Talk:Jörg Haider/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

LGBT people from Austria - category removal

I have added the category LGBT people from Austria to this article, yet it has been repeatedly removed, though I do not understand why. From The Irish Times (the paper of record in Ireland) - "Haider's male lover and party colleague reveals relationship. AUSTRIA'S BIGGEST open secret - Jörg Haider's homosexuality - finally has been confirmed in a tearful confession from Stefan Petzner, his party ally and lover of five years." [1]. It is quite clear from this and other reputable source that Haider and Petzner were homosexual lovers, hence the inclusion of this category. Rather than removing the category again, please discuss it here first. Snappy56 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please see previous section above: Talk:Jörg_Haider#LGBT_category. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that section discussed a different category LGBT politicians not LGBT people from Austria. Also, just because something has been discussed doesn't mean it can't be discussed again. The Irish Times article is pretty clear, so I've added the category again. Please stop trying to censor wikipedia. Snappy56 (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is "censoring Wikipedia", aside from being a personal attack, the first argument anyone who doesn't want to face the facts uses most often? Look at the history of the article. I am not the only one reverting you. You are currently going against consensus. WP:CON demands that you do not revert against consensus. Current consensus is that this category cannot stay. Look at how many users do not want this category added: Stephan Schultz in his edit here, Delirium, the Iron Duke, Oxygen etc. are all disagreeing with you. I do too. What makes you think that we all try to "censor Wikipedia"? Also the category LGBT from Austria, from England or from anywhere or simply LGBT apply only to outed pols not closeted ones or those whose status is in dispute. His sexuality is disputed and he was not outed. That's why it cannot apply. Look at the arguments carefully in the other section whose link I gave you before you start the boilerplate "censoring" accusations and related personal attacks. Using logic is always nicer and more satisfying in the long run. Dr.K. (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Before you revert again please seek consensus. Current consensus is that this category cannot stay. So please do not revert again until and if consensus changes in your favour. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the previous discussion was around the category Category:LGBT politicians, this is NOT the one I added, which was Category:LGBT people from Austria, so the previous arguments don't apply. Secondly, Haider's sexuality is not in doubt, he was married and had a sexual relationship with Petzner, whether he was "out" or not is irrelevant to this category. Did you read the Irish Times article? Fourthly, consensus can and does change. The facts are that Haider was a gay/bisexual person from Austria so he goes in this category. Snappy56 (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice the disconnect between the title of the Irish Times article and Petzner's actual words? In the main body of the article there is not a single mention of Petzner overtly admitting anything. I don't call that conclusive. As far as consensus I agree. Let's wait to see what the other editors think about applying this category. Your comment is constructive and a welcome change from your previous stance. If there is a change in consensus I wouldn't mind at all because this is an integral part of how Wikipedia functions and I am pleased that at least you are giving it a chance to materialise again before acting. Dr.K. (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no disconnect as you call it. Petzner has admitted the relationship with Haider, for example this is from the Irish Times article - Mr Petzner's televised revelation cost him his job yesterday as leader of Haider's Alliance for Austria's Future (BZÖ). The revelation was made on Austrian television, its on youtube now. You can dismiss the Irish Times and all other reliable sources if you want, but Petzner's own words are there, recorded on video, admitting the relationship with Haider. This is a fact, that cannot be challenged. Snappy56 (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more reliable sources, London Times, London Independent, Daily Mail UK, Daily Telegraph UK and IHT, The IHT says according to Reinhold Gärtner, a political science professor at Innsbruck University, "It has been an open secret for years that Haider was gay, and most Austrians would have preferred for it to remain a secret". Hmmm..... Snappy56 (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First I am not Austrian so you don't have to worry about this at all. I haven't seen the video so I don't know what exactly Petzner revealed. Let's see what the other editors have to say about it and what the new consensus will be. I'll put forth my arguments soon. Thanks for the information regardless. Dr.K. (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Austrian either, our nationalities are irrelevant, the point is that although Austrians may be hypocritical and not want to know that Haider was gay, there is no reason to reflect that attitude on wikipedia, where we always strive to report the facts and only the facts. I've added many reliable references which detail exactly what Petzner said in his Austrian television interview. Snappy56 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Snappy,

Unfortunately for you, Haider is dead and cannot comment on these articles, so unless you show me a signed document from him stating: I am gay and das ist gut so.... we can't label him as a gay person. Petzner said a lot of things, but Haider did not.

