Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Margot Honecker

Correct spelling?

Is her name Margo or Margot? Tim! (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) I think Margot. I think that this article is not politically neutral.[reply]

Her Job Title

Was she Ministerin für Volksbildung (as in first paragraph) or Volksbildungsministerin (as in later section)? Even people who know some German will find this confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.170.130 (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ministerin für Volksbildung--Frances K. (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Im not quite sure but I think the official title was masculine, "Minister für Volksbildung"--Frances K. (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her name

I keep getting indigestion from this entry when it identifies her as Margot Honecker before she married Erich. Before she married Erich she was Margot Feist. Calling her by her married name when she was a child and then a (formidably ambitious) young woman, but BEFORE she got married is a gratuitous anachronism. And to the extent that she had already placed several little footprints on East Germany's history BEFORE she got married, using her "wrong" name for those early years risks confusing people trying to check out contemporary sources.

Or am I being unduly picky?

  • 1. What do other people think?
  • 2. Could/should we change her name, in the early "prenuptial" paragraphs to "Margot Feist"?
  • 3. Is there a wiki-convention/best practi(cs)e on such matters or are we expected to apply common sense? (I tend to prefer common sense; but that only works if people who care enough to think about stuff agree with each other.)

Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV introduction, heavy bias

The introduction seems to me "a bit" POV and biased. It is full of references to Western mass media and newspapers like The Independent, The Huffington Post, etc :-/. In the lead. In a biography of a political person. Calling her a "Purple witch". The most "hated person in East Germany". Speaking about "kidnapping", "forced adoption" and "concentration camps for children" with just one reference to those "newspapers". I hope that after some days, when some users lose their interest in pushing their views in this article, we can create a serious introduction and improve the article. emijrp (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We are all, here, prisoners of our sources, of course. And where you stick to English language sources, as a lot of folks did here, you are restricted to the bits that someone bothered to translate. It's clear that a lot of people genuinely didn't like Margot very much (or at all) even in East Germany, and on top of that the whole business gets taken up and acid coated in the context of the east-west conflicts that provide a defining context for her life. To some extent we're stuck with it; but there is nevertheless prominence here is given to stuff that is needlessly negative, especially in the intro section. Wikipedia cannot help reflecting the opinions of those who contribute to its sources, but we should and can try to avoid tipping over into shameless bias. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No bias whatsoever. The Reliable Sources overwhelmingly are critical of her, and her own mouth was her worst enemy. Some people just don't have the luxury of having many people on her side. Her friends were extremest communists, not much in the way of 'middle ground' there. 68.19.0.114 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Per false balance and WP:UNDUE, Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the mainstream view of topics. They do not present all viewpoints equally, but rather present viewpoints based on their preponderance in reliable, independent sources. People who are widely reviled in reliable source material cannot be presented as "OK" in Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 18:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32 is entirely correct. There is no bias in this article, as it simply presents the mainstream view on her legacy as presented in reliable sources. The critical information, such as her popular/widely used nickname "The Purple Witch", is exceedingly well sourced and was used prominently in numerous reliable sources reporting her death (eg. [1], [2]). The idea that there is something wrong because the article is "full of references to Western mass media and newspapers" (as opposed to what exactly?), as if there is somehow something wrong with "western" sources, clearly demonstrates that emijrp has fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is all about. Being a deceased "political person" does not exempt her from criticism when her legacy is overwhelmingly negative according to almost all sources, save a few extremist and openly stalinist sources which are positioned to the far left of the most left-wing party of any size in Germany; the sort of people who praise North Korea and so forth and who, like her, believe de-Stalinization was the worst event of the 20th century. --Tataral (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to the point, if the people objecting have reliable sources which present an alternative viewpoint, the solution would be to cite those sources and note the alternative viewpoint. If "non-western" sources treat her differently, so long as they meet the definition of reliable sources, then there's no problem with citing them and noting the differences of opinion. --Jayron32 20:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a source that would meet RS standards that states that kidnapping children and an oppressive, Stalinist regime are "good things" in Margot's favor. Such a source would likely be extremely partisan, and would have to be presented in this light. 68.19.0.64 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question, of course, is not whether those are "good things" but what was done? - in more detail than we are likely ever to know - and was this woman's role in what happened? I suspect there's an awful lot of me tooism going on here, where one journalist writes a learned article containing fifty factoids, and then half a dozen other journalists, spotting one of those fifty which ties in with the world view that they grew up with, jump in and copy it. Thus a comfortable consensus emerges that helps us feel collectively good about ourselves. Is it good that these things were done? No, of course not. Is it true that Margot Honecker was implicated? Almost certainly. Is it obvious why she seems to attract so much more visceral wiki-hatred than Erich Honecker or Walter Ulbricht? Maybe to you: not to me. None of them were very nice people in my opinion, but Wikipedia carries more authority, and communicates knowledge more effectively, when it lets facts speak for themselves than when it starts dishing round the opinions. And if ever that nice Mr Putin succeeds in reversing the outcome of the Cold War and breaking up the western alliance - and viewed from here he's made a pretty good start - will the Wikipedia consensus (or its Pravda equivalent) then swing round into support for the Honeckers and a whole lot of other pretty dreadful people? I don't know, but human nature being what it is, nor am I confident! Nevertheless, where the issue concerns not facts but opinions over what is good and what is bad, I suspect we would probably end up on the same side. Charles01 (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to cite here how Encyclopedia.com addresses the controversial issues regarding Margot Honecker. Encyclopedia.com article is really critical with her, but let's read how it is approached:


