Chrbartolf

Introduction:

My name is Christian Bartolf. Here you find my websites: http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi (Gandhi Information Center) http://www.themanifesto.info (Manifesto against conscription and the military system) http://home.snafu.de/kdv (counsellor of conscientious objectors) http://www.bartolf.info (personal) My email addresses are: bartolf@snafu.de mail@bartolf.info mkgandhi@snafu.de kdv@snafu.de sign@themanifesto.info Please feel free to contact me! I am quite new to this great Wikipedia cosmos. Thank you! Christian Bartolf my post address: Zinzendorfstr. 8, 10555 Berlin, Germany (European Union), tel: +49-30-39102806 At the moment my wikipedia website is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG/sandbox/Chrbartolf 25 October 2008

---

Manifesto links

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Conscientious objection throughout the world. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Accurizer 12:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Accurizer, thank you for your good advice, now I contributed to the talk pages instead. But when will be the time to add the links on the site? Is there any routine? Best wishes to you, Chrbartolf 13:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

Hi Chrbartolf, take a look at Wikipedia:External links for guidance on this topic. I think it will answer your questions. Regards, Accurizer 14:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Accurizer, but I do not see - after reading the guide - any reason why there should not be a link "Nonviolence" and "Pacifism" to such an outstanding Manifesto http://www.themanifesto.info (Manifesto against conscription and the military system). Chrbartolf 20:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

Our guidelines ask that you do not place links on the article itself, put add them to the talk page for other editors to asses. I see that you have chosen to interpret that as license to place your link on the article so long as you left a message on the talk page. This is not appropriate and is still considered spamming. Instead of promoting external websites please consider adding content verified by reliable sources to our articles. -- Siobhan Hansa 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The list of signatories should be sufficient proof that this document deserves to be added as external link to many wikipedia articles. Not to ignore the document! See http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Manifesto_Against_Conscription_and_the_Military_System Chrbartolf 20:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

It's not. We're an encyclopedia, not a collection of the "Amazing but True!". How has this had an impact on the world? Who talks about it or refers to it? What newspapers have written about? What schools include it as a part of their curriculum? These are the sorts of things that might indicate it's important. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's too narrow, even if no one had referred to it up to now, you should see the list of signatories, and ask yourself why you do no want to have it mentioned in the resp. encyclopedia articles! Chrbartolf 11:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

You may consider it too narrow, but the Wikipedia community has found this to be an acceptable general standard. In this specific case you do not appear to have any support from other editors and so the general standard applies. Please stop. If you continue spamming you will be blocked from editing. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Now what would you propose with respect to external links to the Manifesto - none? Chrbartolf 19:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

I propose you follow our guidelines as with the link to your website. Since you have a conflict of interest you should be proposing the addition on the talk page and letting editors who regularly add to each article decide whether it is appropriate or not. We are building a GFDL encyclopedia, and additions of appropriate content in accordance with our guidelines are welcome. But we are not a resource for you to promote your message. This is your last warning. If you spam Wikipedia again you will be blocked from editing. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If you continue to spam the Lübeck article with own biography, I will propose it for deletion, since I am convinced that it is not of any relevance for wikipedia. If you were notable for Lübeck you would have an article in the German version of Wikipedia. Since there is no mentioning there, I am quite sure, that I am right. I have checked your edits and found, that most them are self promoting--Kresspahl 19:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I warned you here and warned you in Lübeck. Now your personal WP:AUTO went for speedy deletion within 10-15 min. If you continue your improper behavior elsewere, you might get barred al all. Think about it and keep cool. I restored the discussion you "deleted" for documentation purposes. I have also requested deletion of your info center.--Kresspahl 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the info is common interest to the wikipedia encyclopedia readers. I am far from promoting my message which I would do otherwise ... Chrbartolf 07:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

It ought to be enough for at least one article, which is the most important thing. The refs. are mostly the same for both the bio and the Center, & so are the links & they overlap with the publications: this may be a reason to combine the articles. If this is done, there would still be a cross reference from the personal name to a paragraph of bio. As you realize, this goes by the consensus of everyone--it does not depend on me.