--Oxygen305 (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Without taking sides on the category issue, I must point out the error in Oxygen's claim above. If we only included statements by individuals about themselves, we would have to least 98% of the content of all biographies. If a reasonable case can be made for the fact that Haider was bisexual can be made, using good sources, then that should be included. If such a case cannot be made, then the category should not be included.JdeJ (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We would certainly have to remove any gay categories from the Rock Hudson article. __meco (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue the fact that newspapers write about him beeing gay, but I will argue that we can't take it as a fact, not even Petzner himself stated openly : We were Gay! That's why I think we should see it for what it is, a controversy. --Oxygen305 (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this category should stay in; the criteria are different than LGBT pols. Also, I looked around, and can find not one source disupting his sexuality. It is therefore not controversial in the sense that it is disputed. IronDuke 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the Wikipedia equivalent of "arguing the case over how many angels could dance on a pin ad absurdum"? Surely there are other aspects to discuss? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither category belongs here (and it is absurd to claim that Haider was a bisexual man but not a bisexual politician!) as his supposed bisexuality is not an established fact. I am also amazed that papers that clearly make incorrect claims ("Mr Petzner's televised revelation cost him his job yesterday as leader of Haider's Alliance for Austria's Future (BZÖ)") are now here cited as sources. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Str1977. These news are also recent so they suffer from WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. The verdict of history is not reflected in the sensationalist headlines of the newspapers. We cannot judge a man's whole life by a few late life incidents. It has not been established to encyclopedic standards that Haider was indeed gay. Even taking Petzner at his word we don't know exactly what transpired between them because Petzner never made it clear and we don't have Haider's take on it anyway. 23:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Dr.K. (talk)

On top of that we also have WP:BLP issues due to his recent death. Dr.K. (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Some very bizarre statements here, Oxygen305 - "unless you show me a signed document from him (Haider) stating: I am gay", then no other proof is acceptable. I find it strange that newbie editors who almost exclusively edit in this and related articles should barge in here and demand absurd levels of proof. I've been on wikipedia a while and WP:RS are what you need, of which I've provided plenty. The same editor spouts nonsense that only what a persons admits to can go into there articles, I suggest you check the difference between biography and autobiography. As IronDuke said no-one, not even Haider's wife and children are disputing his sexuality or his relationship with Petzner. Mrs Haider was even outdone by Petzner in the crying stakes at her husbands funeral but that's neither here nor there, when someone dies things which were unknown or hidden, come out of the closet, (to coin a a phrase), is it the duty of wikipedia to record these facts otherwise it make a mockery of this encyclopaedia. But anyway, the news that Haider was gay isn't exactly new, see this report the Guardian from March 2000 [2]. Snappy56 (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny, Snappy56, that I the newbie understands better than you , the expert, that now is the time to step back for a few days and let othes make the desicion. --Oxygen305 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is rather long. Most of its length appears to be discussing one aspect of Haider's life rather than how to develop the actual article, or placing JH and his views in context.

Would so much space be devoted to X's allergy/ability to play the musical saw/other "general" topic? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I quote here from an article by By Writer William J. Kole, Associated Press, – Fri Oct 24, 7:31 am titled: Was Austrian far-right leader Joerg Haider gay?

