Jump to content

Talk:Thilo Sarrazin

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

Review

[edit]

Please add another more objective review. The reputation of wikipedia suffers very much, when you take a closer look at the review and the site that review is written for. If you can't find a more objective one, at least add a contrary review from a non-racist site. 92.229.53.204 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]
There is no citation for the fact that he ever noted that he relied on a GIL ATZMON. the citation that has been put are misleading because they do not cite this AT ALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.56.162 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. Moncrief (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to Gilad Atzmon? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not likely. Gilad Atzmon is not a scientist. GIL ATZMON is someone else. Alandeus (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from German WP article

[edit]

Obviously, whole sections of the English article on Thilo Sarrazin seem to have been translated from the German article using http://translate.google.de/ Please take a moment to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Translation#How_to_translate

"Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing." --Gamgee (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some ideas about mashine translations, but this article seems to have been translated by a human being.95.223.187.171 (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book title translations

[edit]

The title of the book can be:

  • "Germany Does Away With Itself"
  • "Germany Does Itself In"
  • "Germany Eliminates Itself"

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Deutschland schafft sich ab" means eliminate/abolishes. It's a dramatic title (imo), and "does away" or "does itself in" is not a correct translation.

I speak German, and I clearly think the correct translation is "Germany abolishes itself" (to "schafft sich ab" is either to eliminate or more correctly to "abolish"). Despite the fact that many bloggers or journalists have just used this autotranslated article as their basis for their own article (yes, much of this article seems auto translated to me), despite that, there are 230 more Google hits on "germany abolishes itself" (7690) than "Germany Does Away With Itself" (7460). I think the title should be changed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliff8833 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both translations are basically correct. Leo and other online translation dictionaries also offer both versions and more. Plus, just a couple hundred one way or the other with thousands of Google hits is rather inconclusive that it is more or less a tie. In any case, as a translator splitting hairs on this one, I'd say "abolishing" has more of a legislative/judicial sense than "doing away" does, which has a more practical oriented sense, which "eliminate" (a good third alternative) has as well. So, I say leave it at "does away with itself", which is closer to the actual meaning of the book. Alandeus (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your input Alandeus. Discussion is appreciated. "just a couple hundred one way or the other with thousands of Google hits is rather inconclusive that it is more or less a tie". Well, a very large proportion of the hits are only due to the fact that the autotranslated article (meaning this article) used "Does away with" first. And despite that, there are more hits on abolishes... But Google hits aside, a title of a book is not something you can auto translate. Much is often lost in translation that way. Right now it says "Germany Does Away With Itself' or 'Germany Does Itself In" in the article. If we were to have alternate translations than I think "Germany Does Away With Itself' or 'Germany Abolishes itself'" or "Germany Does Away With Itself' or 'Germany Eliminates Itself'" would be more correct. The two alternate translations which are there now both basically means suicide, but to "schafft ab" is more in the direction of abolish or eliminate. Kaliff8833 (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and that idea about "suicide" is precisely what Sarrazin is inferring and warning about. Alandeus (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the media can't decide either - the Financial Times: The Abolition of Germany, Der Spiegel "Germany Does Away with Itself: How We Are Gambling Away our Country." Hopefully there will be an English version which will be definitive. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Alandeus. Yes. The connotations of "schafft ab" is suicide. But it's word-by-word meaning is not suicide. In the same way, the connotations of "abolishes itself" is suicide, but it's word-by-word meaning is not suicide. Therefore I think "abolish" is more correct.

My arguments were that if we were to have two translations in the article (which we have now), than I think one of them should be with connotations and the other may be just directly suicide.