Talk page comments

Please do not delete comments from article talk pages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please also refrain from deleting legitimate templates and notices. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but when is a dispute settled? When is the point of time to delete templates and notices? Chrbartolf

When this procedure is over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Bartolf --Kresspahl 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds as if you were Kafka, but your name "Kresspahl" is after the writer Uwe Johnson, another notable person who I listened to in Luebeck. Chrbartolf 19 June 2007

advice

You asked me for advice, so here goes--

You have already been given the best advice by someone else earlier today--stop trying to write the article. It takes special skills to write an objective article on one's own work, and most people do not have it. This takes skill in reporting, not advocacy, and it is my experience on and off Wikipedia that most people who think they have the skill and the objective detachment do not have it.

In particular, do not fight with people who tell you that the article is not acceptable. If you were a regular wikipedian with experience here, I and other administrators would have given you several formal warnings about your style of argument. W.B. is one of the most responsible & trusted people here. You may not make fun of other people, you may not make unfavorable comparisons about them, you must address the issues raised and the arguments raised, and not discuss the motives of those making them. You must assume good faith in your critics, and realize that they might well be right. Submitting one's writing to open public criticism takes a good deal of both self confidence and humility; not everyone does well in this setting. Submitting one's autobiographical writing to public open criticism takes a great deal of both, and most people find it very difficult. That's what we mean by conflict of interest.

What you should do now is contribute information that will help others rewrite the articles. The following is necessary: First, the GIC. We do not accept articles about organizations unless they can prove they are considered important. They cannot do this by writing about themselves. The article most cite sources from newspapers, magazines, documents, or whatever that refer to the work of the center. With 2 or 3 good sources, print or web but preferably web, written not by you or anyone connected with the center but by independent 3rd parties, and published in reliable independent sources, then the article will stand. Find them, and add them to the bottom of the article. If you need help, ask a librarian--all librarians know about Wikipedia and will be glad to help. You have about one day to do this. In the meantime, I went through the article, removing all vague phrases, deleting repetitive mentions of the full name of the center, and generally tightening it up. I removed the two publications of yours--they belong in the other article. They are not acceptable references for either--they are your own work.

Now CB. I cleaned it up a little. We need to know that you are regarded by other people to be notable as a writer and peace activist. It needs two sets of things: first, a list of your major publications. I made a place for them--list them as if in a bibliography. Include the ones I removed from the other article. Second, articles from newspapers, magazines, video programs, etc describing your work or talking about your work and naming you in a prominent way. But they cannot have been written by you or your organization. One type of acceptable item is reviews of your publications. List all you can find, but we need 2 or 3 good sources, print or web but preferably with a web version, written not by you or anyone connected with the center but by independent 3rd parties, and published in reliable independent sources, discussing you in a prominent way. German or English is OK, though obviously English is better. Don't worry about format, but include all the details--I'll format it. If its not going to make it, I will help you merge a paragraph of it into the article for the Center.

Add what is needed, and stay out of the discussion. DGG 07:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! You are, indeed, very kind. I already started following your advice ... Chrbartolf 20 June 2007

Now hopefully the many additions and changes of the website will suffice. Chrbartolf 20 June 2007

Ignore all provocations or opposition. You are too involved to answer reasonably. By our rules, nothing on a site you are associated with can be used to establish notability. Incidentally, that de WP doesn't have an article is a reasonable argument, & one I've used myself. DGG 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I "ignore" them. Thank you! "Notability" in this context seems to be a matter of 'class'. In case you need any additional information which I might provide, please contact me. Chrbartolf 21 June 2007

Now I provided additional information about the Center and its affiliations on request. All because no journalist or researcher has done so in spite of our active public relations work (with press releases and journal and radio interview) since 2002. This is the real situation. Chrbartolf 23 June 2007

