Talk:Frauke Petry/Archive 1

"Entering German soil"
As in the source, a rather unfortunate literal translation of a German idiom? It does suggest burrowing underground, but I mustn't be pedantic and resisted putting a sic. Rothorpe (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring sources
Please stop to ignore BBC/Reuters sources which do not back a certain leftist pov. Petry is usually seen as "right-wing", maybe some more leftist authors describe her as "far-right". But this is not "Leftipedia", but Wikipedia. ;)--Gerry1214 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, you are the one removing sourced information for no reason, based on your own private opinion, original research and synthesis. Your strange language ("a certain leftist pov", "maybe some more leftist authors", "Leftipedia" and so on) clearly reveals your agenda (I'm not even left-wing). Whether her party has previously been considered "right-wing" is immaterial; what matters is how she (as a representative of a particular extreme-right faction within her party which effectively ousted the party's original founders/leaders) is perceived by reliable sources, and she is clearly perceived as a far-right politician who espouses racism, Islamophobia and the shooting of refugees(!). Most right-wing people in the proper sense of the word would agree that such far-right opinions have nothing to do with mainstream right-wing politics. --Tataral (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the AfD article? You should have done before writing and editing. The party is clearly called "right-wing", because most of the sources do so. And you should read your minority sources again, too. They don't even call Petry herself "far right", but only her party. But that doesn't matter at all, because with your edit you put your version in the lede section, ignoring the sources that call her right wing, which are in the article below. Furthermore, I didn't remove your sources, just weighed them against the other "right-wing" sources. In fact, you are the one, who removed the sources I brought in! And regarding the "shooting on refugees": You should read also this article again, Petry herself said explicitely that she don't want to shoot on refugees. So your edit is factually wrong and completely biased.--Gerry1214 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This article is about her, not about the party. Perceptions of the party have changed as far-right racists ousted the party's "moderate" wing last year. The guy who was the sole reason some right-wingers insisted the party was right-wing and not far-right has left the party and said of his successor the party has "fallen irretrievably into the wrong hands" thanks to her. Shooting refugees and persecuting Muslims is not "right-wing"; it's far-right politics and racism. --Tataral (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Untrue, and you provide no sources for your personal perception or go into my arguments. The sources which you provided do not back your perception about Frauke Petry either. Therefore clearly reverted. And I'm now going to remove your sources, which do in fact NOT say that Petry is "far-right". --Gerry1214 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your own point of view. Numerous sources and authorities have commented that Petry, as opposed to her predecessor, is far-right. For example the prominent extremism researcher and political scientist Cas Mudde, a leading expert in this particular field, writes that "[the] conservative party leader Bernd Lücke was replaced by the far right Frauke Petry, who made the AfD practically into the party political representative of the broader Pegida movement." --Tataral (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh the Huffpost. What a source. ;) The statement of Mudde can be included, but not in the way that you delete all other statements and sources and ignore every argument that I wrote. Therefore reverted again. Discuss reasonably and stop aggressive pushing.--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Addition: The statement of Mudde is still a minority source, so not suitable for the lede. And I see my edits backed by WP:BLPREMOVE, because you are aggressively trying to label the person with your POV in a certain, contentious way.--Gerry1214 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are calling me "extreme right"? This is a clear PA. Ok, well, maybe I am the first "extreme right" who creates articles about politicians like Konstantin von Notz or Winfried Hermann... -Gerry1214 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, it's an accurate description of your POV pushing in this article, as evidenced by your own comments about "Leftipedia" and so on. And for a brand new editor, you have certainly familiarized yourself with various wikilawyering techniques and terminology. --Tataral (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Q.e.d. I'm not going into your insults and provocations.--Gerry1214 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I saw this dispute at ANI. If reliable sources can be found that call Petry far-right, then there is no reason not to include that information in the article. Failing to include the information would be a disservice to readers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood the case, I'm sorry. It's included in my balanced version, that Petry is called far right. But there are more sources, saying she is right-wing, as her party, see Alternative for Germany. In Tatarals version they are removed. Why? This is clearly politically motivated editing. Also I included the statement of Cas Mudde, which Tataral brought in. So my version is more balanced and neutral.--Gerry1214 (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What I meant (I suppose I should have been clearer) was that it would be a disservice not to mention in the lead - which is the only part of the article that some readers may read - that Petry is considered far right. Your version does a disservice to readers by concealing that information, and as it seems perfectly clear that you do not have consensus to remove it, I have restored it once again. I am taking into account what happened at ANI, where you were expressly told not to continue reverting. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly wrong. With this version BBC/Reuters sources are removed that she is right-wing. This is a clear suppression of information! My version conceals nothing, this is nonsense, as Cas Mudde is mentioned. What is that for an argument that the lede will only be read, sorry this is total nonsense, too. And if it was, that the lede will only be read, than the reader would be misinformated.--Gerry1214 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD: "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read." I am only following the advice in the guideline, which is widely accepted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And why should those readers be misinformed that she would only be called "far-right", suppressing the BBC and Reuters?--Gerry1214 (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There are several issues at hand here:
