Jump to content

Talk:Jörg Haider/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Sind die Mitglieder des Vorstandes, des Aufsichtsrates, der Kapitaleigentuemer von Volkswagen schon wegen vollendeten technischen "Mord" in Untersuchungshaft?

213.52.175.218 (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bärental

Who was Wilhelm Webhofer?
Haider did not inherit his Bärental estate from a blood relation.
German "Wahlonkel" denotes a person who is like or similar to a genuine uncle. There are rumours.Marschner (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

LGBT category

I just reverted an addition of the LGBT category on the grounds that no cited source explicitly asserts homosexuality. Any comments would be welcome. Dr.K. (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are news today in this article of the Independent and this article of Fox News: "Haider's deputy reveals gay affair" and "Deputy Admits Gay Affair With Far-Right Austrian Politician Before His Fatal Crash" are only the titles. 82.186.157.138 (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The sources don't really assert LGBT, which is a sexual identity, but rather that he had a sexual relationship with another man, which is sort of a factual rather than identity claim. See sexual identity for more on the difference (that article could use improvement itself). --Delirium (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Good distinction and reference Delirium. I agree. Dr.K. (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how gay Haider was or was not, what matters is that the issue is a prominent one for those interested in LGBT issues. The category fits, as the matter has had serious public discussion. IronDuke 14:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
If that's the definition of applicability of the LGBT category I would agree. But is it? Dr.K. (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... you raise a good point. According to the cat, it only applies to out pols: closeted doesn't count. "This category lists politicians who are openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or those whose sexuality is known and not debated." So... pending a change in the cat description, we shouldn't use it. IronDuke 15:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Thank you Iron Duke for the clarification. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 in Austria category

Haider's party's success (compared to the success rate of in general of parties as right-wing as his), his sudden death (caused by his own recklessness), his funeral attended by many thousands and reports of him being homo/bi, combined to make him the biggest or second biggest story in Austria this year. I added the 2008 in Austria category earlier this month, but it was removed by an editor who claimed that, if anything, the Austria in 2000 category would be closer to being appropriate, as that was a more important year regarding him. Now that the media attention has been widespread, continued and international, the 2008 in Austria category definitely applies to him. The only thing that happened in Austria this year that may have attracted more attention than Haider is the Fritzl case. The events of this year are more relevant in finding out about what Haider was like than any other year's. I cannot see any justification for him to not be in this category - consequently I am adding it again. Werdnawerdna (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this. If you want to create a Death of Jörg Haider redirect you could add the category it to that; or you could create 2008 in Austria. But if you look at Category:2008 in Austria, it contains articles about events occurring then, not about Austrians who happened to die then. It would be confusing for someone looking at the category to see the bio article listed there, and it's not a very useful link to have on this page since it doesn't add much context. jnestorius(talk) 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Praise of Nazism"

I guess I'm the only person around here who doesn't think that 50 newspapers printing something makes it objectively true. Obviously "Politician praises Nazi policies" makes a better headline than "Socialist heckler calls politician a Nazi in parliament, politician responds that Socialist's government is incompetent even by Nazi standards." But that doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to play along. WillOakland (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You not the only one, the would blame him for the titanic if the could —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxygen305 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

False claims and attempts to prevent any questioning of them

This article claims that Petzner succeeded Haider as BZÖ chairman and later was dismissed of this office. A Times article indeed says that but no Austrian source I have seen confirms this.

The facts as they appear are rather

  • that Petzner was nominated to succeed Haider as chairman. As formal elections for that post are still ahead, nothing more can be said about the post. Petzner cannot be dismissed from a post he hasn't yet been elected to (and whether a party chairman can be dismissed is another question).
  • that against expectations that Petzner would be elected Klubobmann (chairman of the party's parliamentary grouping) but instead Bucher was elected on 22 October. Again Petzner was not dismissed, he was merely not elected.

These facts are confirmed by this article.

Of course, we cannot know whether Petzner will be elected in the end (an uncertainty that does not make the false information in this article true) but articles like this one suggest that there will be a double leadership.

