Talk:Heinrich Schoeneich

• Comment: The enWP and the deWP are different. Although by most standards, the deWP is better--a higher and more consistent standard for notability , a lesser degree of contamination by promotionalism, a higher level of grammatical correctness, a more skillful and mature approach to writing--there are some things we do differently. We do not write essays, though this might be because we have so many fewer people that could competently write anything extensive. We try to avoid advocacy for a person's views in a biography about them, and are much more likely to focus on the facts of their life more than their opinions, and for anything that might be considered in any way a judgment or evaluation, we require third party sources not based on entirely on interviews with the subject or the subject's own writings. Again, this may be because we have fewer people who could handle such material fairly, and a very large number who are eager to turn all possible articles into propaganda.
  :So the article will need to be abridged somewhat, removing both some personal material and some advocacy, and the number of references reduced to those that actually document the text. Any necessary notes should be listed separately.
  :We have an article, ReSurge International, which claims to be the successor of Interplast. It mentions that Interplast continues under the original name in Australia. From this article, it apparently does in Germany also., and it is completely unclear if there is any umbrella organization.So all these things will at some point have to be clarified. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

Thank you for reviewing and some words on resubmission

Dear DGG, thank you for your feedback and kind advice. As I (back then) wrote in my email, I would be more than happy to adapt the article accordingly and get help with it if needed. So, it would be great if you or someone else interested in that subject (medical humanitarian aid) would find time for working with me.

Regarding your questions: I am not the author of the article you mentioned about G. Lemperle, whose revision by me was rejected by one of the German administrators. On the contrary, I only answered the official (boxed) call to improve its content and to put the source references in proper wikipedia form. My thoroughly researched draft was rejected for reasons completely incomprehensible to me - the commercial character of the original article as well as some factually incorrect information has thus been preserved instead of being neutralized and corrected. For reasons of time and nerves, I have refrained from further (public) wrestling (and responded to TheTokl also via email).

Also, I would like to publicly answer your question here as to whether I would have a financial benefit or be commercially entangled with this (non-profit) organization, given my working on articles on two of its members: that is definitely not the case. After I had already gone so deeply into the topic of humanitarian commitment with the article on H. Schoeneich, my aim was to look into related articles (by snowball/pyramid system) to research and present them somewhat more profound than their versions currently available on German Wikipedia. That's all. After I lost confidence in administrators balanced decision making, I abandoned this endeavor and would now simply like to finish the (with sudorific efforts) translated version of this article. In view of its lemma's international field of activity, I think it suitable for the English speaking Wikipedia world - be it in an appropriately shortened form through my own censorship (please see draft submitted later on) or with the very welcome help of some english Wikipedian(s).

In response to you one more note: According to online sources, Interplast-Germany works completely indepent from IP-groups in other countries and there is no such thing as an umbrella organisation or formal interlinkage. The US organization you mentioned was the first organization of its kind in the world, which inspired the above-mentioned G. Lemperle to found a similar organization in Germany in 1980. However, instead of covering these aspects in a biographical article (as you suggested), it could be further elaborated/made clearer (by someone) in the existing ones on those organisations.

Also: What might be read as "Advocacy" and "peacock terms" seemed to me to be necessary to meet the German criteria for legitimizing the encyclopedic relevance of the lemma. If the English Wikipedia does not ask for such supporting details, they can easily (and gladly) be removed.

Thank you so far for your time, benevolence and understanding, Marinus von Eisenstein (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) (aka Marinus Eisenstein)