 * 1) The description of her in the lead. I agree with what FreeKnowledgeCreator just pointed out: The lead is supposed to summarise the article. The description of her as far-right is significant enough to merit inclusion in the lead. However, it is possible that we could also include alternative perspectives, and that the exact wording could be adjusted. I'm not insisting on any particular wording. Omitting this crucial part of how she is widely described misleads readers.
 * 2) Problematic content in the body of the article: For example the sentence "in her party Petry represents the national-conservative faction supporting policies of national self-determinism," in Wikipedia's voice, as if this is an uncontroversial fact
 * 3) Section heading hierarchy, e.g. with "Wolfgang Schäuble" as a first-level heading. "Wolfgang Schäuble" and similar sections should at the very least be sub sections of "Political orientation," "Political views," "Controversies" or something like that. --Tataral (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest that we change "As noted by the news magazine Stern, she speaks fluent English" (which seems to make a big deal of a very common skill; to my knowledge English is a mandatory subject in German schools) to "She speaks English in addition to her native German", "She speaks German and English", or something similar. --Tataral (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Those suggestions seem reasonable. In this article from The Guardian, she rejects the "far-right" label, though the journalist describes how it has dogged her.  This would probably be a good source to use. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage other users to improve the lead along these lines. There is no reason the lead cannot say both that Petry is considered far right and that she disputes the label. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a sentence like "Petry is described as a representative of the far right wing within her party by political scientist Cas Mudde, but rejects the label and considers herself to be a national conservative"? On a different note, the now-blocked User:Gerry1214 (or someone who certainly behaves as him) has awarded himself a barnstar for his "defense of the article Frauke Petry from persistent and organized violators of the Wikipedia policies WP:RS, WP:LIBEL, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP". --Tataral (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that should be fine. I'd encourage anyone to go ahead and make the edit. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced. I repeat my question: Why should the readers of the lede be misinformed that she would only be called "far-right", suppressing the BBC and Reuters? There are loads of other sources calling her "right wing" or "right wing populist". And to make a personal remark, since I was personally attacked here again: I am NOT and have nothing to do with the user who posted a barnstar on my user page. Not only the subject of this article shall obviously be wrongly labelled, also other users are subject of false rumors.--Gerry1214 (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a more basic question: Why should a politician be labelled with a certain political view in the lede section. In many politicians' articles the party is named, not more. I see no need to do it here, since there are obviously different perceptions. It's definitely much more appropiate, when the different facts and views about Petry are mentioned in the "political orientation" section.--Gerry1214 (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The political orientation of a politician is frequently included, especially when it is not self-evident. In her case, her party's political orientation isn't self-evident, since the party was established only recently, is a fringe party without representation in the Bundestag, and since the party's political orientation has been the subject of a recent struggle between at least two factions, including a faction widely described as far-right and led by her, and the "moderate" faction of Bernd Lucke which could be described as right-wing populist. When sources previously have described the party as "right-wing", they were referring to a quite different party led by Bernd Lucke, a man who now considers AfD to have fallen "irretrievably into the wrong hands". --Tataral (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The political orientation can be included in the corrsponding section, but it can not be reduced to the label "far right" in the lede. There is a historical dimension, there are different perceptions under different scientists, there is a self-view. Reduction is not needed, because it is misleading, and it is for good reasons not done in many politicians' articles. Furthermore, your post shows, that you are not too much into the recent debates about the AfD party. There are scientists who recently claimed that Petry and Meuthen both had lost control of the more dynamic, more right-wing faction around Gauland, Höcke, and Poggenburg. If you describe Petry as a "far-right", what is Gauland in your view? Where stands Höcke? Where is the differentiation? You see, labelling leads to much more problems than it solves. And the "right-wing" sources I added, don't refer to the previous party, as they are dated March and August 2016. So this is a completely inaccurate notion.--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And to draw another small comparison: I'm still missing the "far-right" label in the Donald Trump article, as his views are similar to those of Petry in several issues.--Gerry1214 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally I agree that Donald Trump should be described as far-right, but that is really a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't think many people in Germany would consider opinions similar to those of Trump acceptable; imagine a politician who demanded the construction of a wall against Poland to protect against Poles, paid for by Poland, and who wanted to ban Jews from entering the country and to "shut down" synagogues. Claiming to be "like Trump" doesn't mean she isn't far-right by German (or indeed European) standards. She is positioned to the right of the former "moderate wing" of her party (which could be said to be right-wing populist, and which has now broken away to form their own party), who are in turn positioned to the right of the conservatives. There is no doubt she represents the most right-wing faction in German politics, far to the right of mainstream right-wingers. --Tataral (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But Germans who elect AfD want secure borders in Bavaria. And Petry is NOT antisemitic by the way, she wants to drive every antisemitic tendencies out of the party and always speaks of "strict rules" against them within the AfD. And she doesn't "represents the most right-wing faction in German politics". This does the NPD, which is therefore considered as far-right. And this is not Petry. She comes from the national conservatives and, because she is clever, uses some classical populist issues to gain votes, as Trump does. But these are excursions more into right-wing populism stuff.