Speculation that he led a double life raged this week after his political protege, Stefan Petzner, publicly called Haider "the man of my life" in a tearful tribute to the former Freedom Party boss killed in a car crash earlier this month. Petzner, 27, did not say explicitly that he and Haider, a 58-year-old married father of two, were gay or had a sexual relationship.

and

"This can't go on," said Michael Fleischhacker, editor-in-chief of the daily Die Presse. "Stefan Petzner needs to make a decision: Either he describes what was so special about his relationship with Joerg Haider, or he stops publicly playing the role of Haider's successor and widow," Fleischhacker wrote in his blog.

What I am trying to establish is that there are different sources reaching different conclusions about the same events. The coverage given by AP and Die Presse is currently better and more balanced than Wikipedia's. We should not be in this position. Yet in our rush to pass judgment we highlight only these sources that fit our particular POV. What we need here is a complete rewrite of the Petzner section to remove POV and RECENTISM. In addition the sources currently provided be it the Irish Times, The Telegraph or even the Independent all sound like copies of each other down to the phrases that they use. We should check if what we think are different sources is actually only one source. Dr.K. (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And this about the famous "Man of my life" currently quoted in the article:

Petzner chose his words carefully, and what he really meant remains open to interpretation. He called Haider his "Lebensmensch" — a term in German that could suggest an intimate relationship, but also could be used to describe an icon or a mentor.

As you see in our rush to judgment we play with german words to highlight our own POV. Dr.K. (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Also from the same article:

For decades, rumors had swirled that Haider might be gay. Some had even taken to calling his political bloc the "Boys' Party" because Haider's entourage often included a bevy of tanned young men.

Compare this to the Telegraph's

...which became known as 'Haider's boy party

The distortion and lack of objectivity in the Telegraph piece is clear. It is quite different, and more balanced to say "Some had even taken to calling his political bloc the "Boys' Party"" which implies it was not a widely shared view rather than "which became known as 'Haider's boy party" which implies that's how the party was known to everybody. Dr.K. (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Now on top of all that and despite the ongoing discussion in the press, we rush to add the LGBT category as if it were going out of fashion. Dr.K. (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's totally nonsens, or do you believe if Russian Media says Jörg Haider was a gay-nazi that this is either true? I suggest you to primarly read Austrian News sources (like http://www.austriantimes.at) or www.oe24.at, as it seems, the more far away the news is published, the more wrong informations are included. Even some reports in neighbour countries like Germany are NOT neutral in this case. Just because the past deputy and now designated party leader Stefan Petzner is so emotionally about Haider, as he claimed Haider was his "Lebensmensch", it doesn't mean either of them are gay. On the one hand "Lebensmensch" means a partner that shares live with you (e.g. a married couple or gay/lesbian couples), but on the other hand it also means a person that follows one the whole life-term (e.g. friends, acquitance, colleges and even others that you possibly meat in your life-term). I think Petzner meant the second point as he stated somewhere, he meat his former boss Jörg Haider the first time, when he was just 4 years old. --N00bh4ck3r (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the Austrian Times says:

• Petzner faces axe after revealing gay Haider affair
• Former Jörg Haider spokesman Stefan Petzner - only recently confirmed as his mentor’s successor as BZÖ leader - is facing the chop just ten days into his new job after effectively outing himself as Haider’s gay lover on a radio breakfast show Wednesday....Admitting that he felt a "magnetic attraction" for Haider, whom he met five years ago while working as a cosmetics reporter, Petzner insisted: "We had a relationship that went far beyond friendship. Jörg and I were connected by something truly special. He was the man of my life."... Clearly embarrassed by the revelations, party officials today attempted to limit the political damage and cancelled forthcoming interviews with Mr Petzner. Their attempts to prevent his radio interview being rebroadcast, however, were unsuccessful. ... Although his party was nicknamed the "Haider’s boy party", until today conservative Austria had preferred to embrace his public persona as a traditional family man. Mr Petzner’s revelations have shattered that charade, and there was speculation today that after not even a month in the job, he might soon find himself replaced as leader of the Alliance for the Future of Austria. [3]

