Talk:Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt

Presentation of the ZFI, critical contents
An editor changes the description of the ZFI from just "association" to "research institution". Further, this editor is removing contents including sources. These removed parts, about 80% of the article text, are critical of the ZFI and say that it is right-wing and revisionist. part of a formalized request for comment issued by me on 15:42, 4 December 2009, --Schwalker (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A German editor persists in flooding this article with his own opinions. I have removed unencyclopedic and POV material which is not in accordance with English Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and others. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an attack page/far-left opinion piece with 80 % negative/unencyclopedic material (partly not in English). An example of the inappropriate POV vandalism by that user: The fact that the Prime Minister of Bavaria Horst Seehofer sent a laudative greeting to the institute is portrayed as an accusation/criticism. An institute which receives laudative greetings from Horst Seehofer and cooperates with recognized scholars such as Joachim Hoffmann, Franz W. Seidler or Alfred de Zayas (one of the world's leading human rights scholars) is hardly "revisionist", except in the eyes of far-left extremists/communists. If you want to portray the Prime Minister of Bavaria as a "revisionist", get yourself your own blog. It's not acceptable here. Mrandsl (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As this Association is only relevant because of its function as a right-wing revisionist think-tank, the current version is the product of POV and vandalism. --78.53.32.121 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Go push your POV somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and is specifically not a place for propaganda or opinion pieces. Mrandsl (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While I see that there is an argument for "undue weight", the problem seems to me not the negative information included, which is well sourced, as far as I can tell, but rather the lack of sourced information on other activities of this institution. Therefore I have rearranged the content and deliberately left some white spots in the hope that somebody will fill them. For the same reason I have marked the article as a "German organization stub". I hope everybody can live with this. --Dodo19 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The article never was "well sourced". You cannot use political propaganda published exlusively by leftists or far leftists to describe a conservative organisation. These are not sources acceptable under English Wikipedia policies, these are opinions of the opponents of the institute. Specifically, using publications of opponents of the organisation to flood the article (over 80 %) with their POV is never acceptable. Wikipedia articles shall be balanced and neutral (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE). The section "Political orientation" did not contain any appropriate, neutral sources, was given undue weight, and the entire section was not written as an encyclopedia article according to English Wikipedia standards, but as an opinion piece unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The section did however point out that "the Bavarian government today no longer sees any indication for far right tendencies"; I can assure you that if the institute had been only the slightest to the right of the CSU, it would have been observed (the party Die Linke and their activities are, on the other hand, observed). The Prime Minister would not send laudative greetings to an "extremist" institute in any case. Mrandsl (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out above, the "undue weight" is the result of lack of information regarding other aspects. The solution would be for you to provide additional information from published sources, your assurances are not good enough, I am afraid. For the neutrality issue, as critical information can never be neutral. As this information is properly sourced, you would have show they can not be considered as reliable source. Here again, your personal opinion is not relevant. So, please stop deleting sourced information and provide additional information for the claims you make. --Dodo19 (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S.: To illustrate my point above, see here about problems of weight and balance in short articles like this one. And if you could specify why Anton Maegerle, Daniel Hörsch, Andreas Angerstorfer, Annemarie Dengg, Bernd Wagner, and Florian Ritter are not reliable sources. --Dodo19 (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Bavarian Verfassungsschutzbericht is available as here. As you can see, the institute is, unlike the party Die Linke and affiliated institutions, not regarded by the authorities as extremist (it's not mentioned at all). Your continued attempts to portray the fact that Horst Seehofer sent a laudative greeting as a negative accusation is vandalism and will be reverted as such. Here again, your personal opinion of an institute or of Horst Seehofer is irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox (WP:NOT). The only relevant source in this regard if the official Verfassungsschutzbericht that is published by the Ministry of the Interior. Mrandsl (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there is a lot more to say about these people. Bottom line is that you are using political publications by SPD members (mostly from the left-wing of the SPD) or people with a communist past attacking an organisation on the other side of the political spectrum to flood the article with 80 % negative material/political propaganda from political opponents of the institute. The only credible, neutral and relevant source as far as this question is concerned is the Verfassungsschutzbericht published by the government, which is very thorough and cover all expressions of political extremism in Bavaria. You are also using the article as a soapbox to attack the Prime Minister of Bavaria for sending a laudative greeting to the institute. Mrandsl (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anton Maegerle: Member of the SPD left wing and self-identifies with the extremist Antifa. The cited article is published in a book edited by an SPD politician.
 * Andreas Angerstorfer and Annemarie Dengg: Affiliated with the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, an SPD organisation
 * Florian Ritter: Unknown person
 * Bernd Wagner: Former high-ranking communist official from East Germany ("Im Zentralen Kriminalamt der DDR war er Leiter der Abteilung Extremismus", ironicly, as an official of a criminal extremist regime taking part in political repression) and hardly a neutral source
 * Daniel Hörsch: Largely unknown person, his article is published in a book edited by an SPD politician

