Talk:Bionade-Biedermeier

"Bionade refers to the importance and significance of nourishments for a well-to-do alternative milieu." WTF does that mean?!?!?!

Sixpack is redneck, bionade is LOHA.

The artcile had been cut down by a IP with some fould play. I reverted and commented onm the afD Polentarion Talk 01:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Background - sources

There are 2 sources in the first paragraph : one is a Spiel article that does again not use the term and the other oen is a Zeit interview that simply links to the original Zeit article. Those sources do not show that Bionade-Biedermeier being used more and more frequently - they pretty much are used as a catchy headline / title linking 2 articles in the same newspaper. --ChristopheT (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Polentarion Talk 01:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Bionade-Biedermeier

"Bionade-Biedermeier" appears exactly 2 times : as a title for the piece and in the sentence "Hier herrscht der Bionade-Biedermeier." out of 12 pages. If anything - the articles uses 'Bionade' as a term much more often than'Bionade-Biedermeier'. --ChristopheT (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2016 (

ChristopheT, I took a while to understand your point. BB is the the title and "Hier herrscht der Bionade-Biedermeier" the theatrical climax of the article. One could translate it with BBB rulez. I took the effort to translate the section in question, hope that helps. Polentarion Talk 17:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality

The article has a certain formal quality. If you enter sources here, please use complete references and not only Weblinks. Second, try to mirror the actual wording. The current Shell study states not "opposite" but shows a trend. This applies as well to User:NewJohn. Polentarion Talk 12:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The main problem of the articles is the poor quality of the translation - as a German I do understand the meaning of most of the sentences. But I am not sure the same can be said about English speaker that do not understand German. Maybe you should just try to make short clear sentences to start with and have a Native English speaker help you with the more complex ideas. --ChristopheT (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I just refer to the native speakers that actually had a look on it. The main critics came from the German Rumpelstilzchen departement. Any sentence you ask to be clarified? Polentarion Talk 21:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Radio emmission

PLease note, abstract and date have separate references. Both apply to the lecture in the Potsdam Lebensreform exhibition. Polentarion Talk 22:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC) OK

ARD TV emmission and workplace volume

IP claims are not valid, revert. Excplicit reference in text. Polentarion Talk 02:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC) OK

Article deletion : redirect

Please discuss those changes here before deleting it all.--ChristopheT (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. But I'd also say that using such a long citation taken from an essay is a violation of npov. How do you want to resolve all the remaining issues? Suggestions? -- Neudabei (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

if you want to request a deletion please follow : Wikipedia:AfD

otherwise make suggestions on the talk page

generally I do agree : most of the text is a very very bad translation from something that even in German is far from clear and to the point. But since there was a AfD decision to maintain the article as it is and we should stick to that (or reopen it an AfD request)--ChristopheT (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is an intellectual mistake to not work on the article because of fear that in the end nothing will remain. If you argee on the changes made - why do you reverse the work that has been done? I will go through it again step by step - and if you disagree on some step please let everybody know here. -- Neudabei (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Try working on content. Polentarion Talk 21:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Szenewiki is down and irrelevant. ?

So is the pop-book cited. Does anyone disagree on that?

I do not disagree but I do disagree to use the edit line to have a discussion. Bring the points up here - wait for other people to show up (or not) and then implement those changes.--ChristopheT (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

ok. that's of course possible. So does anyone disagree on that point? (Let's just wait a few days for answers.)-- Neudabei (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Denglish smeers like " the article replicates the pov of Henning Sußebach; the rest ist original research" is sorta funny. Henning Sußebach is not yet impaired by the deWP police. Szenewiki has been quoted and was relevant. Waht you tabba refering to a "pop-book" ? Polentarion Talk 21:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Section "Background" is orginal research and essayistic

The section backround is not backed by any secondary source and it needs to be removed because it replicates the pov of the wiki-author. Does anyone disagree on that? -- Neudabei (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

+1 --ChristopheT (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Try in English. Polentarion Talk 21:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Same is true for the section "development"

The whole text here also qualifies as original reseach. There is no secondary source. It reads like a 5-minute google search. -- Neudabei (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

+1--ChristopheT (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Really? Polentarion Talk 21:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Long citation is violation of npov

The direct translation from the essay is an obious violation of npov. Does anyone disagree on that? -- Neudabei (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

So what? WP:Quote is not about NPOV. 21:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Necessary changes

If you dont like being covered, just stop reading the article. If you want to improve it, try actual improvements. But funny statements like the one about the quote don't help with the impression about some German Ringelpullimateteelimotrinker trying to do a hit job on an article that describes their kraut äh crowd. Polentarion Talk 21:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Your comments are not an appropriate answer to the points I made. As long as it is impossible to have a discussion we need at least to inform readers that there are unresolved issues with the text. -- Neudabei (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Polentarion if you had made the effort to present a short article written in English vs a word by word translation from the German text we would not be here. The points made above do hit pretty much the spot. The reason I did revert those edits was precisely so you could have a chance to reply and improve. Instead you just ask others to somehow improve (translate) the article. --ChristopheT (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The German article has been cut back because it had the same problems we are confronted with here. The article was criticised for beeing an essay and its author for misinterpreting sources on purpose. Polentarion has been blocked for months in the German wikipedia [1]. -- Neudabei (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt it. You lost with your afd, get lost here as well. Polentarion Talk 17:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Original research tag