If you disagree with Prodego's decision, I'd advise you speak to him. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

one of the two

I think the obvious course now is to work on keeping the article on the personal subject, & I've so commented. I do not think a Deletion Review on the center would suceed--the consensus was mixed & the close supportable. DGG 14:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But fact is that the Gandhi Information Center exists, and notability is obvious - so what to do? and when? Chrbartolf 27 June 2007

- Replied on my talk page. I'll also let DGG know on his talk that you're considering a userfy. He might (or might not) be willing to host it. LaughingVulcan 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, I'll keep copies of the both. I have a good deal else from other people. What I will do, as I usually do, is put nowiki tags around them so they dont show up in search engines. When you want to work on them, of if you want them moved somewhere, tell me. To see what they look like, or to work on them, remove all the and tags. put them back between rounds. don't save the page except with the tags on, or they will show up where they shouldn't.

If you want to save them in another computer in readable form, remove the tags, copy everything to the other computer, and then cancel without saving.

If you need help, ask me. They are at: User:DGG/sandbox/Chrbartolf. Link from outside Wikipedia: [1]

Best wishes for them all. DGG 23:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts and explanations. I always use as signature Chrbartolf - will this be right in future. To be sincere, I do not understand the complicated procedure now, and I am afraid this might take a long time, a long time of absence of the wikipedia article on "Gandhi Information Center". Would be a real pity ... In any case, if you need some info, I will be prepared to give it to you, because Gandhi Information Center's "organizational notability" should be obvious to everyone, after all these activities and years ... It is just a matter of proper wikipedia text. Please go ahead soonest! Chrbartolf 28 June 2007

Userfication

If anyone's willing to work on the article, I would be happy to place it in your userspace or theirs. I can place it to a subpage of yours, if you would like? (Anyone can work on it there, not just you.) And good luck from me as well, I imagine it'll be quite an interesting book. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts and explanations. I always use as signature Chrbartolf - will this be right in future. To be sincere, I do not understand the complicated procedure now, and I am afraid this might take a long time, a long time of absence of the wikipedia article on "Gandhi Information Center". Would be a real pity ... In any case, if you need some info, I will be prepared to give it to you, because Gandhi Information Center's "organizational notability" should be obvious to everyone, after all these activities and years ... It is just a matter of proper wikipedia text. Please go ahead soonest! Chrbartolf 28 June 2007

If you can send me some source material, I'll certainly have a go at a rewrite on it. (Please note I can't read anything but English and Spanish, I know some of it's in German, so to use that there would have to be a German-speaking editor to read through those. You might be able to find someone to help at WP:BABEL in that regard.) As to your signature, just sign with four tildes (~~~~) and that will automagically expand into your username and a timestamp, like here: Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to post--

just to be clear--I am keeping the article for you for the time being; I do not plan to work on it myself at this time. What you can best do is find a few additional really good articles in completely independent unquestionably reliable publications that talk about you or the center in a substantial way. There's really no point in going further without that. What you'll have to do yourself, because I can only read a little German, but not write it, is to first find the information and then try to get an article on the German wikipedia. But I wouldn't try that either without those additional references. DGG 04:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I can, as I said, help a bit with the German . (but I'd advise Chris to translate the key parts for us himself) DGG 04:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your kind cooperation, translation is no problem for me, but there are no additional "completely independent unquestionably reliable publications" (whatever this might mean in our societies), they are all in the hands of these responsible people who suppress good news by ignorance and indifference - this is it. I need not explain you why. It is quite easy nowadays to marginalize someone (and who?), and they (whoever they are) succeed daily! Now do not recommend to me professional PR management - this is a matter of "do-re-mi" (if you know what I mean). Chrbartolf 28 June 2007

