This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]. 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)
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)
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 article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]. 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)
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)
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)