Talk:Jörg Baberowski

Collecting Money for Pol Pot

I do not think that this issue should be part of a biographical article, and it should definitely not be part of the first two sentences. That's makes a weird feeling about the person. Even if he did collect money for Pol Pot, than it's something a lot of young people did in the 70ies because they did not know all the stuff about Kambodcha than we know today. And even if you would call it a "mistake", it is out of all proportion to the person Baberowski today. All criticism should be based on his research and (public) statements.

If it should be necessary (quite sure that it is not), than it should be mentioned in an extra chapter like "controversy/criticism". See also the editing talk on this of the German version. Joedaboe (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Times Higher Education Source

The topic described in the article is not sufficiently notable to be included in the article. The article itself is biased, making it a useless source. CoolieCoolster (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is not available to those who do not subscribe to the publication, making it difficult to evaluate for objectivity. James Kennicott (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

The introduction claims "He is regarded as one of the world's foremost experts": The linked German source (from a TV station, not some prestiguos academic journal which may have the authority to make such claims) just says that he is "a renowned expert". The exaggeration is not encyclopedic, but reeks of "Fake News" style.

Another annoying POV idiocy: "far-left students who hero worship Leon Trotsky": These people are called trotzkists unless you also speak about "people who hero worship Maggie Thatcher" instead of Tories. -- 78.35.206.105 (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Dispute: Citation of Jürgen Kaube's FAZ article

The use of this article, an opinion piece by an acquaintance of the subject, is not appropriate. All the more inappropriate is the failure to cite the response of the German PSG (now called SGP) disputing the claims of the FAZ article. . The use of the adjective "fringe" is also not fitting for a Wikipedia article. James Kennicott (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

According to the Chronicle of Higher Education and a number of other respected sources, including Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Baberowski has been the victim of harrassment on the Internet by members of a group that is officially considered to be extremist by German authorities (see Verfassungsschutzbericht 2017 p. 131 published by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, which states clearly that the group is extreme and that they are persons of interest for the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution for this reason). Apparently this campaign continues on Wikipedia by editors who say they are members of that very same, officially extremist (according to German authorities), group, and based solely on their own website wsws.org instead of reliable sources.

Considering that wsws.org is the website affiliated with the group in question, and that the group is under observation and officially categorized as extremist by the German interior ministry, the website is by definition a politically extreme website and thus a fringe source, not a reliable source. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on the other hand is a high-quality reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). This article is not the website of or a platform for the extremist student group. What they write on their own website, which is not a reliable source, doesn't matter at all. We have three very high-quality reliable sources discussing this material: the Chronicle of Higher Education, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Die Welt. --Marija Jěwa (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, while there is no doubt that the small Trotskyist group that is best known for stalking Humboldt University professors with whom they disagree is indeed "fringe" (it consists of, like 5 people(?), all of whom unemployed despite being in their 40s, who instead spend their time harrassing their former professors according to several reliable sources), I guess it's sufficient to mention that it is offically regarded as "extremist" by German authorities. Which really says it all, considering how tolerant Germany is. All of this in contrast to Baberowski, a well-known full professor/chair at Humboldt University, a former director of the Historical Institute and dean of his faculty, who is not mentioned in the Verfassungsschutzbericht, but who is instead, according to Die Welt, Germany's "leading expert on Stalinism" which "has made him into a hate figure" among the extremists. Our job is not to give the extremists the platform that they so clearly lack in credible reliable sources, like Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. --Marija Jěwa (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

    This is an incredibly biased that just showd that you are not engaging on this post in good faith. "Best known for stalking", "consists of like 5 people", "all of whom are unemployed", etc. It is absurd to beleive that you are neutral and objective in this regard. If the Trotskyists can be called "extremists" because the German goverment says they are than so can the man the man you are defending, Jorg Baberowski, who lost a libel case he brought against the Bremen Student Parliament for calling him a right wing extremist. You are seekining to censor one side of the debate for clearly biased reasons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoodGoose (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC) 

References

Sources that are too friendly, and too oppositional

I have tagged citations in this bio that are little more than Baberowski's online CV, hosted by his employer, Humboldt University of Berlin. While a source like this might be passable for noncontroversial information, Baberowski is a controversial subject, and such sources are substandard per WP:GNG:

"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability... advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

If there are other policies I'm not aware of that govern how we treat academics, please list them here for discussion. I've left the sources in the article for now, but have tagged them.