So perhaps the Austrian leadership of the BZÖ doesn't understand the meaning of "Lebensmensch" as explained by N00bh4ck3r. Also, the Austrian Times seems to think the met only five years ago, no 18 years ago. Do we all agree that the Austrian Times is a reliable and suitable source for this article? 00:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC) ·:· Will Beback ·:·

I quote from the Austrian Times:

"I had to go to him. I had to go to him," Petzner said in his highly emotional interview, various international media, including British quality newspapers Daily Telegraph, The Times and Guardian, claim. Petzner allegedly recalled how he rushed to the hospital where the dead body of 58-year-old Haider was lying after his fatal crash in early October.

The Austrian Times are quoting the usual suspects that I just mentioned above. Hardly an original piece of news. Also the reservations about the term "Lebensmensch" are not only expressed by N00bh4ck3r alone but rather they are also part of the Associated press analysis which I quoted above. Conclusion: These facts have not yet been established to encyclopedic standards. Dr.K. (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure we may and must note that Petzner's words have been taken to mean "homosexual affair" but in Petzner's actual words this doesn't seem so clear! There are more options than merely friendship to homosexual affair/relationship. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We may never know what occurred behind closed doors, but more information may come out in the future. The standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We report verifiable information from reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We would be violating NPOV if we omitted a significant point of view, in this case that the relationship was sexual. On the other hand, categories should not be applied when the characterization is highly controversial, as it is in this case. So the article should say that some news sources are describing the relationship as homosexual, but we should not apply the LGBT categories based on current knowledge. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your approach Will Beback, it is fair and reasonable and IMO it upholds encyclopedic standards, but I would also add that other news sources such as AP, as quoted above, express reservations. The "Lebensmensch" quote should be treated the same way expressing the possible interpretations of the term while the phrase "became known as the Haider's boys club" should be further worked on to qualify its origins and its use by the wider public. Dr.K. (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I added "can imply intimate relationship", which was in the source. "Alleged relationship" is a poor section title. No one doubts that the two men had a relationship. The only question is the nature of that relationship. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you very much. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the length of discussion on the topic compared to the previous entries on the talk page, perhaps it is time to pause on the subject until something more concrete than multiple quotations and requotations surfaces. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Brevity, unfortunately, has not been one of the virtues of this discussion. Dr.K. (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Dr.k and Will Beback for the current section. I love the new title. --Oxygen305 (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Oxygen. I agree with you. I like it too. Sometimes less is more. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well after the discussion (exhaustive maybe, brevity be damned!), I agree with the consensus that neither of the LGBT categories should currently apply to this article. It's good to talk! Snappy56 (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Having a discussion with fair and open-minded people like you is not only good, it is also a pleasure. Thank you. Dr.K. (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lebensmensch