A comparison: If more than 80 % of the article on Die Linke or an organisation affiliated with that party was made up by the Verfassungsschutz view of that party/organisation, I'm sure some people would protest. Although the Verfassungsschutzbericht is a lot more credible and neutral source than your SPD publications. Mrandsl (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The only source you quoted so far is irrelevant because it contains no information at all on the topic. Interestingly you deleted the only source supporting the alleged support of the Bavarian government. You make no attempt at finding alternative wording, instead you disqualify all sources, except a right-wing newspaper. Following your logic, only right-wing extremist sources would be allowed to be quoted in articles about right-wing extremism. This is not WP:NPOV, that's WP:Censorship. --Dodo19 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, let me answer the above mentioned request for comment. I'm totally unfamiliar with the topic, and with the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, I've only read the article in its current and its former version, but I'm an experienced editor. I'd suggest not getting too personal between you, and avoiding any accusations of being leftist or right-wing. It's just not helpful. Now, if we managed to have an article about such controversial a man as Rush Limbaugh, then we should be able to solve this problem. Why don't you first find out what common facts you agree on, e. g. names, persons, sources etc.? I guess there will be some facts you both can agree on. This could be the basis for a nice little article. And the first step to avoiding any future edit-warring. Now let's talk about the critical points. If the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt is being perceived by someone as, say, being politically biased, then we may mention that in a section reflecting that. Of course we shouldn't exaggerate. I understand there are strict anti-nazi-laws in Germany and other European countries, some of them even partially restricting the freedom of speech (which is understandable, given Europe's experience with totalitarian regimes). So it's clear that the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt would be illegal if it really was some sort of neo-nazi organization. But it may be an institution leaning to the political right or even far right (just an assumption). This could also be expressed in the section, but in a cool way, as a pure matter of fact. Of course these claims must be supported by credible, serious sources. If the source itself could be seen as biased, for example by affiliation to a political party or think tank, then either avoid the source or mention that affiliation. In the end, the reader should be able to study the article and come to his or her own conclusions. Let the article speak for itself. In case one of you has difficulties accepting even tiny portions of the article, please try to find a solution by debating it, but always keeping away from edit-warring. I hope to have been of help! Please note that I'm only answering to the request for comment, and I will not take part or sides in the future course of this debate. Good luck and happy editing, --Catgut (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice, I agree that is a sensible solution to many of the problems with this article. In Germany, even organisations that are not extremist enough to get banned, or only "suspected" of extremist tendencies or of cooperating with extremists in any way, are "observed" (for instance, the political party Die Linke, is observed by the authorities for this reason). As this institute is not under any kind of observation, the government's position is fairly clear. It could of course be briefly mentioned that left-wing organisations are critical of the institute and perceives it to be "right-wing". Biased sources should not be used as "neutral" sources without any indication of the fact that they are biased. The problem with this article was that it was flooded with negative material, exclusively based on biased, left-wing sources that were presented as neutral sources. Mrandsl (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Mrandsl: Please stop vandalizing this article by removing sources! There is no unsourced information included, that could be libelous. Still you remove everything because you don't like it. Provide additional information if you like, but do not remove sourced material without need! --92.225.80.173 (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding your own opinions to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Specifically, stop adding libellous material to other articles at once (WP:BLP). This is your last warning. Mrandsl (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the links you provided. And don't issue threats. This is not about opinion but about sources. Something you are obviously not familiar with! --92.225.80.173 (talk)