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand she is more extreme than the NPD. The things she says about Muslims, about shooting refugees, is more extreme than positions advocated by the NPD leader. These are simply two competing far-right parties. It doesn't help if she doesn't target one particular minority group if she says equally bigoted things about another minority group. Scholars in this field have noted for many years that today's far-right extremists tend to focus their hatred on Muslims and recent immigrants in general. --Tataral (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, this is not true. NPD are the guys with the brown shirts. Read the things that Udo Pastörs said, or his predecessors, one of them Udo Voigt who was sentenced because of Volksverhetzung (incitement of the people). This is not Petry's speech. And Petry said "I don't want to shoot on them either", but protect the borders with force as a last resort, which is in the article. There's one thing what is said, and one thing what certain media construct of it. Btw. 60 (against 34) percent of the Germans say that the Islam doesn't belong to Germany. 58 (against 38) percent say, their sorrows are not taken serious by the longer established parties. More than 50 percent say that because of the refugees the influence of Islam in Germany will become to high. If this is far right, than maybe Germany is a Nazi state again? I don't know, if you have been here recently, but I can assure you this is not the case. --Gerry1214 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? You are the only one who is edit-warring here without any relevant discussion!--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, no, I'm implementing the proposal agreed on in this very discussion by everyone who offered an opinion except you. If you want to change anything, you will need to obtain consensus here on the talk page instead of continuing with disruptive blanket reverts (including restoring other bad parts of the article), for which you have already been blocked once, and for which I suspect you will find yourself blocked again, considering your lack of interest in cooperating with others and your insistence on enforcing your own POV without any regard for this discussion. --Tataral (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What kind of a consensus should that be? The status of the discussion was clear. I didn't want to change anything. You want to change it and you just started edit-warring and aggressive pushing again as you did before. And I am not the only author here who reverted your WP:LABEL, WP:LIBEL, WP:POV edits. I always acted according to WP:BLPREMOVE and I will keep doing so.--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Since you are seemingly unwilling to even read the discussion, in which three editors agreed on the changes in question, with you and only you objecting and not really engaging in dicussion with other editors at all, I would strongly advise you against continuing edit warring. Also, what happened to your promise on your talk page after your most recent block to stop edit warring on this article? The comment in which you referred to other Wikipedia contributors as "braindead people"? --Tataral (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You try to provoke me here again with personal attacks as you did before on this talk page, but you will be unsuccessful this time. I read everything closely and reverted you with the following comment: "Nothing was agreed on talk; description as "right wing" by numerous sources would be missing; a single opinion is not appropriate in the lede". There is nothing more to add. --Gerry1214 (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Agreement" doesn't mean that you have to agree to it. If three other editors agree on something – which I implemented following comments by other editors such as "something like that should be fine. I'd encourage anyone to go ahead and make the edit" – and you are the only one disagreeing, you cannot enforce your POV by edit warring against everyone else. The last time, you edit warred against three or four other editors as well, and you were blocked for your conduct. If you are unwilling to cooperate with other editors or respect the opinions of any other editors than yourself, you are no doubt headed for a lengthy, if not permanent, block. --Tataral (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus means that there has to be a consensus. There is none for your editing here, and it is factually wrong and harms a person. That is enough for a revert by anyone.--Gerry1214 (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is consensus for the edit, and I advise you against edit warring against consensus. You should familiarize yourself with what consensus on Wikipedia means, because competence is required, particularly of users engaged in revert warring against everyone else. --Tataral (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL. There is no consensus for your edit, I am familiar with it, but there is enough competence here. Just another PA from you.--Gerry1214 (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no point in continuing a conversation with you as you are apparently not interested in the opinions of other editors, fail to understand how Wikipedia works, and fail to understand that you cannot edit war against three or four other editors to enforce your personal views when there is no support for your edits or conduct, and you have even been blocked once for this very conduct in this very article. --Tataral (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You repeat yourself and don't discuss the subject. You will be reverted in time. Also you should be blocked for your continued edit-warring.--Gerry1214 (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just saw that you deleted reputable BBC/Reuters sources with your edit. This is clearly disruptive editing, and you should be blocked immediately for that. And the article now receives a neutrality warning.--Gerry1214 (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Full ack Gerry. Therefore reverted back to neutral version.--2003:57:6E39:B337:D29:DA1D:BAB6:5EC4 (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, User:Gerry1214 – who has already been blocked once for this exact behaviour in this article – ignores the discussion on the talk page and promises to continue with his disruptive blanket reverts, which not only delete material from the WP:LEAD despite a consensus to include it on this talk page, but which also reinstate a bad version of a section below which uses Wikipedia's voice to argue what is essentially a POV. As promised, he returns as the IP editor 2003:57:6E39:B337:D29:DA1D:BAB6:5EC4 shortly after and continues with disruptive behaviour, with an edit summary with the same language which clearly tells us it's him. --Tataral (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I definitely got the impression that you are deleting sourced information and edit-warring against everyone else. Stop that please.--78.50.169.50 (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Tataral, there is no consensus for your material which is labelling a person, and there is no consensus to delete sourced material. Also your slandering and spreading of false rumors about me continues. This is another personal attack, and you should be blocked for your PAs and disruptive editing. Thank you to the IPs and User:Helper201 who help to deal with this continued disruptive editing.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