So let me make a statement about the "Lebensmensch" thing. Petzner means Haider was for him a person that appeared in his whole life-term (althought hes only 27 years old at the moment). However you, may state Petzner said about Haider, he was for him like a "Lebensmensch". ("Er war für mich wie ein Lebensmensch"), but you must write this in the Stefan Petzner article, as this is what Petzner thinks about Haider but not, what Jörg Haider, said himself. You will never be able to write here Haider was gay, as hes dead. If Petzner states that he himself is gay, ok but Haider never said about himself to be gay. You may only add the category, if the person himself ever told to be gay, and Haider didn't. Of course there is no reliable website, as everybody says now Haider was drunk and nobody never talked about a murder. Now there are even many speculations written in Austrian Media about a murdering of Jörg Haider. Only if all sources, and even his wife would state hes Gay, then he "might" be gay. But at this point you will never be 100% sure, as you cannot ask him youself anymore. So don't add the category. About Petzner you may still research and watch and listen what he says, maybe he expresses to be gay. Petzner maybe, Haider NO WAY! You can discuss in the Stefan Petzner article for further thoughts on if Petzner is to be in the LBGT category.--N00bh4ck3r (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me try it again: I believe that Haider and Petzner were a gay couple and that they had continously sex since years. But it doesn't matter, because I can't prove that, for all I know, Petzner thinks that Haider and he were so close that they had a very special thing going, I believe that he thinks that but I still don't know if it's true or not. He( Petzner) thinks that they were so close, I don't know what Haider thought about it, so I can't take Petzner's statements as a fact. --Oxygen305 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Will, who says the relationship was controversial? By "controversial," of course, I mean that the sexual nature was in dispute? IronDuke 02:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have posted this above in reply to your comment in the earlier thread. To rephrase: who asserts that Haider was not gay/bi? IronDuke 22:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to look it up again, but I recall seeing an asrticle that siad the party disputes the interpretation of the Haider/Petzner relationship as sexual. Ah, here's one: Officials at Mr. Haider’s party, which gained more than 10 percent of the votes in September elections, tried to limit the political fallout from the statement by dismissing Mr. Petzner as head of their parliamentary group and denying that the men were lovers.[4] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. As I read the article, nowhere does anyone dispute Haider was gay/bi, merely that it would be inaccurate to call his relationship with Petzner one of "lovers." Also, given the only people who even raise a hint of doubt are his supporters (eg, the article you supplied essentially outs Haider), I can't say it's really dipsuted. Anguishing to some conservative Austrians? No doubt. But that doesn't make it "disputed" in a meaningful sense of the word. IronDuke 23:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That NYT article quotes someone saying that it was an open secret. It's not clear why the party leaders would be so embarrassed if the speculation was unfounded. However we don't have strong sources that say unequivocally that he was gay/bi. My guess is that more information will come out over time and the situation will become clearer. In the meantime we should follow the practice of the best newspapers reporting on this by simply saying that there is speculation on the matter. We can report the information and let readers draw their own conclusions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As I read the article, it does everything but scream. "Hairder was gay!" A quote

While the country has been convulsed by a somewhat un-Austrian outpouring of emotions, Austrian commentators said the effective outing of Mr. Haider had been underplayed or largely ignored in the Austrian news media, which tend to shy away from the private lives of politicians and other national figures. (emphasis added)

Note "effective outing," not "suggestions Haider may have been homosexual." Again: no one disputes that he was gay, and the only people who have weighed in on the other side of the fence are his supporters, and then only to say he has not had an affair with Petzner. IronDuke 23:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Associated Press reported Petzner's comments as "Joerg and I were connected by something truly special. He was the man of my life ... I loved him as a best friend."

add to this that AP also reports that "Lebensmensch can also mean icon or mentor. Then the above quote becomes:

Joerg and I were connected by something truly special. He was my mentor ... I loved him as a best friend.