Erring on the facts might be bad but nothing unusual but the attempt (see here) to keep this section in error and ignorance by removing valid fact tags and changing articles that contradict this one (even though the claim about "updating" was a false one) is scandalous. Str1977 (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your exasperated tone and "scandalous" claims belie the fact that in Wikipedia
  1. The threshold of including facts in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth per WP:VERIFIABILITY. The Times of London is an eminently reliable source.
  2. Your edit here: "de.wp article on petzner says something different: still designated chairman" refers cryptically to some "de.wp" which I took to be the German Wikipedia. I went there and it said that Bucher is the new chairman. That means that Petzner as designated chair was sacked or as an actual chair was sacked. So the fact is he was sacked. So the difference is only if Petzner was a designated chair or an actual chair. I choose to believe the Times of London on that and as per WP:VERIFIABILITY I met the threshold of inclusion. Foreign language sources are great but in English Wikipedia english sources are to be preferred. It is not worth the polemics, visits to my talk page with rude messages and attempts at wikidrama by claiming attempts at suppression of facts and cries about keeping the article "in error and ignorance". Dr.K. (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
My tone is justified by your reply here. As I said, I do not blame you for your errors but I blame you for insisting on them in the light of better information.
Just because the Times writes something doesn't make it true. I would accept it lacking any contrary reports but the two Austrian reports cited by me give different accounts. Since a) they tend to be knowledgable and closer to the actual events and b) the Times certainly is not the most reliable among the great British newspapers, I go with the Austrian sources.
My reference refers to the Petzner article on the German WP.
Your usage of "chairman" tells me that you fail to distinguish between the office of party chairman ("Bündnisobmann" I think in the case of BZÖ) and "Klubobman" (literallty "club chairman). In Austrian parlance "club" refers to the parliamentary group of a certain party - what we in Germany call a "Fraktion". Here it refers to the chairman of the BZÖ group in the Austrian Nationalrat, the national parliament. It was expected that Petzner would be elected but instead it was Bucher. Petzner cannot be "sacked" as party chairman because he thus far is not party chairman, he has only been designated for that post and will probably be elected by a party convention. Note that the Austrian sources cite both politicians as speaking about a double leadership. Str1977 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
If you still doubt me, consider that the BZÖ Pressedienst in this posting calls Petzner the "designierte BZÖ-Bündnisobmann", i.e. designated party chairman. The posting dates October 23, the day after Petzner was supposedly "sacked". Str1977 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe this link will be enough. Str1977 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, I don't doubt you Str1977. Please see my original reply, before the edit conflict, which follows. Dr.K. (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok I don't want to drag this unfortunate incident longer than necessary but I want to clarify a few facts so I quote from your reply: "My tone is justified by your reply here." First: My reply came after your message. So you can't blame my reply, which came after your message, for the tone in your message which came before my reply. Second quote: "As I said, I do not blame you for your errors but I blame you for insisting on them in the light of better information." To "insist" means to repeatedly change something. I did not repeatedly change this info. I only did it once. So I did not insist on changing it. Further, I agree with you that we should consider the Austrian/German sources as well. I honestly believed that the German wikipedia article verified that Petzner was sacked as party chairman since I saw Bucher's name mentioned as in the London Times article. Now that you explained the terminology your position makes sense and I accept it. It seems that I was caught in a semantic misunderstanding due to the German language sources. My point still remains that we could reach this understanding using a little less drama. I mean I don't have a vested interest in Petzner's real or perceived sacking as chairman. Nothing could be further from my interests. There was no intention on my part to highlight this by suppressing information. WP:AGF would have been a better path and would have led to less strident tones to begin with. Having said that, I realise that you have modified your tone for the better. Dr.K. (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let me restate me: my tone was motivated by the IMHO unacceptable reaction against my placing two little fact tags into the article (- I did so because I hadn't enough time to look into the matter more but didn't want false information to stand). What I got from you was reverting and the (false) claim that other pages had been updated now. I took this as an indicator of an unwillingness to acknowledge and correct clear errors of fact. And that was what your reply confirmed. And the insistence was located not so much in repeatedly changing the article but in the messages posted here, on my talk page and (not by you) in another editor's message sent via e-mail. Furthermore, I was enraged by your argument that because one source is English and the other German WP should stick to the English one containing false information. I don't believe that is any fair or useful representation of any WP policy. You may understand that all this got me mad.
Your last message is quite different and I applaud that you now acknowledge the fact. I never spoke of vested interests and I always said that the main culprit of the whole row is that bad London newspaper that basically printed a lot of hogwash.
So I hope now this means case closed and no hard feelings (it certainly does for me). Str1977 (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to make something like this less likely in the future: At least here on the English Wikipedia, the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The Times is an eminently reliable source. Wikis,including the German Wikipedia, are by policy excluded as sources. This is not an issue of language at all, but of the editorial processes and the reputation for fact-checking. You cannot blame Dr.K. for actually following Wikipedia policy, and that in a reasonably polite manner. So please do try to assume good faith in similar situations. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my hopes (see above) were in vain.