As an outside observer who stumbled on to this article it is clear that Gerry has an incentive to hide the facts about AfD and about the extreme right wing views it has been transformed to represent. It is not accurate to say AfD or Petry are now merely right-wing, because they are now as far right from right-wing as the Christian Democrats are center from the DSP. Militärwissenschaften (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Sir, I never write in favor to hide any facts, I write in favor of a version that mentions both, the right wing and the far right thesis. The only one who wanted to hide facts is the one who deleted facts from reputable sources, User:Tataral. If you have a good source, you can add any fact to this article that you want. But you can't delete it when you personally don't like it. And this was what the forementioned user did. We only display reputably sourced information, we don't judge it.--Gerry1214 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

quote out of context
we should remove the shooting immigrants quote from the opening of the article. this is a rediculous try to present her as radical. the quote is out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.0.2 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Statements about shooting immigrants
An editor, namely User:Joobo, claims that the statements by Frauke Petry were vague and easy to misinterpret, so that they would not neccessarily contradict Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. To the contrary, Petry made a statement, which translates from the German as thus (I'm a native speaker):

"[Policemen] must inhibit illegal border crossings, and even use guns in emergency situations."

Now the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees expressly states that

"The contracting states shall respect a refugee's personal status and the rights that come with it"

and, in particular,

"The contracting states shall not impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves", or "forcibly return or "refoul" refugees to the country they've fled from."