Of course, you find entries in the library collection databases of the "Swarthmore College Peace Collection" (500 College Avenue, Swarthmore, PA, 19081-1399 U.S.A., 610-328-8557 (curator) - http://www.swarthmore.edu/Library/peace/ - and in "The Commonweal Collection, c/o J.B. Priestley Library, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7 1DP, Telephone: 01274 233404" - http://www.bradford.ac.uk/library/services/commonweal/index.php - (these are the two major university-linked peace library collections as far as I know) for "Bartolf" as well as for "Gandhi Informations Zentrum" - but I do not know if this helps you ... Chrbartolf 28 June 2007

Now "Prodego" deleted the "Christian Bartolf" article, in addition - what to do? Chrbartolf 28 June 2007

next

1. What I wrote was under the assumption that it would be deleted. Both of them are userified as I said yesterday. The eventual course is to make a single article, --when you have the references..
2. You will have to hope that suitable articles become available, which will depend on how well known you organization's work will be to those likely to write such articles. This depends on the importance of the work. I do not think you will be easily able to hire someone who will be able to write acceptable articles for the sources we want.
3. The work of most PR firms, even those purporting to specialize in WP, is of low quality and easily detected. There may of course be some of such high quality that we have not detected them. Even they can not work without materials.
4. I try a reasonable amount to rescue articles that have a decent chance, particularly on sympathetic or interesting subjects, -- especially if they raise interesting policy questions; I have now done as much work as is reasonable, though I will always give honest advice. So best wishes on becoming really famous! DGG 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also replied over on my talk page to the same question above. Thanks for the move over, DGG. LaughingVulcan 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"LaughingVulcan" and David Goodman ("DGG") and "Seraphimblade", thank you for your efforts and explanations - I appreciate them very much! First of all, I do not intend to do PR work or become famous, but the readers of "Wikipedia" should be informed about the "Gandhi Information Center" and "Christian Bartolf", do you not think so? Second, those who are allowed to inform the readers could be you or someone else, but not me - according to wikipedia guidelines, as far as I understand. This is the reason why I have abstained (after grasping the rules) from "autobiography", "self-advertising" or else. Third, even if I change the text in the sandbox (during the next hour), I do not really know who decides when the new article will be restored, because I suppose the "rough consensus" could destroy anything, although notable, because of reasons you might better know about. Fourth, what other webpages will prove authenticity or notability except from government-related webpages or quotes in scientific works already found out during the past busy week - please explain to me! Fifth: Will there a chance or a way to represent these two articles in a new shape soon - by cooperation (and if yes, with whom?) - for the sake of the Wikipedia readers. Chrbartolf 29 June 2007

Now I edited this "sandbox" page :User:DGG/sandbox/Chrbartolf. Link from outside Wikipedia: [2] - what else is missing and will be necessary? Chrbartolf 29 June 2007

You might want to do some cleanup and organization to the information, as it is currently in DGG's sandbox, I can't make a whole lot of sense of it. Maybe some sections and headers would help? I think DGG's suggestion of combining all the information into a single article is also a good one, it's certainly possible one article can be supported better than several. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advise, Seraphimblade. Now the only way to cleanup for me was to remove the "nowiki" tags (in spite of LaughingVulcan's advise), but as I mentioned just before, this was the only way to cleanup. Now by following your advise, I could not follow the wish of LaughingVulcan although I would have wished. So, this is not my fault. In addition, I think that now it might only be a matter of possible improvements (but in which way and how and what?) and then to restore the articles soonest. Everything else would become a farce, in my humble opinion. In case, there is any other way for cleanup, please do it your way. Thank you again! Chrbartolf 29 June 2007

(There's not a tremendous problem with removing the nowiki tags, so don't worry about that.) What you might want to do now is contact some of those who argued to delete in the deletion discussion, and ask them if the rewritten article addresses their concerns. If they agree that it does, it would indeed be appropriate to restore the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your very good advise, Seraphimblade, I will do so now. Chrbartolf 30 June 2007 - text will be as follows: "I would like to ask (according to Seraphimblade's advise of today) if the two rewritten articles could be restored. You find them at the moment here: [[User:DGG/sandbox/Chrbartolf] or outside Wikipedia: [3]. Thank you for your kind attention and soon responses. Chrbartolf 30 June 2007"