What Stephan writes here is exactly the problem. Again, the "verifiability not truth" slogan is misused in a way hurtful to the project. WP is supposed to correctly record facts and notable opinions. The inapt Times misreported facts and tehre is no stepping around that. Nobody suggested de.wp as a source!
Language has been made an issue by Dr. K. when he claimed that a false Times report should outdo correct German-language sources. I was right to call him on this fallacy and he has acknowledged that the version based on the German-language reports was the right one.
As for AGF, I don't see that to be an issue either as removing valid fact tags (along with false claims) was hardly an expression of good faith.
If WP proceedings were really what Stephan makes them, these proceedings would be totally inapt as well. But I don't believe that they are what he makes of them. WP can grow and thrive only by the attempt to create accurate and NPOV articles not by mindless adherence to certain slogans.
Str1977 (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It's ok Str1977. As soon as I thought you understood a few points you quote: "What I got from you was reverting and the (false) claim that other pages had been updated now." This was no false claim. The German Wikipedia when I saw it had the news that Bucher was the new chairman like the London Times claimed. So I thought that the info was updated. I knew that the German Wikipedia was not a reliable source, just like Stephan explained to you, but I wanted to give you a break, even though I was in no obligation to do so. And what do I get in return for wanting to give you a break? Rage and assumptions of bad faith. That's not such a good reaction, especially given my nice attitude. You also state: "As for AGF, I don't see that to be an issue either as removing valid fact tags (along with false claims) was hardly an expression of good faith." Like I said before what you call false claims were not mine. They were the claims made by the London Times. As per WP:VERIFIABILITY I was justified in removing the fact tags so this has nothing to do with bad faith on my part. You also say now "Nobody suggested de.wp as a source!" but in your statements just before you stated "Furthermore, I was enraged by your argument that because one source is English and the other German WP should stick to the English one containing false information." and "My reference refers to the Petzner article on the German WP." Therefore I find you full of self serving contradictions. Plus if you knew about the policy that we could not use the German wikipedia as a source you should have applied WP:AGF here instead of getting enraged. Getting enraged is not a replacement for WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. You state that: "The inapt Times misreported facts and tehre is no stepping around that." I inform you that it is not up to us to second-guess reliable sources, (especially since, at the time, there were no other reliable sources available in English). Doing so is called original research and is covered under WP:OR. You also state that "And the insistence was located not so much in repeatedly changing the article but in the messages posted here, on my talk page and (not by you) in another editor's message sent via e-mail." The message I posted on your talk page was in reaction to the polemic tone of your message on my talk page which preceded my reply on your talk page. In your message on my talk page you even used the term "prophylactic" a very rude term indeed. So you cannot blame me for reacting strongly to such a message and, since you did not explain to me in depth about your sources, for my insistence on my sources. Plus that another user sent you an email about the same thing should have served as a warning that you may be in error, at least initially. You also say that: "WP can grow and thrive only by the attempt to create accurate and NPOV articles not by mindless adherence to certain slogans." This means that you need a lot of work for you to become a disciplined Wikipedian. Because what you call "slogans" is Wikipedia policy. Without Wikipedia policies there would be chaos. Until you realise that you will never understand the points I and Stephan made. Good luck. Dr.K. (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
"This was no false claim. The German Wikipedia when I saw it had the news that Bucher was the new chairman like the London Times claimed."
Nonsense. No version of de.wp I saw ever stated that. They talked about Bucher being the new Klubobmann. No page at all talked about Petzner being sacked. Only the fiction penned in the Times had that. Note that I had my information intially from the very same, supposedly "updated" article on Petzner, before I dug deeper into the German language sources.
I don't see where you gave me a break then. You removed the fact tags with no proper justification. Tags are not something that must be removed as quickly as possible even if they were falsely placed. And we all know now that these tags were justified. So no break and no nice attitude, I am afraid.
"Like I said before what you call false claims were not mine."
The false claim was that the German WP had been "updated". Checking the time stamps might have shown you that the German page did not change in any relevant regard between my edits and yours.
"As per WP:VERIFIABILITY I was justified in removing the fact tags"
No, you weren't. I questioned a claim that was in conflict with other sources and because I had no time to look into this more deeply, I tagged the claims so that either I could take care of it next time (Haider is not a regular article of mine) or others could do it. You revert however dashed this aim.
"You also say now "Nobody suggested de.wp as a source!" but in your statements just before you stated "Furthermore, I was enraged by your argument that because one source is English and the other German WP should stick to the English one containing false information." and "My reference refers to the Petzner article on the German WP." Therefore I find you full of self serving contradictions."
Now, "self-serving" is clearly bad faith. My statements are not in contradiction. I never used de.wp as a source but as a starting point for my analysis that something here wasn't right. As you well know, I did not change the text in regard to Petzner when I referred to de.wp - I merely tagged two claims. What I was enraged about was your claim which was not that we cannot use de.wp as a source - it is indeed true no WP can be used as a source - but that you made an issue out of the fact that my sources - not merely de.wp but the two links I gave (and a few more later) - were in German. You claimed that we should follow one erring English paper because it is in English instead of several Austrian sources that are surely more knowledgable about the events. That's what got me mad.
"Plus if you knew about the policy ..."