I don't see the original research. Can we discuss it with specifics, please, rather than simply referring to the debate on de.? Yngvadottir (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course we can have a discussion. Let's just start randomly with the section named "backround": Althought there are indeed several inline citations, there isn't however a single secondary source that gives an overview in the way the author gave here. The whole section only cites texts that are - vaguely related - to the subject "Bionade-Biedermeier". The whole article is an essay of Polentarion not substantiated by any secondary source that takes on the same spin.

The background section is very odd in many regards:

• The "Bionade-Biedermeier" is not the same concept as "Generation Biedermeier". Bionade Biedermeier was coined in 2007. The study is from 2010. Why would that even come close to a desciption of the "backround"? There is no source that sustains this claim.
• The article claim that: "The term plays a role in the discussion about a Neue Bürgerlichkeit (New Bourgeoisie)..." The article "Neue Bürgerlichkeit" was deleted in the German wikipedia [2], mainly because the term is rarely used, is not a desciption of an epoche or timeframe, and the term is only the invention of a single author. Still, here we read that there is an important discussion about a Neue Bürgerlichkeit. Then "Neue Bürgerlichkeit" ist translated to "New Bourgeoisie" wich is unsourced and wrong and can thus be described as orignial research.
• Then we can read that there was a doctorate project about Bionade-Biedermeier. The first source however is fake. Please really start looking at the sources. [3]. If you click on the link you can read that this guy has not even finished his PhD. The whole section is fake and misleading. Polentarion was blocked in the German wikipedia for abusing sources in such a way. The part needs to be deleted urgently.
• Then we continue reading: "Less lenient, a Bon mot of Michael Rutschky founds that end of the 20th century, not the Proletariat, but the Bohème became the ruling class." This claim is totally unrelated to the content of the article. The statement is nonsense.

-- Neudabei (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Try some English. No reason to hack the article. User Neudabei is - to state it clearly - repeatedly lying. Take his claim about the doctorate project. Try [4] - Point is, the University of Leipzig confirms the project, its not yet finished but there have been publications and a media feedback in nationwide media about the Bionade-Biedermeier doctorate. Same with regard to the Dudenszenewiki. I don't care wether the Dudenwebsite is offline now. User Neudabei claims it never had been a project. Thats ridiculous. The definition has been quoted in a scientific volume published in Campusverlag. User Neudabei is denying basic facts at various places. Polentarion Talk 18:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Szenewiki

The project does not exist - and it never existed really. There was just a website through which people could submit proposals for a Duden project - which was abondoned.[5]. -- Neudabei (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Really? You mean a Duden Website quoted in various sources is "no project"? Sorry, youre having problems with reality. Polentarion Talk 17:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC). To put Neudabeis brabble in context, Brenda Strohmaier (in German), [books.google.comWie man lernt, Berliner zu sein: Die deutsche Hauptstadt als konjunktiver Erfahrungsraum Campus Verlag 2014, p.166, footnote 150], Campus Verlag quotes the Szenewiki definition. That said, Neudabei is doing a smear campaign here - claiming Szeneduden had no impact. I will restore his "contributions" therefore. Neudabei, this is as well a civility warning. Polentarion Talk 18:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD

I'll give the rest of this article some time. Unless anybody works on it I will nominate it for deletion. The rest of this article is merely a collection of random excerps from the orignial essay written by Sußebach. -- Neudabei (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious that the remaining text is pure OR: The first "source" only references Sußebachs essay in a footnote. The second "source" is a newspaper article which only mentions the term Bionade-Biedermeier - but in fact discusses a totally different publication. It disusses a book written by Tilman Allert not Sußebach's essay. I think that we should redirect this article here to Bionade. Obviously there is nobody left who makes an effort to improve on the rest of this article. Opinions? -- Neudabei (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

According Deutschlandradio, Sußebach wrote German social history. Our newcomer tries to revert and revision that. State of denial . Try a Parkuhr. Polentarion Talk 17:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Boheme

Think that point is better off with the Boheme Article. Polentarion Talk 19:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

IP trying to delete various content

Seems someone is not willing respectively not able (given his Denglish) to use the talk page here. I restored the status pre vandalism. Take e.g. his claim [6] - the IP deletes a reference based on FAZ, a major German newspaper and claims "a student project". Such a behavior expresses a problem with reality and as well a major problem with basic tenets of Wikipedia. Polentarion Talk 17:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

The page had been devastated by various IPs and sock puppets. Try to make a difference. Polentarion Talk 10:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)