless accusations in the future.
Additionally, I would appreciate it if you referred to me - if refer you must - by my user name, Volunteer Marek. "VM" is sufficient. Please don't try to "parody" it in some attempt to insult me. And this talk page is not the place to air personal opinions about who should be banned, is it? There's plenty of other pages for that but somehow no matter how many spurious and bad faithed reports have been filed, no banning of myself from German related topics has taken place. Because there is no reason for such action.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Really, and what's about Staberinde's comment: "This is just retarded yellow press style promotion of some Germany vs Poland controversy. At most it would deserve a single sentence of Merkel having some Polish ancestry from paternal grandfathers side and thats it. Whole "in which armies her grandfather served and against whom he may have fought" is clearly just a trivia." here & "Its trivia, plain and simple. Interesting? Possibly. Actually relevant to Merkel's early life to extent its given spacein article? No way." [10] Later on Staberinde removed your POV pushing → here. --IIIraute (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring & POV pushing
- Regarding the POV pushing:
- Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography: "Horst’s father Ludwig, Angela’s grandfather, was born in Posen in 1896 – although not as Ludwig Kasner, but Ludwig Kazmierczak. Like most inhabitants of the province of Posen, the Kazmierczaks had Polish roots, and since the second partition of Poland, the city and surrounding region had seen several boundary changes and various different rulers. At the time of Ludwig Kazmierczak’s birth, Posen was part of the German Empire, so Merkel’s grandfather was officially a German citizen. The family nonetheless had remained faithful to its Polish origins, although Ludwig clearly didn’t share those sentiments. As a result he made a decision that was to have far-reaching consequences. In 1919, after the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles, Posen once again became part of Poland. In the years that followed, much of the German minority emigrated from the region – including those who didn’t want to return to Poland. Ludwig Kazmierczak was one of those who left his native land and part of his family behind and set off for Berlin, where he met his future wife Margarethe. Their son Horst was born in 1926. But it wasn’t until 1930 that Ludwig Kazmierczak decided to adopt the German version of his surname and began calling himself Kasner."
- →Stefan Kornelius, Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography, Alma Books Ltd, Richmond, 2013, page 14, ISBN-13: 978-1846883071, here
Fact: Ludwig Kazmierczak was a German citizen born in Posen, German Empire in 1896. (In 1793, Posen came under the control of Prussia. With Prussia, the province became part of the united German Empire in 1871.)
Fact: Ludwig Kazmierczak officially changed his name to "Ludwig Kasner" - meaning - his name is "Ludwig Kasner", and that is how the article should refer to him.
The Guardian: "Not only was her grandfather of Polish origin, the chancellor almost was born Angela Kazmierczak. Her grandfather was a Ludwig Kazmierczak, born 1896 in Poznan – then part of the German Reich. The family was proud of its Polish roots. Obviously not grandpa Ludwig who emigrated to Berlin when Poznan became Polish again after the first world war. He married a Berlin woman, and they had a son – Horst Kazmierczak, Angela's father. The family decided to cut their Polish roots in the early 30s. The Kazmierczaks followed a common fashion and Germanised their family name to Kasner." see
Fact: "Ludwig Kazmierczak was one of those who left his native land and part of his family behind and set off for Berlin, where he met his future wife Margarethe." (Angela Merkel: The Authorized Biography, p. 14) He did not take his "German-born fiancée Margarethe with him to Poznan ... to later settle in Berlin".
Another fact, Volunteer Marek rather prefers to stifle, because it does not fit his glorious "grandpa did fight for the Poles only" propaganda:
n-tv: "Ludwig was mobilised into the German army in 1915 and fought for the German Empire in France, where in 1918, he was taken prisoner of war or deserted" see
Deutsche Welle: "According to the largest Polish daily "Gazeta Wyborcza," her grandfather Ludwig Kazmierczak was Polish and is believed to have fought against the Germans as a Polish soldier in 1918." see
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: "...during the First World War, [this army] was formed under French command, from German POW's of Polish origin, and at least some of their units, have fought in 1918 ... experts, like the Polish historian Wolodzimierz Boriodziej did confirm to this newspaper, that it is not ruled out that Kazmierczak could have raised his arms against Germany." see
Volunteer Marek, i.e Elizabeth Cumberbatch claim to have editor consensus on their side, yet - as evident from the talk-archive discussion - such a consensus was never achieved.
Since there was no consensus for the changes made to the version that was stable for the last four months (and for much longer before VM's edit warring four months ago), Elizabeth Cumberbatch and Volunteer Marek have violated several WP policies with their reverts, especially by not following the previously suggested Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made" (often called the status quo ante). --IIIraute (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- There is not a chance in hell that I'm replying to this barrage of personal attacks, falsehoods, unfounded accusations, attempts at outing and intimidation and bad faith. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the passages you were worrying about - I do not know why you want this content removed so much - but see it as a token of goodwill. --IIIraute (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I've seen Marek interrupting, edit warring and pushing his POV more than a dozen times now. It might be about time for a little break. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Incredible. Volunteer Marek just goes on POV pushing with revert warring against consensus and reason. IIIraute explained perfectly why the content is inappropriate.--walkeetalkee 10:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Staberinde's assessment of the situation. Also IIIRaute's detailed explanation helps further. No need to enter such irrelevant trivia, which also seems controversial. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- PS. Just a few hours after my comment here, Volunteer Marek proceeded to revert my changes to an article he had never edited before. Tell me, Marek, is it your habit to perform 'revenge' edits against everyone who happens to disagree with you?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- ^ "Merkel to live in flat". News24. 2005-10-23. Retrieved 2006-10-02.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Associated Press, "Bush misstep magnified on YouTube / Bush’s German back rub magnified on YouTube", MSNBC 2006-07-21
- ^ "www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2046783,00.html".