Furthermore, if the WSWS is going to be referenced in the article, and if their conflict with Baberowski has attracted attention from the larger English and German press (both statements are true), then some of their articles should also be cited here. They should be used only with attribution, as is typical for opinionated sources. -Darouet (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no a space for the extension of the Trotskyist campaign. Also not a space for source forgery: Where did Wehler argue against the characterization of Hitler? For that I would have a crystal clear source of you who said so. WSWS is not a neutral source. It is at most partisan and stays out. Atomiccocktail (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

+ 1. WSWS is of course not a neutral source, it is like using articles of Tung Padevat to write about Killing Fields or Rodong Sinmun to work on a Biography of Mao. --Arabsalam (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that using WSWS here as a source is not a good idea, the main concern for sources reliability rather than "neutrality", "bias" or "partisanship". The latter three are primarily a problem if they lead to to their content being unreliable, that is it being incorrect or a gross misrepresentation. To be rather clear here WP articles are required to be neutral and its sources to be reliable, the sources however are not required to be neutral as such just reliable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Kmhkmh is spot-on with their evaluation of reliability versus partisanship. I'll just note then that if the WSWS is going to be referenced often in this bio, their sources can certainly be cited with attribution and in this context the WSWS is reliable regarding its own opinion. That said, I don't see any reason to expand the space currently given to this portion of the article.

The Tung Padevat / Rodong Sinmun comparisons are a little perplexing, since multiple sources have stated that it was Baberowski who earlier campaigned for the Communist Party and raised money for Pol Pot... whereas as far as I know the Trotskyists always opposed the Khmer Rouge, and opposed the CP once the purges began. -Darouet (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

WSWS is also not reliable a source with exception this magazine of a radical political splinter group gets attention from othe media. --Arabsalam (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This entry is about a historian. What a splinter or combat group is posting on its sloping website is irrelevant. Only what is addressed in reliable media is potentially important. A trivial forum of a political splinter group is not. The statements of the Trotskyists are not at all appreciated in the academic discourse. Surprised? No. They are absolute outsiders whose contributions are of the same quality as those of the people who deny the moon landing.

On the subject of Padevat-Sinmun, a smoke grenade is ignited. The point is that the best sources must be used. This is with respect to Hitler certainly not the Albert Speer autobiography, for Mao not issues of Rodong Sinmun, for Pol Pot certainly not the statements of Tung Padevat. Atomiccocktail (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

WSWS-Source are not permittet

Source have to be independet. Trotskyists have been campaigning against Baberowski for years. Their sources here are biased and not permitted. Atomiccocktail (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This is absurd, are you arguing that one side of a dispute - one that WON a court case when Baberowski brought a libel suit - should be excluded because they defend their own positions? Seems to me that the biased one here is you, rejecting anything unfalttering about Baberowski. HoodGoose (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipeda has a clear position on sources: "Take special care to use high-quality sources." WSWS is not high quality in any way, but it is the platform of a political fighting group, in this case the Trotskyists. Sources of this type are not used here. Atomiccocktail (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Atomiccocktail is correct here, on WP:RS, WP:N and WP:BLP grounds. If this incident is reported more widely, in uninvolved sources, it may merit inclusion, but claiming there is a ' major development' in a 'controversy' based solely on the say-so of one of the involved parties is simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Re-added deleted section along with WSWS cited articles as well as an uninvolved German language source providing the same accounting of events, the charges of bodily harm and destruction of property, dates, and the €4,000 fine the court ordered Baberowski to pay. HoodGoose (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)