I have explained the reasons for my rage. You portray things differently than they are when you now claim you merely opposed de.wp as a source. You espoused any English source (and when you speak of sources, mind you there was only one for your view) over German-language sources. Typically, there shouldn't be a problem but in a matter of contention it is a bit rich to chose to ignore sources because of the language.
"The message I posted on your talk page was in reaction to the polemic tone of your message on my talk page"
My message had IMHO no polemic tone at all. It was short and sharp but not polemic. I don't see where a medical term is rude (if that's the case I am sorry but I didn't know about that). My in-depth explanation BTW was already in the place you told me I should put it: here on this talk page.
"Plus that another user sent you an email about the same thing should have served as a warning that you may be in error"
What makes you think that I didn't consider this? After I got the email I looked for sources that confirmed Oxygen's claim and of course had a look at the page he mentioned (which however did not contain anything of the sort). And let's not try to avoid the FACT that it was not me that was in error.
"This means that you need a lot of work for you to become a disciplined Wikipedian. Because what you call "slogans" is Wikipedia policy."
Mind you that I have been a Wikipedian for over three years now with countless edits under my belt. Mind you that I all too often have encountered the slogan "Verifibiality not truth", mostly misused. This was another occurence. The policy means that WP reports what others say and no editor's view about the truth of the view reported is a criterion for inclusion. What it doesn't mean is that we have to put false statements besides true ones if it is case not of opinions but of matters of fact. It also doesn't mean that we don't care about the truth. Ultimately, WP's aim is to gather true, i.e. accurate knowledge and verifiability merely a tool to that aim. This is no case of one says, another says, but a clear matter of fact: Petzner either has been sacked or hasn't. Bucher either is the party chairman or he isn't.
I agree that "Without Wikipedia policies there would be chaos.", but there must be applied in the manner in which they were intented and in such a way that they help the project instead of hurting them. Stephan here used the policy as a slogan to do apologetics for the false information contained.
PS. You talk about AGF but repeatedly assume bad faith towards me, constantly assuming that I cannot possibly know about policies, must be a newbie etc., not to mention the patronising.
Str1977 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you re-read what I wrote. You might also want to consider what "good faith" means. As a hint: It has nothing whatsoever to do with your knowledge of policies or your being a newbie or an experienced editor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
PPS. You added later: "I inform you that it is not up to us to second-guess reliable sources, (especially since, at the time, there were no other reliable sources available in English). Doing so is called original research and is covered under WP:OR."
Again, patronising and bad faith language: "I inform you". I don't need you to inform me.
That's absolutely not what NOR and RS is about. We cannot avoid questioning sources if we do not want to mindlessly copy what's written elsewhere. It is us who write this article. We are not robots. And that was no other sources in English is totally beside the point. WP is not restricted by your inability regarding other languages. And as I said, I never blamed you for the initial mistake - that lies with that paper. But after I placed the fact tags and read my edit summary you should have realised that something must be wrong. And something was wrong. Str1977 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I did not mean to be patronising when using the expression "I inform you". It was just a figure of speech. Nevertheless I am sorry if you took it that way. Dr.K. (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to acknowledge Stephan for his excellent approach, helpful clarifications and sage conclusions. Dr.K. (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot say the same - Stephan's approach was far from excellent, his "clarifications" and conclusions unhelpful. Str1977 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you see it that way. I couldn't disagree more. Dr.K. (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I also think Str77 has a very militant way to try to make a point. How about some courtesy?--Oxygen305 (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy would have meant not to remove valid fact tags like that. I agree that I sound militant but that is because my edits, first the tags and later my explanation on talk, got attacked on - as we now know - flimisiest grounds and because, which is even worse, even after the misunderstanding has been cleared up, I as the one who improved the article get bashed and told off.
How about admitting that you were wrong. How about a thanks for my improving this and other articles. Not that I expect or even wish that. A mere end to this dreadful discussion would suffice. Str1977 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Str1977, unfortunately you really sound angry. However, when you are right you are right and I will not disagree with you. But please keep in mind that there are sometimes more than just one opinion. Thank you --Oxygen305 (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Oxygen, I appreciate your attempt to calm me down. However, the recipee is simply to stop this pointless discussion (as you can see, it was Stephan with his intervention after all had been said and done that really breated fire into the situation). I am taking a deep breath of oxygene ;-) and will not take your statement to "more than just one opinion" as a reference to the issue of style not that of content (because, as you well know, the content issue was one of facts that can be only ever this way or that way).
To state again (in a hopefully cooler way) what I am angry about:
  • About my attempts to improve this article not being appreciated.
  • About extreme interpretation of per se valid principles.
  • About at least apparent blameshifting. As I said, I do not blame either your or Dr. K. for your initial error but neither can I accept a subsequent summary that somehow makes me the "bad guy" while ignoring that this article had false information before I made my move.
Again, I appreciate your last posting. Str1977 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And I have to admit, that you did a very valuable job on the article. Unfortunatly as i type this sentence it is vandalized and maybe you know how to stop that.--Oxygen305 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do. Str1977 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

