Jump to content

Talk:Christel Wegner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Editing Disputes

[edit]

I edited all the quotes and referenced to the original text in German. This edit applies to most of the discussions below. http://www.johanneswilm.org -- Johannes Wilm 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


As she is elected to parliament for Die Linke, she clearly is a politician for Die Linke. Her membership in the DKP is less relevant, as she is not elected to any public office for the DKP.

No. Parliamentary groups an partys are not the same in Germany. --85.178.14.179 (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Die Linke nominates DKP members in elections in several states, it is fair to say the parties cooperate closely. After all, the CDU does not nominate DKP members. Basil Tyco (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not that simple. Bodo Ramelow (Member of Bundestag) an many others said, that the possibility for DKP-members to candidate for Die Linke should stop immediatetly. --85.178.14.179 (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to have exchanged "stalinist" for "communist". As for her alledged remarks on the Stasi, she didn't mention it at all (http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/archiv/2008/t_cid-4582812_mid-4586858_.html), saying instead that a socialist society needed some kind of governmental agency to protect it. And as for the Stasi having tortured "millions": Let's tune it down a bit, o.k.?!JerseyCommie (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Millions" is of course wrong. Thousands is better. GDR had only 16 Million inhabitants, most of them lived there without any political complications. And yes, she never mentioned "Stasi", she just answered, that a "kind of a secret-service" is necessary in a new society. --85.178.14.179 (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


copied from disc-page: What is your problem? This article is full of mistakes. You don't know anything about german politics, you don't know the rules, the laws, but you undo my edits? Read the article in the German Wikipedia, watch the original interview on TV or just ask me. --85.178.32.18 (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your edits at the talk page, instead of claiming that you know everything and I know nothing. I know quite a bit about Germany. Basil Tyco (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't know nothing. I am German, I am an active politician for Die Linke. What did you read about this case? One article in a newspaper? Have you ever read the German WP-article about Wegner? According to you, this must be totally wrong. But again: She ist not a member of Die Linke, she's a member of the communist (not stalinist) DKP. It ist possible in Germany, that a member of party A can candidate for party B. (see PDS and WASG on the Bundestag-elections in 2005). That's all. Before you write something here, you should get some information or at least discuss with people, who know a bit more about this. --85.178.14.179 (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. If you want to keep these totally wrong information, just do it. Maybe some more writers from the German WP will find there way here. This version is full of mistakes, enough mistakes for the party Die Linke to take legal action. British should not write about problems of German federal-state politics, as they obviously know nothing about it. --85.178.10.88 (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we can keep the rhetorics out of this topic. Incidently, I too am active for "Die Linke" and British (a city councillor). I certainly disagree with the above. Wikipedia is for everyone to contribute, no matter where from, as long as they stay civil and come to the point. Here we go: I would prefer to have the statement "unofficial successor to the banned KPD" either stricken or corroberated. "Unofficial" doesn't sound like a statement of fact. Christel Wegner has renounced most of what was claimed by media after her appearance in "Panorama" (http://www.dkp-nordheide.de/aktuell/cwpersa.htm).JerseyCommie (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Shouldn't "Stasi" be linked?JerseyCommie (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not evade your ban. You were banned for 1 week.
It is totally unacceptable that politicians for this SED successor party are vandalizing this article to remove facts they don't like. Just like NSDAP members should not be censoring our articles on nazism, SED/SED-PDS/PDS/Die Linkspartei.PDS/Die Linkspartei/Die Linke members should not be censoring our articles related to their totalitarian ideology. Basil Tyco (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The PDS is not active in the UK. Basil Tyco (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basil,mate: the ban was lifted. I'd made only a minor mistake. And please don't accuse me of vandalism, as I've only written on this page. By the way, you've made your perception clear. Still, I thank you for using the DKP-Link.JerseyCommie (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you evaded your original 12 hour ban, using sockpuppets, and was then banned for 1 week. Please ban User:JerseyCommie as a reincarnation of a banned user. Basil Tyco (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think the above does not belong on this page. Why don't you mail me direct? I would have, had it been possible. If you must know (and anyone else who likes to be bored): I submitted on this page not really knowing my way around (being a first-time wikipedia user). What I had written vanished, and I thought I'd better open an account. Promptly I was accused of using a sockpuppet and blocked. Now we have that settled, would you please comment on the 2 things I noted about the article ("successor KPD" and "Stasi"-linked). I don't feel secure enough yet to edit an article myself.JerseyCommie (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is protected. Otherwise I'd have removed "unofficial successor to the banned party KPD", as there is no verification for this statement.JerseyCommie (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy in knowing in this heavily biased article denouncing someone who supposedly defended the role of the Stasi that the democratic [i. e. reactionary] Germany has a state organ - the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz - which spies on citizens in order to protect the democratic [i. e. reactionary] State. Ironic, eh? Sergio Morales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.203.56.115 (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The user Basil Tyco has been spamming this article and has reverted to questionable previous versions which were not based on evidence. Basil Tyco needs to be banned from Wikipedia in some way if he doesn't stop. I just reverted to the last serious version that is linked to original references. http://www.johanneswilm.org -- Johannes Wilm 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The user Johanneswilm has been spamming this article and I have reverted to the original, pre-spammed, version. I think Johanneswilm needs to be banned from Wikipedia. Basil Tyco (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think the POV-message that has been placed on this article can be removed again. It was me who originally placed it there, but it was when because user Basil Tyco seemed to be in general disagreement with the article's content. In his latest edits he has stopped reverting the article to a completely different version, instead focusing on minor points. I take that as a sign that he is generally satisfied with the article and I therefore remove the POV status message. If anyone thinks otherwise, they'll have to put it back up. http://www.johanneswilm.org -- Johannes Wilm 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanneswilm (talk • contribs)