The New York Times says:


And here is how Wikipedia does it:


Can you see the difference @68.19.0.114:, @Jayron32: and @Tataral:? And Encyclopedia.com & Wikipedia articles ignores her position on this topic (which I think it should be added to the article too): "Mrs. Honecker dismissed allegations that she had directed a program of forced adoptions: 'It didn't exist' she said". emijrp (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many other, quality RS state that she was responsible for this, for example The Daily Telegraph:
According to historians, Margot Honecker was also behind much of the harshness of the repression meted out to dissidents and was active in organising a policy under which the children of “enemies of the state” – dissidents and people who attempted to flee to the West – were forcibly and permanently separated from their parents. Many were placed in foster homes or state adoption institutions, or with the families of childless Communist Party activists.[3]
She probably denied any statement which didn't say East Germany was paradise on Earth, the most ideal society in the world, and perfect. If someone said there was repression in East Germany, she would deny it (and frequently did). There is no problem with including "she denied that forced adoptions took place" or something like that in this article. --Tataral (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, some sources say that the allegations were never proved and never examined in a public trial, while other sources say "according to historians" (which historians?). And only sources of one side are added. That is why I said the article is non-neutral, biased and unbalanced. emijrp (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/ermittlungen-wegen-zwangsadoptionen-eingestellt-ein-verfahren-weniger-gegen-margot-honecker-17409162 The article says that the biological parents had three months to sue. Catch 22.Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bund Deutscher Mädel

The article says: "After graduating from elementary school, she was a member of the Nazi Party's girls' organisation Bund Deutscher Mädel from 1938 to 1945." linking to [4]. I can't read German and the link seems to point to a summary, not full text.

It is a bit strange that Margot was a member of that organization. According to sources her parents were communists (anti-fascists) and her father was imprisoned in a Nazi camp. Gestapo searched their apartment several times. Also, the Encyclopedia.com article says she was a member of her father communist cell:

Gotthard Feist returned to his family from the Buchenwald concentration camp a physical shadow of his former self, but morally unbroken. Entering her teen years, Margot was truly impressed by her father's fearless return to his illegal KPD activities, despite almost constant surveillance by Gestapo and other Nazi secret agents. She was soon the youngest member of her father's cell, taking risks as a "young comrade" even though she was not formally a member of Halle's tiny but active Communist underground. Her responsibilities included acting as a courier, setting up clandestine meetings, and similar highrisk activities.

— Encyclopedia.com

Recent articles in mass media about her death include her alleged membership to the Nazi youth organization, but it may be just a copy/paste from Wikipedia by journalists (the information was added to Wikipedia in 2009). Can you please provide further insight and sources about this issue? Maybe the membership was obligatory by law? It is strange. Anyway, currently there is no info about her militant activities in communist groups in her Wikipedia article, which I think it should be added. --emijrp (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reply to myself. As stated in The New York Times article[5] "From 1938 to 1945, Mrs. Honecker belonged to the Bund Deutscher Mädel, the girls’ wing of the Hitler Youth, whose membership was obligatory." As usual, the important bits are stripped out in the Wikipedia article. It seems that some people like to write this article in a negative way. She was an anti-fascist. emijrp (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As usual. Please prove or stop.Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She was undisputedly a member of the Bund Deutscher Mädel. Yes, membership was mandatory, as that article clearly explains, but that doesn't change the fact that she was indeed a member. She was first and foremost a representative of a totalitarian communist regime. "Anti-fascist" was simply a term those guys used to describe themselves (e.g. the Berlin Wall was officially called an "anti-fascist" wall). The article isn't written in a negative way in any other way that it conveys how she is viewed by virtually all reliable sources, and if it comes across as presenting her in a negative light, it's hardly surprising as she was "reviled" due to her active role in political repression and persecution as many RS (both German and non-German ones) noted ([6],[7], [8]) --Tataral (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two opinions:
  • obligatory since Decemeber the 1st, 1936
  • obligatory since March the 25th, 1939.[9]
http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1565 As far as I understand a teenager was able to be expelled, so MH preferred to belong than to be expelled from the BDM.
Many Nazis claimed that murdering Jews was mandatory. The same level of ethics.Xx236 (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievably unencyclopedic tone

The whole article is written like a 1950s Cold War political pamphlet attacking the "totalitarian Stalinists". While there is no doubt that she was a high-ranking member of an authoritarian and anti-democratic regime, she was by no means "the most hated person in East Germany" (even today, there are Germans who are fond of the old regime, which, of course, was not a democracy, but that's not the point). And of course, expressions such as "the purple witch" have no place in the lead section of a political biography. Needs a major rewrite, ASAP. 77.49.9.243 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it doesn't. This has been thoroughly discussed and the consensus is that it stays in. We don't delete reliably sourced material because some people don't like it. This is an encyclopedic article, not Neues Deutschland. --Tataral (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Margot Honecker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margot Honecker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margot Honecker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ouster / Ousting

After editing this I realise that "ouster" can mean the same thing as "ousting", but I'd argue that it's pretty obscure and "ousting" reads more nicely so I'm leaving my change in Dichohecho (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many dead links to sources of claims that this wikipedia article mentions. I don't have the knowledge of editing to fix them nor do i know if they're able to be fixed as i'm not sure if the information ever existed in the first place. Seems like something important someone should look into so that people just can't claim things and link to nonexistent article to back them up. Idontknowanythingok (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Margot_Honecker