Talk:2005 German visa affair

Some Suggestions
First, excuse my bad English; I'm from Germany.

I find the article quite fair and balanced, although there's maybe some work to be done on it. The so-called "German Visa Affair" is a very important topic, and may have influence on the foreign policy of the EU. In the media, it all concentrates around the person of German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, which is not really true, as the Visa Affair started way earlier, when he wasn't yet in office. Fischer's public statement on the "Visa Affair" has not yet been delivered, so there can't be a real "neutral" view, and the article will have to concentrate on the few facts that are known from media reports, which it does, and gives a very comprehensive overview of the current discussion.

What may lead to confusion are the names of state authorities and federal offices; is there any guideline on how to translate the German names into English? Like, for example, the "Bundeskriminalamt" (BKA) is not a "crime agency", but the German version of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).

11:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality
Whoever did it, I think it is correct to label this article not neutral. This starts with the title -- "Visa Affair" is, what the opposition parties and some of the media are calling it. The parliamentary commission looking into this "affair", pun intended, is called „Sicherheitsrisiko Visapolitik“ ("safety risk: visa politics"). The commission is still working, and it is not at all clear, if in the end there will be an affair or just opposition parties blowing-up some minor errors into affair-like size. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 13:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Tillwe" I witnessed that you are a pro-Green and SPD-supporter because you have worked on many articles about the Greens / SPD. That means the statement above is biased. The author of the text.


 * Marc, I'm a member of the German Green Party, yes. But why does that matter?


 * (1) Do you understand the concept of a "neutral point of view"? In my interpretation, that means that an article should first of all not take only one point of view, but offer different perspectives. This is especially true for political articles -- there is no scientific truth in political articels, and even "facts" are the reason for hot discussions. See for example socialism. In regard to the "visa affair", this means that we should not present "the one true view" -- this is, what the inquiry commission is trying to do, not our work. Instead, we should document who said what, for example not "The Kiev embassy was overrun by thousands of applicants", but "Kiev embassy officals told that the Kiev embassy was overrun by thousands of applicants". And not "Kerstin Müller is a liar", but "Members of the CDU accused Kerstin Müller of lying in front of the parliament."


 * (2) You claim that you are the "author of the text" (instead of signing with ~, as it is usual). That is not true in different ways. One thing is, that the original text of this article mostly was a (bad) translation of the German article de:Visa-Affäre. Different people, including me, have worked to make this translation more clear. The other thing: you are one of the authors, but this is a GFDL licensed Wikipedia article, that means that everyone can change this article, if you like it or not. I hope you are aware of this fact.


 * -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 13:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality again
The quote below is me and others on Marcs user page about this article, and his reaction. Can some third party plase have a look and comment it, before we get a hot edit-war about this article? (I'm from Germany too, and the statement, that it is 100% correct what Marc has written seems a bit problematic to me, but maybe I'm biased ;-)) -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 11:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Marc,
 * I notice that there's a lot of untranslated German material in this article - are you translating it? -- ChrisO 23:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I'm noticing that, well, no offense, but your English needs some work. If you want to drop a note on my talk page when you're all done :with the preliminary translation, I'll go through and copyedit and tidy things up. --John Owens (talk) 23:51, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
 * I'm now ready with translation. There are a lot of difficulties because some words are not available in the English language, so I had to do :"word-to-word translation". It was really difficult to translate.
 * Hi Marc, I think the article really isn't neutral. At least you should clarify who said what -- the press statements of CDU/CSU discuss the visa :"affair" (I don't think even this title is correct) in a totally different light than the press statements of The Greens. Maybe a good idea would :be to write the article in the German Wikipedia first, then waiting until a consensus forms there about it's contents, and only translating it :after that? -- till we &#9788;&#9789; | Talk 13:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "Tillwe" I witnessed that you are a pro-Green and SPD-supporter because you have worked on many articles about the Greens / SPD. That means the ::statement above is biased.
 * What I had translated from the German Wikipedia is what the commission of inquiry and the German media covered through the weeks. It is 100% correct what I had written and is 100% true. I come from Germany and the Greens is a party of lying and wrong-talking. The party is a controversial one and the even the German media and people think so. The Greens in Germany had only popularity when the Foreign Minister was popular. Fischers popularity is down. I come from Germany and I know what I have to write and that is the truth about it and its consequences. I'm not against the Greens but to tell the truth is better than lying. Many foreign people think because of our Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD) and Secretary of State Joschka Fischer (Greens) are well presented in foreign countries, that doesn't have to mean that they are trustworthiest persons in the world or EU. Many people in Germany think so. (The government is only presented in North Rhine-Westphalia in state level. That means the only state where the SPD/Greens-coalition is presented is in North Rhine-Westphalia.) And I wanted to bring a clear picture about German politics in the Wikipedia. When it isn't correct then punish me.
 * I'm not from Germany, but I have followed the discussion in the last few months. In one sentence you are accusing the German Greens of being "a party of lying and wrong-talking" (whatever the latter may mean), and then you say, you are "not against the Greens"? You seem to be at least as biased as user:tillwe. In fact, his arguments for a move to NPOV have convinced at least myself.
 * - Peter Putzer (I don't have an account on the English Wikipedia yet)
 * "Tillwe" I witnessed that you are a pro-Green and SPD-supporter because you have worked on many articles about the Greens / SPD. That means the ::statement above is biased.
 * What I had translated from the German Wikipedia is what the commission of inquiry and the German media covered through the weeks. It is 100% correct what I had written and is 100% true. I come from Germany and the Greens is a party of lying and wrong-talking. The party is a controversial one and the even the German media and people think so. The Greens in Germany had only popularity when the Foreign Minister was popular. Fischers popularity is down. I come from Germany and I know what I have to write and that is the truth about it and its consequences. I'm not against the Greens but to tell the truth is better than lying. Many foreign people think because of our Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (SPD) and Secretary of State Joschka Fischer (Greens) are well presented in foreign countries, that doesn't have to mean that they are trustworthiest persons in the world or EU. Many people in Germany think so. (The government is only presented in North Rhine-Westphalia in state level. That means the only state where the SPD/Greens-coalition is presented is in North Rhine-Westphalia.) And I wanted to bring a clear picture about German politics in the Wikipedia. When it isn't correct then punish me.
 * I'm not from Germany, but I have followed the discussion in the last few months. In one sentence you are accusing the German Greens of being "a party of lying and wrong-talking" (whatever the latter may mean), and then you say, you are "not against the Greens"? You seem to be at least as biased as user:tillwe. In fact, his arguments for a move to NPOV have convinced at least myself.
 * - Peter Putzer (I don't have an account on the English Wikipedia yet)
 * I'm not from Germany, but I have followed the discussion in the last few months. In one sentence you are accusing the German Greens of being "a party of lying and wrong-talking" (whatever the latter may mean), and then you say, you are "not against the Greens"? You seem to be at least as biased as user:tillwe. In fact, his arguments for a move to NPOV have convinced at least myself.
 * - Peter Putzer (I don't have an account on the English Wikipedia yet)

