Talk:Peter Schumann

Questions regarding Schumann's Childhood
Obviously, since I am named in this article, it would be inappropriate for me to contribute directly, but I should note that there appears to be a major factual error regarding Schumann's childhood:

"Schumann denied any such accusations, pointing to how his family escaped from Nazi rule when he was 10,"

Could someone please show me where Peter Schumann has ever claimed that his family fled from Nazi Germany? As near as I can tell, the author of the cited article, Ken Picard, was in error (Picard never puts the words in Schumann's mouth, unlike the author of the above quote.) I raised the issue in a letter to the editor of Seven Days. The few autobiographical sources I have read indicate that Schumann and his family fled deeper into Nazi Germany as Allied bombers began to fly over targets in Silesia and the Soviet army advanced. There are a number of sources online and in print.

The points being, 1.) It appears to be an error; and 2.) my understanding of wiki ethics requires that I not touch the article, 3.) somebody else needs to fix it.IanThal (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since, as I have said before, my understanding of Wikipedia ethics requires I refrain from editing this article, I have made observations of some of the above mentioned inaccuracies, politically motivated edits, and assembled links to relevant sources at http://ianthal.blogspot.com/2008/05/when-wikipedia-renders-one-un-person.html I will allow others to judge what needs to be included and what needs to be excluded.  The current article cannot stand as writtenIanThal (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Article is Being Censored by Anonymous Contributors
Because I was mentioned in an earlier draft as an involved party, it would be a violation of Wikipedia ethics for me to edit the main article. However, I have documented another example of censorship of this article by anonymous contributors: http://ianthal.blogspot.com/2008/09/bread-and-censorship-making-radical.html. I earlier wrote about this behavior here: http://ianthal.blogspot.com/2008/05/when-wikipedia-renders-one-un-person.html IanThal (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Though on balance I agree with restoring the deleted material, I do not think that this is anything close to worthy of the name "censorship." Though the disputed material is written to some (low) standard of NPOV, it continues to raise a serious problem of undue weight.  If we ask what ubjects we'd expect that an encyclopedia article on Schumann ought to cover -- even in describing his politics and the politics of his work -- the recent Palestine exhibit might be about the tenth or fifteenth-most-significant thing on the list, at most.  There is a distinct tinge of axe-grinding about its prominence here.  -- Rbellin|Talk 18:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to think that the language is neutral, having first reviewed it for neutrality when the question was raised at the biographies of living persons noticeboard in May of 2008. :) Weight is more difficult for me to address, as I have no familiarity with the subject beyond what is addressed here. I've added a section which I hope will help address your balance concerns, but much of the material on him seems to be tucked behind a pay wall. From the bit I did read, it does look as though there could be considerably more about his other work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rbellin that a proper biographical article should not have so much weight devoted to Schumann's work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (as it has only been a major subject of his work in recent years), and even though I have been critical of that aspect of his work in my public life (meaning that I should not be directly contributing to the article as per my understanding of Wikipedia ethics), I consider him to be an important artist who deserves a more comprehensive article. However it seems that that's the aspect of his work that contributors wish address or prevent from being addressed, and I certainly don't think that that particular section should be removed just because other sections have not been added.IanThal (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)