":::::::"This was no false claim. The German Wikipedia when I saw it had the news that Bucher was the new chairman like the London Times claimed."
":::::::Nonsense. No version of de.wp I saw ever stated that. They talked about Bucher being the new Klubobmann. No page at all talked about Petzner being sacked. Only the fiction penned in the Times had that. Note that I had my information intially from the very same, supposedly "updated" article on Petzner, before I dug deeper into the German language sources."
Like I said I did not have to consult the German Wikipedia as a matter of policy but I did it out of good faith and to give you a break, I saw the term "Klubobmann" and I assumed it meant chairman. That's the risk you get into when you use foreign language sources in the English Wikipedia. That I made a mistake is immaterial. The German Wikipedia should not have been used as a source. Did you give me a break by thinking I might have misunderstood the German Wikipedia? No. You could have assumed that but you chose not to assume WP:AGF. Instead you chose to in your own words: "Get enraged". That's no way to treat fellow Wikipedians.
":::::::I don't see where you gave me a break then. You removed the fact tags with no proper justification. Tags are not something that must be removed as quickly as possible even if they were falsely placed. And we all know now that these tags were justified. So no break and no nice attitude, I am afraid."
I gave you a break by consulting the German Wikipedia but you did not reciprocate.
":::::::"Like I said before what you call false claims were not mine."
":::::::The false claim was that the German WP had been "updated". Checking the time stamps might have shown you that the German page did not change in any relevant regard between my edits and yours.""
Here you play with semantics. I did not have to consult the German WP but having seen the name of Bucher I knew it was updated. I did not have to check the history since I knew Bucher's appointment was a recent development.
":::::::"As per WP:VERIFIABILITY I was justified in removing the fact tags"
":::::::No, you weren't. I questioned a claim that was in conflict with other sources and because I had no time to look into this more deeply, I tagged the claims so that either I could take care of it next time (Haider is not a regular article of mine) or others could do it. You revert however dashed this aim.""
Here we go again. You fail to see the value of adhering to WP policies. That's not my problem. It's yours. And how would I know you would come back? What would be the harm of placing your sources after I removed the tags instead of going ballistic?
":::::::"You also say now "Nobody suggested de.wp as a source!" but in your statements just before you stated "Furthermore, I was enraged by your argument that because one source is English and the other German WP should stick to the English one containing false information." and "My reference refers to the Petzner article on the German WP." Therefore I find you full of self serving contradictions."
":::::::Now, "self-serving" is clearly bad faith. My statements are not in contradiction. I never used de.wp as a source but as a starting point for my analysis that something here wasn't right. As you well know, I did not change the text in regard to Petzner when I referred to de.wp - I merely tagged two claims. What I was enraged about was your claim which was not that we cannot use de.wp as a source - it is indeed true no WP can be used as a source - but that you made an issue out of the fact that my sources - not merely de.wp but the two links I gave (and a few more later) - were in German. You claimed that we should follow one erring English paper because it is in English instead of several Austrian sources that are surely more knowledgable about the events. That's what got me mad."
Starting point or not you used it as a reference and then you denied having done so. This is an inconsistency which you still fail to acknowledge. Whom does this lack of acknowledgment serve?
":::::::"Plus if you knew about the policy ..."
":::::::I have explained the reasons for my rage. You portray things differently than they are when you now claim you merely opposed de.wp as a source. You espoused any English source (and when you speak of sources, mind you there was only one for your view) over German-language sources. Typically, there shouldn't be a problem but in a matter of contention it is a bit rich to chose to ignore sources because of the language."
I did not oppose the German wp as a source like I explained above. I did you the courtesy to go and check it anyway. What I said was at the time we did not have any English reliable sources other than the Times and I thought the German WP agreed with the Times.
":::::::"The message I posted on your talk page was in reaction to the polemic tone of your message on my talk page"