So my suggestion was, change this phrase:

"Germany Does Away With Itself or Germany Does Itself In"

into this phrase: "Germany Does Away With Itself or Germany Abolishes itself"

@Dougweller. Agree. The translated version will tell. I know the media is split. But if the wikipedia article were to have the abolish version first, than I'd guess we'd have a 80/20 distribution of the titles (because journalists use wiki for doing research). But despite the fact that wiki landed on does itself in, there majority has went another way - and have chosen abolish. And I think that's a valid point. At least enough valid that one of the two versions should be the connotation way (the same way the original title is) Kaliff8833 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree also. The two-track version is fine. Besides, I prefer "Abolishes Itself" over "Does Itself In". Who wants to have the honors of making the corrections? Alandeus (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In simplistic English: laws and rules are 'abolished'. A better title (both dramatic and simple)would be: "Germany Destroys Itself". Any layperson would understand instantly what is meant. A more realistic title (but less dramatic) would be: "Germany Hurts Itself" or "Germany Damages Itself" http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/08/germany-germany-is-destroying-itself.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.109.142.21 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting variations that may fit the book's content. However, the current translations are just right and as close as possible to the actual original German title. Alandeus (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hem, if what we learnt in school about the progressive aspect is correct, "Germany abolishes itself" is plainly wrong and - according to the intention of the author - the right translation is: "Germany is abolishing itself." --91.34.204.83 (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

87.78.237.56 is right (see his edit three days ago). Present continuous is best for this tense, see also http://www.asamnet.de/~legienf/Online-Grammar/Present_cont.htm. Alandeus (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Süddeutsche Zeitung survey

[edit]

Sounds like bogus. Could you quote from it or better provide a link? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarrazin's own son living on welfare

[edit]

Might be worth including in the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/24/german-economist-welfare-son-benefits

http://www.u.tv/News/German-banker-and-scourge-of-welfare-left-cheated-by-sons-benefits-confession/9473c962-1f51-48c6-bb83-a189537a0df9 134.155.36.48 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth to be included and only included in an article on Sarrazin's son...Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV issue in first section

[edit]

Concerning choosing the words "the ideology of multiculturalism", that's how Conservatives as well as the New Right generally puts it's words - As far as I know, there is no outspoken "ideology" of multiculturalism, but maybe this was in part what was discussed in his book? As I'm not familiar with the book I didn't edit anything. Best wishes. 212.107.143.107 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

genetics

[edit]

The main horrifying fact here is the stunning resurgance of "nazi ideology" (Heiner Geißler and Günther Wallraff both call it so) most obviously: genetics. That is why I wanted to add the following to the article, it would cure the whole article of its inexplicable lopsidedness:

"He reintroduced (for the first time on a massive scale since Hitler) the concept of genetic inferiority (now of the Turks and Southeners) into German popular culture and dialogue."

This is basically the theme of the book (german genes being diluted by foreigners) also all the other statements in the article talking about the contents of the book are not sourced either as far as i can tell but i am new here. (

Do I really need to buy this awful book and read it to find a perfect qoute or is the statement about jews and basks having different genes (that is mentioned in the present article) and the whole tenor enough. And also my statement is also one of experience since i live in germany and have tried to talk to people here i could give some great qoutes about that! Perhaps someone can help me with the right qoute? Or can I just give the book as a source perhaps? (Leschmuck (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leschmuck (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have references for claims being made by notable people, it would be better to use those. It would generally not be appropriate to (cherry)pick certain parts of the book and reference to it at your own liking. If you are not familiar with editing on Wikipedia (given your short edit history), you should familiarize yourself first with how to cite sources; you should never add content to Wikipedia without direct inline referencing. – Bellatores (t.) 20:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CITE and yes, you can't use his book, you have to use other sources conforming with WP:RS which discuss him. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"Zu sagen...also hier geht es um genetische Komponenten und Menschen, die bestimmte Rassen haben, andere Gene, die sie bevorzugen und herabsetzen.

Ich meine, das ist wirklich Rassenideologie, das ist NS-Ideologie. Und damit hat er (Sarrazin) wirklich eine Grenzlinie überschritten...selbstherrlich wirklich als Herrenmensch auftritt ."