RE Gandhi Information Center/Christian Bartolf

No, in its current state I don't think the content should be restored to article space. However, if it is rewritten into one cohesive article, with the details on the Gandhi Information Center being included in the main Christian Bartolf article (or vice versa), then I'd say it could pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. So rewrite, then move back into article space. Walton^talk 15:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the two articles and merging them into one, LaughingVulcan. I appreciate this very much, because I would like to leave this to an experienced editor. Now after you will have finished this editing process, I will only correct spelling or typing mistakes. Thank you again! Will you afterwards please also restore the article? Maybe you consult some administrator before doing so. All the best from Chrbartolf 30 June 2007

Now I have added the necessary information for references and corrected mistakes. In case two articles are not any longer an option, perhaps the combination will do. Thank you for your work for the "Gandhi Information Center", LaughingVulcan! When will you restore the combination now? Shall we inform beforehand "Kresspahl" from Germany, who caused all this to protect the city of Lübeck from my "notable person", and her/his friend "Mrs. Myer", also from Germany? Chrbartolf 30 June 2007

The combination of the two articles to the one now on "Gandhi Information Center", successfully prepared by LaughingVulcan, will do. In case you agree, please roll it back to Main Space. After all, I am too shy to do so - thank you! This message goes to DGG, Seraphimblade, LaughingVulcan. Chrbartolf 30 June 2007

The article is a good deal better, but the references are what they were, and, regardless of what you or I personally might think, the article is certainly going to be nominated for deletion again, and will probably almost immediately be deleted. A re-deletion now would make it much more difficult to restore the article in the future, and therefore is not to your interest. To have this happen is not to the benefit of WP, or of you. I do not think the article should be restored now. If it were, the way to proceed is to have the article in your own user space, and then request on deletion review that the article be restored. You are within your right to do so, but the result will almost certainly be a very quick negative. There must be additional mainstream references--regardless of what you think about mainstream journalism. The references to listings in city directories are not enough, and neither are a list of the center's own publications. But perhaps I am too skeptical, & if either S or LV advise you to go ahead, then it would be worth the chance.

Anyway, I do not want the article without the unwiki tags saved in my userspace, -- I asked you not to do it. -- I am about to restore the tags. If you want to save it in that form, copy it to your own userspace,

Once more let me admvise you that complaints about other editors in the manner that you are still doing will greatly reduce the willingness of other people to support you.

Best wishes for it all. DGG 22:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(To Christian)- I know you're anxious to see it roll back to main space. My opinion is that it can wait just a little bit longer. I want to check out some of those references you popped into my User Talk awhile back - I'm still very unsure of all of them, but there might be ones that could help.

I'd also like to have a day to think about your section rolled up into the article. It's not bad as it is, but some may interpret it as a violation of spam or advertising (in the Wikipedia sense,) even though it's closer to a Bio. The thing both DGG and I are concerned with is that an unrelated Admin may see it pop back up and delete it immediately as fundamentally unchanged from the prior articles (even though the structure is different, and it has more citations than when either was first nommed at AfD.) DGG rightly points out that if it is taken away again, it will be very hard - if not impossible - to restore again. By the way, I agree with everything that DGG says above. If you think it's time to risk moving it back to main space, I wouldn't stop you. But I don't think it's quite there yet, and I wouldn't do it myself yet.

I'd rather take a day or two now to reduce the chances of it being deleted again, then take the risk and see it disintegrated instantly by a passing Admin.

