Talk:Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt

Presentation of the ZFI, critical contents

An editor changes the description of the ZFI from just "association" to "research institution". Further, this editor is removing contents including sources. These removed parts, about 80% of the article text, are critical of the ZFI and say that it is right-wing and revisionist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwalker (talk • contribs)

A German editor persists in flooding this article with his own opinions. I have removed unencyclopedic and POV material which is not in accordance with English Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and others. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an attack page/far-left opinion piece with 80 % negative/unencyclopedic material (partly not in English). An example of the inappropriate POV vandalism by that user: The fact that the Prime Minister of Bavaria Horst Seehofer sent a laudative greeting to the institute is portrayed as an accusation/criticism. An institute which receives laudative greetings from Horst Seehofer and cooperates with recognized scholars such as Joachim Hoffmann, Franz W. Seidler or Alfred de Zayas (one of the world's leading human rights scholars) is hardly "revisionist", except in the eyes of far-left extremists/communists. If you want to portray the Prime Minister of Bavaria as a "revisionist", get yourself your own blog. It's not acceptable here. Mrandsl (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As this Association is only relevant because of its function as a right-wing revisionist think-tank, the current version is the product of POV and vandalism. --78.53.32.121 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Go push your POV somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is specifically not a place for propaganda or opinion pieces. Mrandsl (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While I see that there is an argument for "undue weight", the problem seems to me not the negative information included, which is well sourced, as far as I can tell, but rather the lack of sourced information on other activities of this institution. Therefore I have rearranged the content and deliberately left some white spots in the hope that somebody will fill them. For the same reason I have marked the article as a "German organization stub". I hope everybody can live with this. --Dodo19 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article never was "well sourced". You cannot use political propaganda published exlusively by leftists or far leftists to describe a conservative organisation. These are not sources acceptable under English Wikipedia policies, these are opinions of the opponents of the institute. Specifically, using publications of opponents of the organisation to flood the article (over 80 %) with their POV is never acceptable. Wikipedia articles shall be balanced and neutral (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE). The section "Political orientation" did not contain any appropriate, neutral sources, was given undue weight, and the entire section was not written as an encyclopedia article according to English Wikipedia standards, but as an opinion piece unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The section did however point out that "the Bavarian government today no longer sees any indication for far right tendencies"; I can assure you that if the institute had been only the slightest to the right of the CSU, it would have been observed (the party Die Linke and their activities are, on the other hand, observed). The Prime Minister would not send laudative greetings to an "extremist" institute in any case. Mrandsl (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the "undue weight" is the result of lack of information regarding other aspects. The solution would be for you to provide additional information from published sources, your assurances are not good enough, I am afraid. For the neutrality issue, as critical information can never be neutral. As this information is properly sourced, you would have show they can not be considered as reliable source. Here again, your personal opinion is not relevant. So, please stop deleting sourced information and provide additional information for the claims you make. --Dodo19 (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: To illustrate my point above, see here about problems of weight and balance in short articles like this one. And if you could specify why Anton Maegerle, Daniel Hörsch, Andreas Angerstorfer, Annemarie Dengg, Bernd Wagner, and Florian Ritter are not reliable sources. --Dodo19 (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bavarian Verfassungsschutzbericht is available as here[1]. As you can see, the institute is, unlike the party Die Linke and affiliated institutions, not regarded by the authorities as extremist (it's not mentioned at all). Your continued attempts to portray the fact that Horst Seehofer sent a laudative criticism as a negative accusation is vandalism and will be reverted. Here again, your personal opinion is irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox (WP:NOT). Mrandsl (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)