":::::::My message had IMHO no polemic tone at all. It was short and sharp but not polemic. I don't see where a medical term is rude (if that's the case I am sorry but I didn't know about that). My in-depth explanation BTW was already in the place you told me I should put it: here on this talk page."
I accept your apology. But as you see even in this talk page the title of this section, which you wrote, is clearly bad faith. The title is: False claims and attempts to prevent any questioning of them. It speaks of "attempts". Even if you call, in bad faith, my edit an "attempt", it was only one. One "attempt" it was but the section title speaks about "attempts" in the plural. Exaggeration on top of bad faith. Not a good combination. Did it ever occur to you why would I make an attempt to prevent questioning of the false claims? It was not an "attempt". It was just an honest to goodness edit which closely adhered to policy. Calling it an "attempt" was clearly insulting.
":::::::"Plus that another user sent you an email about the same thing should have served as a warning that you may be in error""
":::::::What makes you think that I didn't consider this? After I got the email I looked for sources that confirmed Oxygen's claim and of course had a look at the page he mentioned (which however did not contain anything of the sort). And let's not try to avoid the FACT that it was not me that was in error.""
I was not in error either as I explained so many times above.
":::::::"This means that you need a lot of work for you to become a disciplined Wikipedian. Because what you call "slogans" is Wikipedia policy."
":::::::Mind you that I have been a Wikipedian for over three years now with countless edits under my belt. Mind you that I all too often have encountered the slogan "Verifibiality not truth", mostly misused. This was another occurence. The policy means that WP reports what others say and no editor's view about the truth of the view reported is a criterion for inclusion. What it doesn't mean is that we have to put false statements besides true ones if it is case not of opinions but of matters of fact. It also doesn't mean that we don't care about the truth. Ultimately, WP's aim is to gather true, i.e. accurate knowledge and verifiability merely a tool to that aim. This is no case of one says, another says, but a clear matter of fact: Petzner either has been sacked or hasn't. Bucher either is the party chairman or he isn't."
I have been a Wikipedian for two and a half years and I respect the policies of Wikipedia to the letter. At the time I made the best decision possible with the sources available at the time. And yes. We don't care about the truth. We care about verifiability. Please check the first few sentences of WP:VERIFIABILITY. I don't want to be patronising but you seem not to understand that we don't care about the truth but about verifiability as a matter of policy.
"::::::::I agree that "Without Wikipedia policies there would be chaos.", but there must be applied in the manner in which they were intented and in such a way that they help the project instead of hurting them. Stephan here used the policy as a slogan to do apologetics for the false information contained."
In applying policy there can be no slogans. You either apply it or you don't. You don't want to acknowledge this.
"::::::::PS. You talk about AGF but repeatedly assume bad faith towards me, constantly assuming that I cannot possibly know about policies, must be a newbie etc., not to mention the patronising."
I never called you a newbie. Even though there is nothing wrong with being a newbie. Even newbies know and apply policies quite well. As far as AGF, I repeatedly offered it to you. You just can't see it. Dr.K. (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newbie and not ashamed of it. I'm sorry to interupt your warfare.--Oxygen305 (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done Oxygen :) (lol) Dr.K. (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Oxygen.
Dr. K., I am tired of this discussion. I have above stated my grievances and will not reply to Dr. K's bad faith remarks anymore. Only this: no, you were not right. You were wrong and defended false information. Errare humanum est sed perservare in errorum ... Str1977 (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Str1977 I am tired too. So I consider this to be the end. Just a few parting remarks: I never replied to you in bad faith. That's uncalled for. And I do think your overall contributions here are excellent. No doubt about that. The fact remains however that in this case IMO you overreacted. That's fine too. I acknowledge your prerogative to not admit to that. Conversely I agree to disagree with you. Let's just leave it at that. And we both agree on half of your Latin expression: "Errare humanum est". But I do not agree on who made it first and I do know that I did not insist once you made your sources clear, so no "perservare in errorum" for me. Auf wiedersehen. Dr.K. (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