On other AfD participants... Often it is good to get the opinions of those on the other side of the fence. It can save trouble later, and reduce the possibility of being re-nominated for deletion (or reduce a second AfD's possibility of success.) However, if the opinion of the editor you're thinking of consulting will not be changed no matter how much the article changes, then there is little point. Without casting aspersions on any of the other participants, I think User:Kesh and User:Will Beback seem like levelheaded editors with a good degree of experience. Perhaps you should ask if they are willing to share their opinions. And keep in mind that anyone you do ask should be sharing their honest opinions, and those opinions should be accepted without defense (in my very humble opinion.) Also, User:Seraphimblade may or may not have an opinion if the article has significantly changed enough to avoid a G4 speedy deletion. (Though any Admin may do so - one previously involved or not.) Whether you invite someone in for review, however, I will leave in your court. Regards, LaughingVulcan 22:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading your fine comments (DGG and LaughingVulcan) I think the best continuation is to follow your proposal, LaughingVulcan when you just wrote: "I'd rather take a day or two now to reduce the chances of it being deleted again, then take the risk and see it disintegrated instantly by a passing Admin." This is why I remain without action during this day, before you will have finished your editing of the text for which I am very grateful to you, of course. After all, I just want to express that I do not complain about other editors at all. On the contrary, I am lucky about your cooperation and willing to follow your advice. To avoid any further misunderstandings, I communicate openly on the talk pages. It would have been easier for me to observe and just resign. But I identify with Wikipedia readers - that's it. The better the article, the higher the standard of the article, the more the article fulfills the criteria, the better for all. So, please inform me about the result. If there is anything I can do for you, please inform me as well. Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

I counsel patience. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for good counselling, Will Beback, my patience is endless - hope the procedure comes to a good end some day soon. Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

Sorry, but from my side you would have to expect another request for deletion. The article is POV. The GIC was founded in the early 1980ies by a guy named Peter Rühe. He was director until you took over. He is running a Gandhi foundation now. You are creating the impression, that it is all your thing. So its only one half of the story, and only your half part. That is not NPOV! I honour everyone, who is advising people, that need help as C.O.'s. You created the impression, that you worked as such an advisor for "the" German church. You know, that we don't have Federal German churches, but state churches. I had to change it and to make clear, that you worked for the Spandau parish of the Berlin-Brandenburg church. I could continue, but I won't. I suggest, that you present us an article on the Centers notable work in something like Der Spiegel, Tagesspiegel or taz. Even an article in the German Wikipedia will do, especially when it has passed a deletion-procedure there. If the German administrators focussing on Berlin issues grant you notability there it is just fine. Until then I suggest as Will Beback that you try to keep calm. And I will continue my lecture reading Felix Krull ...--Kresspahl 12:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

and there is also -still undeleted- Satyagraha (quarterly), another POV with no link to other articles. Notability has to be questioned there too.--Kresspahl 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Kresspahl, the Gandhi Information Center was a private initiative from 1983 to 1990, in 1990 it became a registered body. I have been council member right from the start (before founding member of the private initiative right from the start). I am the only one left from the seven founding members in 1990 (including the person you mentioned). Newspapers like those you mentioned have not reported about our Center's activiities so far, and I will never be in the position or willing to force them. No one in German wikipedia has written an article about Gandhi Information Center or my person as author and writer up to now. In case you want to compare me with Thomas Mann's Felix Krull, I am sorry to disappoint you, because what I report is the truth. I was responsible for CO issues for the complete Protestant Berlin-Brandenburg Church from May to December 2006 as you certainly know after studying my website. And from 1991 to 2006 I counselled more than 20.000 conscientious objectors, mainly in Berlin and Brandenburg, and edited the Wichern press 1996 book "My Conscience says No" (Mein Gewissen sagt nein). Your contributions are certainly without bad intentions. But you should find fair judgment to bring our joint efforts to a good end. Anyway you already achieved your aim in excluding my name from the Lübeck wikipedia webpage which was the beginning of this painful procedure. Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

(Reply to Mr. Bartolf) A couple of questions that might help later for Mr. Bartolf: During the 1983-1990 period, was the private initiative using the name "Gandhi Informations Zentrum"? And, if I understand correctly, you were a member of the advisory council during this period, and then you became the director upon registration in 1990? (This information may be worked into the article.) And also, was anything published about GIC during the 1983-1990 period?