Third party
I don't know enough about the subject to help. But maybe it would be good to ask for a third opinion at the articles on Germany or German politics. Maurreen 19:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I took up your offer and edited a bit the wording of today's events. Marcschulz not only gave us another example of his unique brand of English but also his somewhat blurred vision of what actually happened today in the committee. However, I wasn't privy to their deliberations and rely heavily on newspapers myself. Hopefully, this paragraph is at least easier on the eyes now. ;) --Istabraq 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro
Just for your information, I added the following intro some weeks ago, but it was repeatedly removed by Marc Schulz:


 * The so-called visa affair is an on-going debate in Germany that started in January, 2005. The opposition Christian Democratic Union in the German Bundestag installed a Commission of Inquiry on the handling of visa and security. They claim that the visa policy of Germany's Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschka Fischer and his former minister of state Ludger Volmer made it too easy to get a visa to Germany, which in turn increased illegal immigration. The foreign minister and his party, Alliance 90/The Greens, argue that it was a long standing goal of German policy -- even before the red-green coalition government -- to ease travelling from Eastern Europe to Germany, and that they acted as soon as problems with regulations became visible. Most of the German mass media copied the CDU/CSU arguments and accused the foreign minister of knowingly easing crime and prostitution. Statistics about crime and illegal immigration do not show a correlation with the visa policy. Fischer for the first time in over six years in February, 2005, lost his leading position in opinion polls to Christian Democrats Christian Wulff.

I think there are some points in this intro that could be integrated in the new intro. What do you think? -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 08:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
It seems like the "affair" is over and done with and no new developments have taken place recently; since the new Bundestag is in session, it appears as though the committee rests. The German article looks quite good at this point: it offers a lot of information about the subject, and its neutrality is not disputed; I actually found that the German article concentrates on the issue in a concise and unbiased manner without spending too much time on opinions regarding the political parties involved; I believe that the presentation of the purely political aspects (such as Joshka Fisher's domestic and international reputation and how it may have changed as a result of the "visa-affair") are best saved for articles that directly relate to those parties and / or persons.

Unless someone has any objections, I will translate the German article in its current version, and replace this article with its direct German translation. I have translated enough German texts to be able to present even "untranslatable" concepts, such as the ones mentioned above (I believe "Bundeskriminalamt" was one of them) without any problems; please see my user page for examples. I agree that this is a "hot topic" in Germany, as well as in international politics and should be presented accurately. Therefore, I will regard lack of objection as silent approval. (Patrick 02:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Why did this end up into an affair ?
Did problems occur with Ukrainian vistitors to Germany ? Did they commit many crimes ? Are Ukrainians much worse than Poles or Romanians who can visit Germany as they like ? Or was this affair concerning formal violations by the government of Germany, like violating the Schengen Treaty ? It does not follow clearly from the article. -- BIL 15:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was mainly a political maneuver by the conservative CDU opposition. Der Spiegel also mused that it might be an earlier initiative of Fischer firing back on him from when he had been trying to dig up the Nazi past of either the Foreign or Interior Office, such as that the offices should finally stop holding annual memorial celebrations of Nazi officials as "good Germans", so the civil servants started collaborating with the CDU to stir up this Visa "affair" in order to get rid of Fischer. --87.154.27.41 (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)