restore previous version
Please compare the version of the article on German wikipedia. The previous version of the article, before the massive, apparently POV driven, removal of sourced text corresponds closely to that version (and let's note here that the German wikipedia generally has higher standards for sourcing than the English one). While this version might have some problems I see no reason to completely gut the article and whitewash the nature of this historical revisionist "institute" or "society".radek (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Also see. Note also the statement "Schickel has been careful to avoid German legal restrictions attacking the Holocaust so he has concentrated on so-called Allied atrocities against the Germans during and after the war". radek (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * German Wikipedia is known for its left-wing bias; for example, they go as far as to declare that there is fundamental difference between those Poles killed by Nazis ('this is very bad!') and those killed by the Soviets ('who cares!', better to be concealed and by no means even compared with the Nazi crimes). The section I removed per past comments looked like soapbox. It has nothing to do with encyclopedic coverage. For example, The SPD and others criticize that Alfred Lehmann (CSU), Lord Mayor of Ingolstadt, has participated several times in the ZFI conferences, and that Horst Seehofer (CSU), minister for food, agriculture and consumer protection, sent a laudative greeting.[2][6] does not belong to an encyclopedia. No-one cares what a left-wing politician once said. At best the fact simply shows that centre-right politicans have friendlier attitudes towards that organizations and the centre-left politicians disapprove of this. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but we have been through this once already. If you have additional information, add it, but do not remove sourced material simply because you don't like it. --Dodo19 (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as a user explained in detail, the supposed sources are mostly fringe authors of the left-wing political spectrum. The Verfassungsschutz no longer sees far-right tendencies in the activities of that organization, hence it is purely POV pushing to claim otherwise (based on stuff by political opponents:


 * Anton Maegerle: Member of the SPD left wing and self-identifies with the radical 'Antifa' current, cf.
 * Andreas Angerstorfer and Annemarie Dengg: Affiliated with the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, an SPD organisation
 * Florian Ritter: Unknown person
 * Bernd Wagner: Former high-ranking functionary from East Germany, member of SED.
 * Daniel Hörsch: co-author of a SPD politician (Stephan Braun, criticized by Junge Freiheit for collaboration with communists, cf. Die offene Flanke der SPD. Der Fall Stephan Braun und die Zusammenarbeit von Sozialdemokraten mit Linksextremisten (“The Open Side of the SPD. S. Braun and the Cooperation of Social Democrats with Left-wing Extremists”))

Sorry, but these are hardly neutral sources. They just represent left-wing (extremist) POV. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if Social Democrats are left-wing fringe, I don't want to know, what you consider "neutral". BTW, a far-right newspaper is hardly relevant for judging sources criticizing the Far Right. Please refrain from further removals of sourced material until a consensus is reached. --Dodo19 (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing is a specimen of tendentious editing. For example, despite the fact that current German authorities do not qualify the organization as far-right, you present as truth an odd pragaraph, which is formulated on such a partisan bases, that you should add a source after every three words: "he ZFI is regarded as one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany.[citation needed] On conferences and meetings, Nazism is presented systematically as innocent, and the German guilt for the Second World War is denied. This happens in close collaboration with periodicals such as Junge Freiheit, Europa Vorn, Nation und Europa und Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart, which look out for similar goals" referring to a 1994 (!) book by Bernd Wagner, an old GDR cadre from their security 'organs'.