One of the things that Kresspahl has noted (and is noting obliquely above,) comes back to the subject of notability. You know that GIC is notable - which is good. (Imagine any entity whose director believes that his or her organization isn't notable! ;) ) But the notability standards are based upon other independent and verifiable reliable sources displaying interest - the Wikipedia notability is conferred by the degree in which any neutral party can see (and confirm) independent notice of the article subject in question. I know we've been down this road before (and you have previously acknowledged that the sources are thin.) But those standards are what have to be met, generally speaking. So I'm still mining the sources you've provided for references which meet the relevant Wikipedia policies.

That said, I am interested in the radio interview you cited. Not a major station or program (in the sense that "Crossfire (TV series)" or "60 Minutes" is,) but still probably contains relevant information which can be cited. And, as I mentioned above, I'm mining through the other information you provided looking for the similar. But, for the rest of today I've got a couple other things on Wikipedia which take precedence as well as other non-Wikipedia things that have to be taken care of. So I'll keep working on it later. LaughingVulcan 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As seen above, there still seems to be a consensus to not include the article, and because of that I do not think the article should be added at this time. I personally hold some doubts as to the notability of the Gandhi Information Center, and believe that the director would certainly not qualify. However, as a combined article it is possible that it would be acceptable, I tend not to form strong opinions on the includability of articles, and instead intemperate others views for their merits. Therefore, if there is an agreement that the article is acceptable to include as rewritten, I would have no problem with that. Prodego ^talk 18:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Christian. I took a look at the combined article in DGG's user space. At the moment the article seems to be so full of unimportant details about the center and you (in the sense that that the details have had little discernible impact on the world at large rather than that they are unimportant to those involved) that I am unable to see through to whether there is a core of suitable content. The writing is also still distinctly promotional in several places. If the article went up as is I would need to strip it down before I would be in a position to tell for sure whether I thought it was appropriate or not. I can comment on the state of the articles before they was deleted. If there is more new content that has been added, my opinion might be different, but most of the additions in the combined article appear to be content that had previously been removed as unsuitable from the actual articles. On the original AfDs I made comments but refrained from making my preference known because I was waiting to see what the articles developed into. In the end I was away when the AfDs closed and never made my preference clear, but before I left there was not enough in the articles to show notability to make me want to keep them. Here's what I saw - There were two references in the articles which appeared to be appropriate sources to show notability, but in one the mention of GIC is so minor that it was insignificant (hinduonnet.com), the other is German so I am unable to evaluate it (jungewelt.de), but this does not add up to multiple non-trivial mentions in good media. The other content I saw that may make the subject worth having as an article are the citations of GIC/your publications. I think an organization/person that is a well established authority in an area is a suitable article subject. However, at the moment there aren't that many citations and they aren't in publications that are (to my limited knowledge) seminal. I also haven't been in a position to look them up so can't evaluate how appropriate they are in terms of notability. I would expect a person or organization who was a well regarded expert to be more than a footnote in a few publications and to have significant mentions in well regarded journals. All in all, given the amount of effort that has gone into looking for evidence of notability, I find this very tenuous and would not, personally, consider either article, or a combined one to be appropriate for Wikipedia. If you rewrite the userspace article to make notability clearer (which is different from simply adding everything you can find) I would be willing to look again and may be able to focus my comments on your current effort rather than the articles I recall from before the AfDs. Certainly, if you have found more non-trivial mentions of yoursefl or the GIC in significant publications this would be likely to change my mind. Hope this is useful. -- SiobhanHansa 18:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, LaughingVulcan, the radio interview you find on our website: http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/interview.htm - yes, the name was the same before we became a registered body, only the spelling was different, the correct German language spelling is: "Gandhi-Informations-Zentrum" - you find the English language versions: "Gandhi Information Center" or "Gandhi Information Centre". Now - concerning references before 1990 I cannot help you at the moment. There were many of our exhibitions on Gandhi in various places (e.g. Stuttgart, Bremen, Hannover, Braunschweig, Wolfsburg, Erfurt), before and after 1990, certainly there are numerous newspaper articles on these various exhibitions. I held very many public lectures on Tolstoy and Gandhi in many places (e.g. Kiel, Oldenburg, Hamburg, Trier, Erfurt, Berlin), but this was mostly before and during the time internet started. Yes, Siobhan Hansa, certainly publications about Gandhi (which document sources first time and then are quoted) are helpful for historical research and history writing. That is why the authors mentioned knew why they quoted books I edited - far from trivial. Concerning the "well established authority", I would say that it depends on your point of view. In case you make this dependent on additional academic titles (like Doctor or Professor), you are certainly correct. In case you cast a fresh look and read the publications, you will find out the real contribution, this has been documented in many letters of archive representatives and scholars. Good luck that there is - after all - a good chance for independent minds to judge themselves. Thank you for your comment. But in case all your words are just meant to disqualify research results on Gandhi published by the Gandhi Information Center, so it is just too late. Concerning "significant publications" about our publications, you definitely find the book reviews written by Mr. Piet Dijkstra in "Gandhi Marg", the monthly published by the Gandhi Peace Foundation (New Delhi, India). In case I send here the source details of these reviews, will you then change your mind? Or will this be a never-ending story? Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