His political views

For someone controversial because of his political views, I found to little discussion of them. The article only covers two or three issues. Surely he had positions on more than Slovene language and immigration? Rmhermen (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The political views section fails to mention anything about his views on homosexuality. A substantial proportion of the media attention regarding Haider is about his alleged homosexuality/bisexuality. We know he never publicly admitted being homo/bi, but it would greatly help in putting the matter in context if we knew what his views/statements/policies on homosexuality in general were. Many media articles strongly imply that Haider was a major figure in two political parties that were anti-LGBT, despite fitting that description himself, which made him a hypocrite. Therefore, his views regarding sexual orientation should be clearly stated on the article. Werdnawerdna (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

More than one article I've read has said that the subject's political parties didn't take explicit positions on gay rights. "Traditional values" was part of the Alliance for the Future of Austria's slogan, but they apparently didn't get into specifics. If there are sources for the subject's political views then we should include them, at least briefly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of articles and sections

Right now we have " Controversy surrounding Stefan Petzner" on the bottom after his death. I have to agree with Str1977 that this is the correct place, due to the fact that the controversy started after his death.

any opinions to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxygen305 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I also realized that the de.WP article doesn't have any link or even referral to Stefan Petzner. Can anybody explain that to me. Thank you--Oxygen305 (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The section re: Petzner belongs right up there in Haider's bio. A biography refers to the events of a persons life and a relationship, homosexual or otherwise, is an event in a persons life. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How so? petzner made his statements right after his death not in between his marriage and the aquisition of the Baerental. Also you had to cange the title from" early life " to "biography', which is not accurate, since the whole article is part of his biography--Oxygen305 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It is in his bio anyway. The first section is no longer called "personal life" as this forced us to rip apart linked events. The Petzner claims are both of personal as of political importance and hence it cannot be exclusively placed in either. Str1977 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the impression, we are right were we started. I decided to take a few days off from the project.--Oxygen305 (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought about it and until the german version( which is more critical tha we are) suggests otherwise, I would assume, the best way is to leave it out. Who cares, if he was bi, gay or he liked horses? It was not part of his public life. --Oxygen305 (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Frm the little that I've read, that doesn't appear to be the case. To begin with the end, his affair was, more or less, a direct cause of his death. Second, he wasn't having an affair with just anyone - it was with his deputy and successor, so it had an affect on the leadership of the party. Further, the matter uncovers probable hypocrisy. If he were found to have hired undocumented workers, or other actions that were directly contradictory to the policies of the party, then that would be significant as well. According to our article, Alliance for the Future of Austria stands for "traditional values". Having a same-sex relationship with one's deputy and hanging out at gay bars are probably not included in most Austrians' concept of "traditional values". Finally, this article isn't limited to the subject's public life. When his private life becomes a topic of public reporting it ceases to be private. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
May I add: him being gay gives a whole new meaning to what the Austrian media referred to as his "Buberl-Partie" (boys party) [1] — all the young, devoted men he worked with, who rose quickly in rank of his party and often got lucrative and prestigious appointments. Lars T. (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
No it doesn't. That's completely OR in wiki-terms and gossip in real life terms. Str1977 (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Petzner suddenly completely gone from the article? And why is there an obessesion to have a personal life section? Haider was married before his political career and he didn't inherit Bärental at the end of his life. Str1977 (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jörg_Haider/Archive_2&oldid=1051232480"