And even if Schickel wrote something in 1980s, this sole sentence needn't be presented as 'proof' of anything. In short, all of your sources are partisan, tou have made no attempt to even formulate it so that it at least looks like criticism, not presentation of undisputed facts (as you paint it). As already explained by a user:

"Bottom line is that you are using political publications by SPD members (mostly from the left-wing of the SPD) or people with a communist past attacking an organisation on the other side of the political spectrum to flood the article with 80 % negative material/political propaganda from political opponents of the institute. The only credible, neutral and relevant source as far as this question is concerned is the Verfassungsschutzbericht published by the government, which is very thorough and cover all expressions of political extremism in Bavaria." Mrandsl (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nothing has changed in your behaviour since then. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, is it about behavior now? I thought it was about information and sources. Are there any indications that the information provided in the references is inaccurate, out of date or false? Or do you simply don't like to read anything that opposes your views on Wikipedia? --Dodo19 (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is biased (I explained in detail, why those authors don't represent NPOV) and even patently false, e.g. “he ZFI is regarded as one of the intellectual centers of far right historical revisionism in Germany”, which is unsourced nonsense. The rest is of the same level. Basically if one where to use Udo Voigt's publications to criticize Die Linke. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you readjust your political compass. You are way off your mark.--Dodo19 (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Our political views have inherently nothing to do with the dispute here, which is the reluctance of one party to adjust to reliable sources like VS and give up disseminating slander by left-wing agitators and a former SED functionary. I intend to re-write the article soon and at first order the political 'criticism' the way it should be, if one ought to include criticism of that level (i.e. Criticism by the Antifa, criticism by the left wing of SPD etc. Support, after all, comes from the CDU/CSU, so there's nothing wrong with that). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 12:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since your political views lead you to consider the SPD to be left-wing and call mere party members functionaries, I stand by my suggestion. Be warned that any "rewrite" will be considered vandalism if it fails to contain criticism of the "institute". --Dodo19 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No-one cares what you consider as vandalism. People are not banned here based on political views, like they are at your WP:Vandalismusmeldung. And if you continue following my edits just to revert them based on the political correctness you've been taught at de.wiki, you can very soon end up blocked for your personal assaults or edit warring. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And what does this have to do with your removal of well-sourced information? Please stay on topic. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Dodo19 here, the sources are clear what kind of entity we are dealing here with.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at this article. As I've explained before, I'm not an expert so I can't provide any opinion on this article's content. Unfortunately and despite my advice, this article seems to have gone through an edit war regarding the political position of the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt. I'd like everyone to keep away from getting into edit warring, and rather solve disputes via debating issues on this page, or by looking for other opinions. Thus, I will post messages so that other users may intervene and hopefully provide some help. I know that discussions can become quite heated sometimes, so please be a little patient and do not overreact. Happy editing, Catgut (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Helping to solve the conflict
A conflict between mainly two editors regarding this institution's political orientation, recently turning into an edit-war. See discussion above. Thanks in advance, Catgut (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

All I got to say on this is that the SPD is not by any stretch of the imagination extremist or far left, not unless you think Obama is the same (for example). The info is relevant as without it the article gives a POV view of the institute. The only possible thing that I can see being done is to specifically attribute the sources although to some extent even this is not necessary.radek (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though most of the SPD politicians (but with some exceptions, e.g. the case I referred to above) are by no means extremists, the way their opinions of their political opponents are presented is WP:UNDUE. Some of the supposed sources are fringe, e.g. Antifa activist 'Anton Maegerle' (actually pseudonym, his real name is reportedly Gernot Modery, an author who known for painting some conservative university lectureres as 'far-right'). His publications have been criticized for serious political bias http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Fall-Stephan-Braun-Antifa.154.98.html?&cHash=ae926b4727&tx_ttnews[backPid]=620&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=351> He has even linked Edmund Stoiber, then PM of Bayern, to the extreme right. This was the original concern of User:Mrandsl. None of the concerns have been addressed by you; instead, you just revert. You even haven't troubled to re-word the criticism section so that it could even remotely resemble an encyclopedic entry. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, I have now removed following passages: On conferences and meetings, Nazism is presented systematically as innocent, and the German guilt for the Second World War is denied. This happens in close collaboration with periodicals such as Junge Freiheit, Europa Vorn, Nation und Europa und Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart, which look out for similar goals.  This is certainly false nowadays, since every organization that would in fact deny Nazi guilt, would be closely monitored by German authorities, that - as explained before by another user - are very specific in this sphere.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The other explanation would be that "stupid old men" in a garage in the Bavarian province do not pose a threat to Democracy. --παγκρἃτωρ/pankrator 11:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankrator (talk • contribs)
 * Right there! Which raises the question of relevance. Together with lack of "reliable" sources... --92.225.81.242 (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind to explain why you a) complain about "old" sources being used and b) delete information from "new" publications (2009)? --92.225.81.242 (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Pseudoscience is Benz' view.