Are you telling me there are no doubts present? Dr.K. (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Because if you are, then you are declaring open season on mentors and icons. We might as well mass tag them LGBT from now. Dr.K. (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to look at the sum of the evidence, which includes not only that one statement, but also the previous outing and the fact that not a single source denies that he was gay (or bi, if you prefer). On the other hand, journalistic sources from all sides of the political spectrum have reported on the fact that he was gay.[5][6]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, many of these articles are based on the revelations of Petzner which we discussed above. There are also copies of the AP report that I posted above with the characteristic title: "Was Austrian far-right leader Joerg Haider gay?" The Financial Times UK mentions: "Nor did persistent rumours of a secret extra-marital gay relationship – seemingly confirmed by his 27-year-old designated successor – dent local sympathy for a leader who shot to international prominence in 2000, when his Freedom party joined a national coalition government." These are not unequivocal statements that he was gay. So there is still no clear consensus among the best press sources that Haider was clearly and unequivocally gay. If we present this in the article then we have to mention all sides including the press sources that have not as yet passed such clear judgment. The Associated press report clearly does not explicitly out Haider. Other newspapers such as the South African Times pronounce Haider gay but only in the title. In the body of the article no analysis, no real facts are presented to convince the reader this is true, other than the Petzner affair. In my opinion it is not up to encyclopedic standards to unequivocally assert this yet as a fact because the Petzner affair is still not an open and shut case. Any such analysis will have built in weaknesses and would be too recentist to have any real encyclopedic value IMO. Waiting for the facts to clear up and more serious analysis to emerge would benefit the article. Pronouncing Haider gay in a hurry based on selected recent press reports headlines is not what encyclopedias do. Encyclopedias should by nature be more conservative, selective and patient. Dr.K. (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, and to make my point more clear, I have no objection to present various representative viewpoints and let the readers draw their own conclusions as Will Beback suggests above. Dr.K. (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus also had a special sort of relationship with the Apostles, do we give him into the LBGT-Category, NO!! So we call it brothership or simply love for all people! I think if politicans are gay, they state that, because they have enough confidence, and so he cannot be! Its ridiculous even to need to argu this. Or should we now also argue if a leader of a 27% party from 1999, should be feard? The Media tells you stuff, and you believe it. Be more critical! Tell me why Isreal Media now after his death is the only who speak bad things, and that as they have theoretically a civil war in theire own country? --N00bh4ck3r (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets leave Jesus and the Israeli media out of this. Also, my dear N00bh4ck3r, it seems like English is not your first language, I'd suggest not editing in this area until your competency improves, because right now your contributions are not making much sense. Snappy56 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think "more than enough" has been said on the subject (most of the 135k of this talkpage seems to be on it)- asthe proverbial alien on the equivalent of the Clapham omnibus would say (g). Probably the best thing to say is that aspects of his activities and presentation, and of others associated with Haider, have given rise to speculation on his orientation/the direction of some of his emotional attachments. Until and unless more actual information is presented, all that will happen here is "quote this newspaper, quote that one, and "the same to you with..." playground game. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My dearest Jackiespeel, that is just your opinion. Please don't attempt to shutdown debate just because you've had enough. The beauty of wikipedia is that debate will go on, and editing of this article will go on, long after both you and I are dead! Snappy56 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is - #most of the discussion on this talk page# appears to be discussion of one aspect of the actual or supposed private life of a political figure who will probably be mostly noted for the "particular political position" he adopted and the manner of his death. The debate will go on - but Wikipedia is supposed to be based on verifiable fact - and I have yet to see anything that advances on my previous comment. Can I suggest that (a) part of this talkpage (or part of this strand) be archived and (b) a discussion document on the topic be set up elsewhere (Wikinfo for example) - thus everybody can be satisfied (in a Wiki-multiverse sense of course). More putting the discussion on hold awaiting more information than shutting it down (g). Jackiespeel 17:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

In this video Petzner says at the end: "er war ein(!) Lebensmensch" or "he was 1 Lebensmensch" and NOT "er war mein Lebensmensch" (that would say: he was MY one...). So he says, " he was 1 Lebensmensch" and NOT "he was my one". This means he was "a Lebensmensch" NOT "ma Lebensmensch". So he didn't say explicit that Haider was HI'S, but he said Haider WAS a "Lebensmensch". http://news.orf.at/video/iptvpopup.html?reaktionen_haider_v2_edit.wmv

@Mr. Snappy NO sadly english isn't my mother tounge ALTHOUGHT, I lived in AUSTRALIA more than 25% of my life, and went there in school and was really good in english. But that...WAS! But basically english was the first language I was able to speak (althougt my parents were simple german speakings only) fluently! So we can say NO english was the first language I spoke, but yes its not my mother tongue. --N00bh4ck3r (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

The article has settled down now and I don't see anyone arguing that we still place disproportionate weight on the events surrounding the subject's death. Do we need to keep the {recentism} tag? If so, what is the specific problem to be addressed? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll take it out. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong translation

