Talk:Franz W. Seidler

The version of this article at the German Wikipedia currently has severe problems and violates several core English Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, having the form of a libellous Attack page with most of the article being negative material/communist propaganda. See this discussion. Unless the page improves significantly as far as complying with Wikipedia policy, we will need to remove the link to it as it contains BLP violations. Mrandsl (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I will remove the link right away. It can be reinstated if or when the material complies with BLP and other policies of this project. Mrandsl (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Pseudohistory
The article Categories include "Pseudohistory" but nothing in the article to justify it! Hugo999 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, check out Pour le Mérite Verlag and Vowinkel-Verlag. --92.229.60.29 (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well add something in English for the English article saying what he has written that is "pseudohistory"; he seems qualified as a historian Hugo999 (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The articles in German Wikipedia often reflect left-wing bias + the two IP ranges 78... and 92.229 are known for POV pushing at various articles, e.g. Heinz Nawratil, where it seems the subject himself had to register in order to defend himself against the mudslinging. I wouldn't trust a word those IP users say. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (t) 17:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not about what you would trust or not, but based on statements of government officials. Not neutral enough? --78.53.41.86 (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where does the name Seidler occur in a “statement of government officials” that you imply you have provided? Where have government officials related the publishing house together with all its belongings to 'pseudhistory' or even definitively classified it as 'far-right', to use your favourite 'Totschlagsargument'?! Nowhere! What you so far have, is synthesis, political insinuations, falsifications, 'guilt by association', biased generaliuzations (aka personal POV pushing) etc, refuted already at Talk:Heinz Nawratil. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you asked so nicely: --78.53.41.86 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What you added was a request by the left-wing/liberal Green Party politicans to the German government. It is their opinion, nothing more. What you did not link was an answer by the government, that would confirm any of the reproaches. You have not provided evidence for your classification. This is just your POV, and gluckily for you you have found some politicians of the left-wing spectrum that might agree with you. Per WP:V, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. Adding not properly verified POV into various articles is exactly what you've been busy with here since (at least) December, 2009. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 18:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Then try: Albert A. Feiber, Phantom der Berge in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung vom 13. Februar 2001, S. 10 Seit seiner Emeritierung publiziert er ein Buch nach dem anderen, mit denen er sich schon lange aus der seriösen Geschichtswissenschaft verabschiedet hat“ ("Since his retirement he publishes one book after the other, with which he distances himself from serious historical research.") --78.53.41.86 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he published with Pour la Merite can easily be verified via Amazon .radek (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By now it should be obvious that people with political or ideological agendas try to label anybody with smearwords like "pseudohistory", when they suspect them of saying things they disagree with. --41.146.30.81 (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Another source
German History, journal of German Historical Society, published by Oxford Journals describes Seidler's work in these words: "Franz Seidler's highly biased and unreliable work".radek (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly is it supposed to prove? That he has been criticized by some? Did I dispute this? Have you read what is really being disputed here? For comparison, Viktor Suvorov has also been severly criticized by some, and - believe it or not - some Poles too by other scholars, this does not really prove the need to enrich the corresponding articles here with 'category: pseudohistory? Or fill it with own synthesis. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (t) 19:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Opinions of other academics are most certainly notable. Furthermore, academics usually do not express themselves in such strong terms in relation to other people's work (usually they use a lot of "it suggests", "imperfect" - etc.) without a good reason. Criticisms of Suvorov or Gross by academics most certainly belong in their respective articles as well.radek (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And another source
. It lists Seidler's work as one of a number which "In light of the massive evidence, these publications must be rated as apologetic and hence useless for scholarly research".radek (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are free to add this as Gerd R. Ueberschär's and his colleague's view. Gerd R. Ueberschär himself, of course, is not an undisputed authority. For example, Joachim Hoffmann, longtime collaborator of the German Armed Forces Military History Research Office, had conclusions that differed from those of Ueberschär. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 19:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In reference to this edit
- Seidler has most definitely published with Pour le Mérite Verlag (as shown by the Amazon link I give above) and the publishing house is owned by Dietmar Munier (who probably needs a Wiki article of his own) who is associated with the far right. The same publishing house has also apparently published works by such authors as David Irving, James Bacque and Günter Deckert, the former leader of the National Democratic Party of Germany, a "a far right German nationalist party".radek (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, that is factual then and could be added back - sorry, I should have checked. However "Since his retirement, Seidler has published mostly with far right historical revisionist publishers," is not supported by either the source provided or the fact that he published a book with them. It is a broad statement that needs a citation I think :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The source which was removed also stated that the publisher was "rechtsextremen" - extreme right wing. I think the source was intended to source the fact that the publisher was indeed extremist, not that Seidler published with them. However, the fact that he published with them is easily verifiable. Is the Amazon link to his books which list this publisher enough?radek (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, seems reasonable - maybe something like "Since his retirement Seidler has published books with right wing publisher Pour le Mérite Verlag." --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tmorton was totally right in removing the sentence "Since his retirement, Seidler has published mostly with far right historical revisionist publishers, most notably the Pour le Mérite Verlag of Dietmar Munier". We need sources that he mostly publishes with far-right publishing houses, especially Pour le Mérite Verlag. Otherwise it is concoction remindful of guilt by association. The Bundestag source that stood there in fact connected the publishing house Pour le Merite with far-right authors and owners, noting that some authors that they publish are not far-right, so it is questionable, if the notion is necessary here, unless we also have sources connecting Seidler especially with that particular publishing house. It should be noted, though, that Pour le Mérite publishes other military historians like Viktor Suvorov, who may be neither Germans nor politically far-right or anything. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (t) 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)