Talk:Horst Ehmke

BLP problem

The issue with the NSDAP membership needs some clarification, or it will constitute a serious BLP violation. Ehmke, who was registered as a party member when he was a 17-year old school boy, has denied he ever knew of this membership. Crucially, in the sources dealing with this issue, it is repeatedly acknowledged that this denial may well be plausible, since at that time teenagers were apparently sometimes mass-enrolled ([1] and others). Both these pieces of information need to be added. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia and most sources state that he was in fact a member of the NSDAP. The fact that he now claims that he didn't know about it doesnt't change the fact that he was a member. The situation appears to be quite comparable to the case of Hans Filbinger, who was also an inactive member for a few years, despite having previusly been involved in Catholic anti-Nazi politics and who only joined the NSDAP because he otherwise faced the prospect of not being allowed to graduate. The solution reached in the Filbinger case was an inclusion of NSDAP under "otherparty" with the indication "inactive member". I would like to point out that we cannot treat CDU and SPD politicians differently; either NSDAP must be included in the infobox in this article under "otherparty", or it must be removed from the infobox in the Filbinger article. Urban XII (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, you were evidently including it here in retribution for the inclusion in the Filbinger article, an obvious WP:POINT move. But there are differences: Filbinger joined the SA in 1933 and the party in 1937, as an adult, and there is no doubt he did so knowingly and willingly (albeit unenthusiastically). He then went on to make a professional career on the party ticket. His membership later played a huge role in his post-war political career, as one of the main factors forcing him to resign. Ehmke was registered as a 17-year-old, possibly without even his knowledge, in 1944, when teenagers were being mass-enrolled. His later life and political career never had a shadow cast over them by this fact. It came out when he had already left active political life, and caused no more than a few pretty tame press reports. Most crucially, his claim that he never knew about his membership seems not to have been challenged in any serious fashion, and at least all the sources that I've seen now (on a quick glance, admittedly) explicitly acknowledge that this denial may well be plausible in his case. A membership that was only on paper and registered without his knowledge would not be a grounds for a statement that "he was a party member" or "he had an allegiance" or "affiliation" with the party in any normal sense. Since his claim seems not to have been refuted (at least not in the view of the consensus of reliable sources, as far as I can see), we need to give him the benefit of the doubt and must not make any such claims to the contrary. That would be a grave BLP violation. Of course, in the text, the (apparently undisputed) fact of the formal membership registration can be described, together with the appropriate disclaimers; but it has no place in the infobox, where there is no space for such disclaimers and explanations, and where a simple listing would obviously be taken to mean an actual conscious decision.

Since this is a BLP issue, I as an admin am entitled to enforce BLP compliance with all necessary means regardless of being "involved"; this means I will block you if you insert this again without a clear consensus here on talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I should warn you that abusing admin privileges to enforce your POV will result in a desysopping process. This is not a BLP issue, his membership is well sourced and the German Wikipedia simply states that he was a member. Urban XII (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sue me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages are intended to discuss the improvement of articles. Please refrain from making disruptive comments. I also take notice of the fact that you have previously been blocked once[2]. Urban XII (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horst Ehmke. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170313180040/http://poststar.com/news/world/horst-ehmke-aide-to-west-german-leader-brandt-dies-at/article_a0bc79d2-35a2-5cc5-9505-02cbfde9a5ce.html to https://poststar.com/news/world/horst-ehmke-aide-to-west-german-leader-brandt-dies-at/article_a0bc79d2-35a2-5cc5-9505-02cbfde9a5ce.html

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) 22:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)