Talk:Martin Hohmann

Partial- flag as bias
Partial - and not based on factual content of speach but on interpretation of onlooker, bringing in interpretation with bias, and also ignoring the historical facts Hohmann brings up. Author of text als shows clare bias against Hohmann, interpreting his speach in the worst possible way. -this is an academicly weak article that does not stand up to scrutiny.

NMJ ~ BA.pol.sci

84.49.93.211 (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What NMJ claims is correct. The Article shows clear bias against Martin Hohmann, in that it presents almost no arguments supporting Mr. Hohmann's speech's claims. The article in it's current form provides a false debate, where it states Mr. Hohmann's claims (out of context) and then proceeds to tear them down.

158.36.225.232 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article does of course not support Mr. Hohmann's interpretations of history, as he is merely repeating antisemitic stereotypes that have been effectively discarded long ago. The interpretation of Hohmann's speech follows the public and scientific reception and, last but not least, the decision of the Berliner Kammergericht in Hohmann's appeal against his exclusion from the CDU. The decision can be found here (in German, of course). --Papphase (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Article shows clear bias against Martin Hohmann, in that it presents almost no arguments supporting Mr. Hohmann's speech's claims."

Maybe that is because there ARE NO "arguments supporting Mr. Hohmann's speech's claims".

To call the CDU/CSU "centre-right" is the height of ridiculousness. They are not even Sacred Heart Socialists. They are Socialists pure and simple.

-- 84.180.181.37 (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues
The article as it stands does not reflect a neutral point of view. The first section, which is supposedly a description of his speech, appears instead to re-argue Hohmann's thesis in new words. This passage, for example, highlights the problem well:
 * He notes that, while the notion of collective guilt is usually denied, it is very much applied to Germans. Other nations tend to white-wash their history, like the French who hail the bloody French revolution as some kind of emancipation and the imperialist dictator Napoleon as a benevolent father of the people.

The discursive techniques adopted here are emotive and do not reflect an impartial tone. The final paragraph of the section appears to be an uncited interpretation of the speech.

The second section is also problematic. Some statements are badly sourced, with source articles being twisted to support a particular point of view: namely, that Hohmann's expulsion was unjustified. For instance, the Economist article cited to support the statement that the expulsion "rais[ed] some concerns that the party did not share the zeal of his critics" does not state such a thing at all, even overlooking the non-impartial tone of the statement itself. The most conspicuous example of source articles being twisted to support a non-impartial conclusion arrives two lines later: "According to The Independent, support for free speech was far higher than expected."

Accordingly, I will attempt to rewrite some of the article. Other contributions are, of course, welcome. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)