The word "Lebensmensch" should not be translated to "man of my life". "Mensch" means "man" but only "man" as in "mankind". While the English word "man" can mean a "male person" or a "human being", the word "Mensch" has simply the one and only meaning "human being". So the correct translation should be "person of my life". The current translation implies homosexuallity, which is really not meant by this word! (e.g. Gerhard Doerfler, Haiders Vize-Governor, called him his "Lebensmensch",too. The same did many Carinthians on posters and signs placed at the accident site...) Other than in English and American newspapers rumors about Haider's homosexuallity were no big thing in Austrian papers. Maybe because they got the meaning of the word right... So I'd like to suggest the correction of that translation. Thanks. 80.122.198.206 (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mossad spied on far-right Austrian

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article528859.ece

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, spare us the "Poles and Jews" game. Thank you. --RCS (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

? --Krzyzowiec (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not particularly Polish, as a Jewish Belgian descended person, but it was widely reported that Mossad spied on Haider, and that Israel was concerned about Haider's antisemitic connections, which Israeli newspapers reported about. This cannot be removed from the article. Even if Mossad or our Israel wants it to be removed now after the Haider's tragic death. Of course it might raise certain persons' "theories" that Mossad assassinated Jörg Haider by staging a car incident. But that is a consequence of the internet. Censoring this article and known facts about Haider and Israeli concerns over Haider's neo-Nazi connections, is stupid. It raises more antisemitism. We should be careful about that. Please do not remove my entry.Smith2006 (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Considerate" politician, reverted here

don't point out my bad enlish like this, hehe. "considerate" should have been a citation/translation of wolfgang fellners "besonnen" mentioned in this press review, see here for a translation. according to fellner, he and haider sued each other maybe a 100 times, and quarreled bitterly. i am also unsure why you consider the fellner-edited Oesterreich (http://file.oe24.at/help/unternehmen.html), ORF_(broadcaster), Kleine Zeitung as "unreliable source"? how would you include/translate this information in a better way? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I post the above message here to focus the discussion on this talk page.

First of all, my edit was only aimed at the opener, the rest was accidental and I restored it.

Why did I revert the changes to the opener.

First of all say that Haider became a considerate politician is vague and also POV - it is the opinion of a single man (or half the opinion of a single man as he also describes Haider as

"das größte politische Genie seit Bruno Kreisky" gewesen, aber auch der "größtmögliche Zerstörer". ... Zuletzt sei Haider zum "sanften, besonnenen, fast weisen Politiker gereift" und hätte "alle Chancen gehabt", das Land "jenseits von Rot-Schwarz neu zu gestalten".

As for the link I removed (I am talking about this one, the ORF link is still present and the AP link no longer avaiable) - do we need links that say things like "Auch die USA und die Zionisten (die treuesten Verbündeten der Türken) befürworten den EU-Beitritt der Türkei." and other niceties?

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Translation please (for those of us with only holiday German)?

There may be an article in December's Standpoint (magazine) on JH. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The bits above translate as:

"the greatest political genius since Bruno Kreisky" - the "greastest possible destroyer" - eventually "matured into a soft, considerate, almost wise politician" who had all the chances ... to mold the country apart from red-black" - "the USA and the 'the Zionists' (the most loyal allies of the Turks) favour Turkey joining the EU". Str1977 ^(talk) 08:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

The Standpoint article is at [7]. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm boldly adding auto-archiving for threads stale 45+ days leaving a minimum of 5 threads. -- Banjeboi 19:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2002 elections section on this page should be archived; all of the comments in that section are from 2002 and 2003. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Once new sections are started it will age off, alternately you can simply cut and paste it into the archives. -- Banjeboi 03:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wahlonkel

Was Webhofer a friend of the Haider family, or in a sexual relationship with Haider? It is a very high value estate that Haider inherited from him. Alfred Kinsey (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)