Thus, Petry's statements do clearly and obviously contradict the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. However, User:Joobo did not only not respect that, but described my logically flawless edits as "fake news". If that's not impolite (note that describing real fake news as fake news is not impolite, since it's even morally neccessary).

Furthermore, User:Joobo contradicted an article of Germany's most prestigious newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which stated explicitly that Petry had misconstrued the law she cited to mean that her suggestions would be implied by law. I included that into the article, but that was reverted too, without mentioning any sources or anything close to a valid argument.

I'm so sick and tired of authors being disrespectful. I'm a mathematician in the making, my first paper appeared a month ago. I'm trained to evaluate the truth of statements. And here come people trying to present false arguments to me, believing they would suffice. It's unnerving. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * SEE ALSO User_talk:Joobo--Mathmensch (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)



Archive of previous discussion from User talk:Joobo
Hello dear Joobo,

unfortunately, you made a tendentious edit to Frauke Petry: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frauke_Petry&diff=783918197&oldid=783911364. Furthermore, you suggested that my (perfectly correct and logically valid) edit was "fake news". Both these indicate counter-productive behaviour which is to be dropped immediately. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please drop the sarcasm of "dear" right at the beginning. Your claim of my edit being tendentious is not backed up at all and a pure insinuation. Wikipedia has rules and guidelines also you should be following, if it comes to editing in articles, particularly of BLP, as well as among users. Legally and technically spoken the reference to the law of Petry is not "false". If it comes to laws most of the time it hardly can be put in categories of right and false. She referred to an existing law which can be applied. It is however not clear if it actually would be — it is also always different in each single case given. Your edit was not "perfectly correct and logically valid". If it comes to legal matters of hypothetical application and vague statements it hardly can ever be labeled as right or wrong, hence saying it was a "false" reference to the law is incorrect. I used the term fake news as a manner to underline the fact that in this case it goes the other way around as well.--Joobo (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The term "fake news" can only be applied to things which are nonsensical, and you did not disprove the logic of my edit (mainly because it's not possible). --Mathmensch (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion should not be about "fake news" actually. That is not what this is about. The bottom line is, the law Petry referred to is actually existing. This can be stated in the article without highlighting it as neither a "right" reference respectively ground to her statement nor as "false". Both would not be correct, because such a clear definite conclusion simply cannot be given in this case due to ambiguity in the legal context. The current version does not do so but points out to the possible conflict of intl. Law. This is adequate in this way. I did not change that information, merely adding the word "possibly", as an equally indefinite answer can be given. --Joobo (talk)
 * I hope the third opinion request I set up will clarify matters. --Mathmensch (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi,

I'm going to be copying this discussion to the affected article's talk page, please move all further discussion there. Thanks!  Programming Geek talk to me 21:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC) (for WP:3O)

New Discussion
Let's use this as a starting point.

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by Mathmensch:

Petry clearly misinterpreted German law, as the given source states, and she also contradicted the Convention related to the Status of Refugees, whence both of these facts should be clearly mentioned, as they are of great relevance to the subject.--Mathmensch (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

As already stated, and which the source used and no source can back up rationally, she did not "falsly" invoked german law. The situation is the same if someone says "Police officers can kill people". This simple statement is right and wrong at the same time. There are laws regarding legal matters and situations where a statement logically cannot be labeld as "false", which would be indefinite. In this example given, laws allowing officers to kill people if necessary, even if international law or even the constitution (in Germany Grundgesetz) prohibits doing harm to others. This example is a perfect analogy to the statement of Petry. Hence to say her statement with regards to the law were false, would be false itself. It is neither "right" nor "wrong". It simply is a statement that can go either way, same as "Police officers can kill people". Articles, as this one, about statements of hypothetical situations only lay out certain frames and then weigh in the legal material. Just, there is no way to say it is right or wrong in a definite way. Saying she invoked the law correctly would be wrong to state here, saying she invoked the law incorrectly would be wrong as well.--Joobo (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Viewpoint by Joobo:


 * Third opinion by ProgrammingGeek: ....

a statement which contradicts the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees?
How can the 'statement' be in contradiction of the Convention? Does the Convention prohibits certain kind of speech? Creuzbourg (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)