Talk:André Poggenburg
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the André Poggenburg article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial irregularities edit
I note that mentions of Poggenburg's being asked to account for 'financial irregularities' are being introduced and removed without any discussion on this talk page. While one can invoke WP:BLPVIO and WP:RECENTISM, as well as WP:UNDUE, contrary to the rationale being used by the editor who is removing any content surrounding this, there certainly has clearly been coverage by multiple WP:RS (Spiegel Online carries an article here, as does Die Welt here).
There is also no information regarding his stance on immigration, which is also covered in RS English language sources such as this. While BLP's are WP:NOTSCANDAL, relevant and legitimate content regarding the person's notability which is covered by reliable sources is WP:NOTCENSORED, so I'd like to see some discussion here as to what is legitimate content for the article rather than edit summary warring. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The content that was deleted was pretty well sourced by a major german newspaper and relates to a well covered and controversial episode in Poggenburgs political life. He did not merely have financial problems but several official warrants of arrest were issued by authorities as he repeatedly denied disclosing his financial status which he was supposed to do due to not payed debt. This may be a controversial episode for him but is certainly of relevance for a public figure and especially a politician who apparently ran a political campaign claiming him to be a successful entrepreneur (despite his company beeing bancrupt). This has been pretty extensively debated in a bunch of well respected national German newspapers:
- http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/finanzskandal-belastet-afd-kandidat-andre-poggenburg-14039831.html
- http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article151695462/AfD-Wahlsieg-als-Weg-aus-dem-privaten-Finanzdesaster.html
- http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/afd-spitzenkandidat-andre-poggenburg-in-bedraengnis-a-1074447.html
... Please do not delete this content. LucLeTruc (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've restored the sentence given that it is amply covered by responsible WP:BLPSOURCES, is brief and neutral in tone, does not contravene WP:RSBREAKING as there is no speculation or tabloid style hypothesising, and carries an attributed response by Poggenburg. English language sources are preferable, but quality WP:NONENG sources are most certainly acceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
APD shown in a misleading light? edit
"He left the party in January 2019 to form his own far-right party, Aufbruch der deutschen Patrioten ("Awakening of German Patriots", AdP), but the party immediately came under criticism when it announced that it would use a logo which included a blue cornflower, a symbol associated with the anti-Semitic Schoenerer Movement which was also used by banned Austrian Nazis in the 1930s before the Anschluss in 1938 united Austria with Nazi Germany."
This whole sentence is one long, tedious piece of anti-Nazi propaganda. It would be fine (that's one of the tenets of Wikipedia, after all) if it weren't for the misleading tone - the highlighted part gave me the impression that the party failed/disbanded. Why else mention this silly, petty critique of a flower right next to the foundation of the party? I'd suggest splitting the foundation from the critique in two sentences for a start.--Adûnâi (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)