Talk:Margot Honecker

Correct spelling?

Is her name Margo or Margot? Tim! (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) I think Margot. I think that this article is not politically neutral.

Her Job Title

Was she Ministerin für Volksbildung (as in first paragraph) or Volksbildungsministerin (as in later section)? Even people who know some German will find this confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.170.130 (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Her name

I keep getting indigestion from this entry when it identifies her as Margot Honecker before she married Erich. Before she married Erich she was Margot Feist. Calling her by her married name when she was a child and then a (formidably ambitious) young woman, but BEFORE she got married is a gratuitous anachronism. And to the extent that she had already placed several little footprints on East Germany's history BEFORE she got married, using her "wrong" name for those early years risks confusing people trying to check out contemporary sources.

Or am I being unduly picky?

• 1. What do other people think?
• 2. Could/should we change her name, in the early "prenuptial" paragraphs to "Margot Feist"?
• 3. Is there a wiki-convention/best practi(cs)e on such matters or are we expected to apply common sense? (I tend to prefer common sense; but that only works if people who care enough to think about stuff agree with each other.)

Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

POV introduction, heavy bias

The introduction seems to me "a bit" POV and biased. It is full of references to Western mass media and newspapers like The Independent, The Huffington Post, etc :-/. In the lead. In a biography of a political person. Calling her a "Purple witch". The most "hated person in East Germany". Speaking about "kidnapping", "forced adoption" and "concentration camps for children" with just one reference to those "newspapers". I hope that after some days, when some users lose their interest in pushing their views in this article, we can create a serious introduction and improve the article. emijrp (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We are all, here, prisoners of our sources, of course. And where you stick to English language sources, as a lot of folks did here, you are restricted to the bits that someone bothered to translate. It's clear that a lot of people genuinely didn't like Margot very much (or at all) even in East Germany, and on top of that the whole business gets taken up and acid coated in the context of the east-west conflicts that provide a defining context for her life. To some extent we're stuck with it; but there is nevertheless prominence here is given to stuff that is needlessly negative, especially in the intro section. Wikipedia cannot help reflecting the opinions of those who contribute to its sources, but we should and can try to avoid tipping over into shameless bias. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No bias whatsoever. The Reliable Sources overwhelmingly are critical of her, and her own mouth was her worst enemy. Some people just don't have the luxury of having many people on her side. Her friends were extremest communists, not much in the way of 'middle ground' there. 68.19.0.114 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Per false balance and WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the mainstream view of topics. They do not present all viewpoints equally, but rather present viewpoints based on their preponderance in reliable, independent sources. People who are widely reviled in reliable source material cannot be presented as "OK" in Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 18:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Jayron32 is entirely correct. There is no bias in this article, as it simply presents the mainstream view on her legacy as presented in reliable sources. The critical information, such as her popular/widely used nickname "The Purple Witch", is exceedingly well sourced and was used prominently in numerous reliable sources reporting her death (eg. [1], [2]). The idea that there is something wrong because the article is "full of references to Western mass media and newspapers" (as opposed to what exactly?), as if there is somehow something wrong with "western" sources, clearly demonstrates that emijrp has fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about. Being a deceased "political person" does not exempt her from criticism when her legacy is overwhelmingly negative according to almost all sources, save a few extremist and openly stalinist sources which are positioned to the far left of the most left-wing party of any size in Germany; the sort of people who praise North Korea and so forth and who, like her, believe de-Stalinization was the worst event of the 20th century. --Tataral (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to add to the point, if the people objecting have reliable sources which present an alternative viewpoint, the solution would be to cite those sources and note the alternative viewpoint. If "non-western" sources treat her differently, so long as they meet the definition of reliable sources, then there's no problem with citing them and noting the differences of opinion. --Jayron32 20:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source that would meet RS standards that states that kidnapping children and an oppressive, Stalinist regime are "good things" in Margot's favor. Such a source would likely be extremely partisan, and would have to be presented in this light. 68.19.0.64 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)