Cleanup

[edit]

I have cleaned up the article so it meets the simplist of wikipedia format standards. The text I have used is the last version by Johannes Wilm, as it seem the least controversial. If you want to change the text please keep to WP:STYLE. There has been a lot of changes on the article during the last few days, please keep with the WP:3RR rules. If need be take a deep breath and ignore the article for a day. I hope I have helped and not made things worse for you all. Regards BpEps - t@lk 08:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if all current contributors have accepted most of the changes you came up with. I changed some of the wordings of Basil Tyco in his latest edit, but tried to keep most of his sentence structure intact. Also, I added the references to the Verfassungsschutz you requested, although Basil Tyco removed your request. The latest anonymous change was me as well. http://www.johanneswilm.org -- Johannes Wilm 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
At the moment the article is looking a little top heavy and going slightly off topic at the end. The WP:LEAD should be a general overview of what is contained in the restof the article and the final sentence just isn't mentioned at all. I am at a loss where it can go within the sections of the article or whether or not it is necessary at all - Comment plz :-) -- BpEps - t@lk 23:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the status of DKP and DIE LINKE in relation to the Verfassungsschutz and their internal relations should be put on the respective pages of these parties and not here. "called for the return of the Stasi and justified the construction of the Berlin Wall, also voicing her support for Margot Honecker." is explained in the article, and could therefore be paraphrased as "made various controversial statements regarding the legitimacy of the GDR state" at this point. http://www.johanneswilm.org -- Johannes Wilm 09:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Memberships

[edit]

I cannot find any place listing her organisational memberships. True, the DKP is under surveillance, but we need at least a second organization to claim she is in "several" organizations that are under surveillance. It is not unlikely, as many of us , most likely including me, are under surveillance by the German secret police, but unless we have verification for it, the claim needs to be removed. http://www.johanneswilm.org -- Johannes Wilm 11:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know Wegner from before, but in order to resolve this question, I emailed her and asked about the sentence and what organizations that are classified as leftwing extremist, she is a member of. She replied that she is a a meber of the labor union Verdi, the organization VVN BdA (The United Persecuted of the Nazi Regime / Union of German Anti-Fascist) and supportive/passive member of Greenpeace. I read here [1] that the VVN BdA no longer is mentioned in the latest (2006) report of the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz annual report. Greenpeace and Verdi have never been mentioned in the report, to my knowledge. I will threfore remove the current line and add this information. Unless you have proof of anything else, please don't change it. http://www.johanneswilm.org -- Johannes Wilm 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Great research - I have rephrased a little bit and moved the top heavy section to a new section. BpEps - t@lk 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party names

[edit]

There should be consistency in party names and abbreviations. Does anyone know what the Standard is? Should it be German Communist Party or Deutsche Kommunistische Partei? DIE LINKE. party or The Left party? http://www.johanneswilm.org -- Johannes Wilm 19:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Christel Wegner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section too long

[edit]

My personal opinion is that the lead section of this article is too long. I would remove everything after "Shortly after her election...". Anyway all this information is found later in the article. What's your opinion? Bdschi (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christel_Wegner&oldid=1255188712"