(my translation: To say....that this is about genetic factors and people that have a certain race, other genes that favor or debilitate them... I mean that truly is race ideology („Rassenideologie“ a term associated with the Nazis), it is Nazi ideology. In doing so he (Sarrazin) has truly crossed a line...pompously presenting himself as a Herrenmensch)

Just for the record. Not a single comment here in response to these horrifying circumstances. Its me again several years later...nobody cares that this guy is basically saying the same thing as Hitler (substitute turks for jews and leaving out the bit about killing them)? Technicalities of translation etc is all anybody cares about? Reporters, liberals, jews, turks and all Americans living in Germany are basically silent on this issue? Moral bankruptcy of the world is what comes to mind. This even after the UN has publicly called out Germany for simply laughing off the TBB when they tried to bring a case of hate speech against Sarrazin, saying Germany must respond to these charges in a serious manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.47.202 (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-Günther Wallraff, one of the most famous German journalists.


http://www.dradio.de/dkultur/sendungen/interview/1261105/


"Er (Sarrazin) bleibt auch bei nachgewiesenermaßen falschen Thesen

Ich kritisiere ihn, weil er einen verengten Begriff von Intelligenz hat, die Muslime genetisch negativ bewertet und dadurch diese Menschen beleidigt und verletzt.

Sie (die Muslime) sind also minderwertig, die Nazis sagten abartig. Das ist Rassismus. Diese Theorien stehen im Gegensatz zu dem, was sich heute auf der Welt entwickelt.

... diesen (muslimischen Kindern) nicht den Intelligenzquotienten vererben, der notwendig wäre, um Deutschlands Zukunft zu sichern. Er geht eben von einem falschen Intelligenzbegriff aus und unterstellt eine genetische Identität der Völker, wie er das explizit von den Juden sagt. Da sagt er (Sarrazin) das gleiche wie die Nationalsozialisten. Auch sie verwarfen den kategorischen Imperativ und behaupteten den territorialen, der auch durch die Gene begründet würde ...er beruft sich zu Unrecht auf wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse .

Natürlich ist das Verhalten des Menschen auch abhängig von seinen Genen. Aber es ist weder ausschließlich erlernt, noch ist es völlig angeboren. Auch was im Genom verankert ist, ist durch Lernprozesse veränderbar. Und zwar durch die Fähigkeit des Menschen, durch freie Assoziationen von Informationen weiterzukommen – ein wesentlicher Vorgang bei allen Intelligenzleistungen. Die Fähigkeit, Gedächtnisinhalte zu kombinieren ist nicht davon abhängig, welche Gene ein Mensch trägt, sondern welche Bildung und Erziehung er genossen hat" 

-Heiner Geißler CDU politician (thank god)

http://nachrichten.t-online.de/heiner-geissler-zerlegt-sarrazins-thesen/id_42713914/index so what must be done now to change this article? Does this mean I can make my edit if I include these two sources? (Leschmuck (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)) /id_42713914/index — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leschmuck (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously a newbie to Wikipedia (given your last edit), and you just have to familiarize yourself more with how to appropriately edit Wikipedia if you want to make constructive contributions. I suggest you start reading entries at Help:Contents/Getting started. A general tip; when you are editing a page, observe how other content is written (including referencing), and write in a similar style. Also use the preview button to see how your edit looks, before you possibly save the edit. – Bellatores (t.) 22:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for your advice I read what you showed me and found a lot, also this:

"you do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: older versions of a page remain in the revision history and can be restored. If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do" -from Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means Is this what you are doing? you do not even tell me what i did wrong, only a general refernce to a general page. Is this working it out? Could you please point out what exactely was wrong with my sourced qoute from Günther Wallraff (a very famous journalist talking exactely about this topic) and why you reverted it? (Leschmuck (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

also the link to Heiner Geißler interview was shortened and didn´t work anymore, i have changed it back. I´m very sure that it wasn´t me who did that, in the history however it seems to say it was me.....?! What´s going on here? (Leschmuck (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leschmuck (talk • contribs) 13:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly wrong biographic detail

[edit]

In the early life details the article mentions Sarrazin having been sent to an orphanage at the age of seven. Where does that information come from as I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else?

92.225.113.162 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also doubt that information. Couldn't find any source for it, neither in German nor English, and it's not mentioned in the German article. Gonna delete it as per WP:GRAPEVINE --Fred Plotz (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Thilo Sarrazin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry

[edit]

I would like to add the ancestry [of Sarrazin] because it may gives some additional informations on the works of Sarrazin. He focussed (his) family and ancestry in his books, too. But this ancestry table was deleted by Doug Weller :( These ancestry tables could connect wikipedia articles, too. The sources I would like add in future. It was a work in progress. If someone removes it I go on... --Citrustree (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thilo_Sarrazin&oldid=1244179299"