I get the impression somebody doesn't like what others have to say about this "institute". As far as Wagner's book is concerned, I accept "cheap" but I am not convinced of the "propaganda pamphlet" part. Could you cite any reviews to this end, please? --παγκρἃτωρ 12:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankrator (talk • contribs)


 * See my comments above, I've commented on those people in detail. At best, their opinions can be mentioned and properly attributed, but within reasonable limits. Maegerle and co are NOT RS. And note that I did not remove Wagner as a whole, but just kept it more concise + the wording neutral. And note, dear German fellow editors, that additions like "In rejecting the findings of historical research, the ZFI in using Pseudoscience based on ideology, created a 'parallel universe' isolated from scholarly discourse." are simply imcomprehensible. Or to put it simply: illiterate. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (t) 13:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you would bother to check before reverting, you would not have failed to notice that nobody referred to Maegerle in recent edits. On the other hand you described Wagner's book as a "cheap propagandist pamphlet", when removing his characterization of the ZFI. Following your path of reasoning, how would a renowned West German publisher possibly print the book of a hardcore communist? --παγκρἃτωρ 13:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankrator (talk • contribs)


 * Well, if he could, he would not need to argue ad hominem and use false analogies.--92.225.81.242 (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

His publications have been criticized for serious political bias http://www.jungefreiheit.de/Fall-Stephan-Braun-Antifa.154.98.html?&cHash=ae926b4727&tx_ttnews[backPid]=620&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=351> The first source seems to be widely regarded as far right newspaper and thus not reliable.-MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, how German right-wing sources are immediately (dis)qualified as unreliable (though I explained the Junge Freiheit controversy in detail, revealing your tricks and lack of expertise, to say the least), whereas German left-wing and extreme left sources are per se reliable (as you claimed in your previous comment here). If sources are “widely regarded” as far-left, then they aren't unreliable, nay? I thought I had explained the Junge Freiheit case for you, but of course I was mistaken. There's no point in informing you on anything German. After all, what is to be expected of a user whose whole contributions list is full of nationalist POV pushing, occasionally blatant ethnic hatespeech against Germans, and to lesser extent, other neighbours of Poland. Considering that this circus has been going on for 5 years by now, one wonders, how you've managed to have your permabans overruled and even aren't topicbanned from German topics (perhaps we shall see some changes here soon).Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This leaves us a bit in a fix. If we accept Junge Freiheit as source, how can we not accept Mr Maegerle? Or if we purge Mr Maegerle from the article, how can we justify using Junge Freiheit? But without Junge Freiheit the article is based solely on Leftist sources, thus we need Junge Freiheit for a balanced article. Therefore Mr Maegerle must be considered to be a reliable source as well as Junge Freiheit or the article needs to be deleted. --Quasimodogeniti (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right, especially since Maegerle seems to be the victim of a right-wing smear campaign . --Alm8y 16:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Quasimodogeniti: you're absolutely right when you're saying that “without Junge Freiheit the article is based solely on Leftist sources.” That's what I've been complaining for days! Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You should draw the consequences then: either accept Maegerle and others or propose the article for deletion. --Quasimodogeniti (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An alternative option is to attribute claims by using descriptions seen in mainstream sources for JF and descriptions in mainstream sources for Maegerle.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason I doubt that Miacek will accept something like: "prize winning German journalist Anton Maegerle" ... --Quasimodogeniti (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Maegerle is a collaborator of the Verfassungsschutz rather than object to their observation as the ZFI once was, there is no reason to omit his findings.--92.225.81.242 (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

recent changes
Obviously somebody didn't like my recent changes. Unfortunately the new version is worse than the old: --78.53.46.192 (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) this is the English-language wikipedia, so the text should be in English;
 * 2) Regardless, XY regards is not exactly good style;
 * 3) the position of the Bavarian government is from 2007, not today,
 * 4) it's activities not tendencies that are relevant for the authorities; and
 * 5) who says Atkins is "left-wing"?


 * If you think that the catastrophic sentence The ZFI is rejecting the findings of historical research, and uses Pseudohistory based on ideology  that you've entered some 5 times already adds on encyclopedic value, you probably haven't got it yet, that we are supposed to write an encyclopedia, not Antifa propaganda pamphlets, where everything goes, granted the political line is 100% correct. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions? Or do you simply like to bark up the wrong tree? --78.53.47.215 (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Seehofer's greetings
According to a newspaper report Seehofer's office neither confirms nor denies him sending his greetings, so we only have Dr Schickel's word on this "moral support". The same source says Lohmann only wanted to thank Schickel for his biography on a honorary citizen of Ingolstadt. --92.229.60.29 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Undue?
Is the undue template still needed in the criticism section? It's only three sentences, which admittedly don't say much about the institute. --78.53.40.172 (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right there. Removed it. --红卫兵 (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

''Note that the 78.53. .. IP range, the 92.225 range, 红卫兵, Quasimodogeniti and possibly Pankrator all belong to the same sock puppet master - Dodo19. Their opinions and insertions into the article should be understood as the handiwork of one person, who has targetted this articles since 2009 to further a certain agenda here.'' Miacek/09:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

De Zayas received an award by them?
Can this be confirmed? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just checked, I think the acceptance speech is actually on his own website . Not sure with my German, could be some other speed delivered for Alfred Schickel.  Volunteer Marek   23:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you've removed the POV tag. What we would really need in place would be a tag, that would emphasize the conflict of interest matter. As far as I could find out, Dodo19 claims to be a professional historian and I have my own suspicions, who he might be. that would explain why has been anonymously mudslinging in biogrpahies. He most definitely wasn't a neutral party, and never pretended to be. To say nothing of his 'methods' (his sock puppet plantation is still very much active in German wiki). I've fixed a few things: if an institution is claimed to be 'holocaust denying' or 'far-right', the opinion of the German authorities should be mentioned, too, which currently do not classify the Institution as such. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you check carefully what Atkins really writes, he does not say ZFI is a '(leading) Holocaust denial institution', but 'another Holocaust institute is...'. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You reverted my change, Marek, but the problem remains, doesn't it? Take the cited p. 105 again. It tells us the leading Holocaust denial institute is the German-Austrian Institute for Contemporary History. [...] - then follows the explanation why is that - But then:  Another Holocaust institute is the Research Institute for Contemporary History (Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle ), and I can assure his translation of the name - 'Research Institute for Contemporary History' - matches 'Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle ' ('Forschung' = 'Research'). But what's the previous one - the supposed 'German-Austrian Institute for Contemporary History' -, I simply can't figure out. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 20:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Found it. Deutsch-Österreichisches Institut für Zeitgeschichte (German-Austrian Institute for Contemporary History -- DÖIZ), headed by Walter Ochensberger - see here (site of Stephen Roth Institute). So sth like The ZFI is considered as the leading Holocaust denial institution in Germany, comparable with the Institute for Historical Review was not an accurate description of what Atkins writes. This happens when trolls start posting their stuff to Wikipedia and some regulars take their stuff for granted. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)