Here I found Indian review sources:

- "An Introduction. Gandhi Information Centre, Berlin", in: Sansthakul. Monthly Organ of Gandhi Smarak Nidhi (New Delhi, India), vol. 28, no. 12, last page, March 1999

- "Book Review: "Hermann Kallenbach" (written by S.K. Bandopadhaya), in: Sansthakul. Monthly Organ of Gandhi Smarak Nidhi (New Delhi, India), vol. 29, no. 6, p. 21, September 1999

- "Book Review: "Letter to a Hindoo" (written by S.K. Bandopadhaya), in: Sansthakul. Monthly Organ of Gandhi Smarak Nidhi (New Delhi, India), vol. 29, no. 7, p. 23, October 1999

- "Book Review": "Hermann Kallenbach" (written by Piet Dijkstra), in: Gandhi Marg (Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi, India), volume 20, number 1, pp. 110-113, April-June 1998

- "Book Review": "Wir wollen die Gewalt nicht" (written by Piet Dijkstra), in: Gandhi Marg (Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi, India), volume 20, number 3, pp. 367-370, October-December 1998

There might be even one more review by Piet Dijkstra on "Letter to a Hindoo" for "Gandhi Marg" ...

Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

Satyagraha (quarterly) nominated for deletion

Christian, in following up on the combined article I noticed the Satyagraha (quarterly) article which you created while the Gandhi Information Center AfD was on. This seems like an even less appropriate stand alone article and since the GIC article was deleted it cannot be merged in to there. I have nominated it for deletion, the deletion debate can be found here. -- SiobhanHansa 19:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This will be absolutely alright from my side, Siobhan Hansa, this article can be deleted at once (actually it was not my idea), because our members' information is not for the public, with two exceptions from the rule according to special permission (that is why you find the two issues on the internet). Do not worry! Chrbartolf 1 July 2007

Moving the sandbox article to your userpage

While it would be easy to do this, I really think this would be a mistake. According to our standards for userpages, the sandbox article is not appropriate material for a userpage. It could be construed as an effort to sneak an article on a non-notable person into Wikipedia without having to meet our tests for notability. --Orange Mike 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Especially when you check the user:contributions and recognize, that this is the only mission of the user. There are no further efforts to contribute to an enzyclopedia.--Kresspahl 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia censure

I doubt that Siobhan Hansa and Prodego niether has read any of Christian Bartolf books or articles nor do understand his important role in the publication of German and English Gandhi related literature.

For me this discussion is all about censure and nothing else. Christian Bartolf is not to be mentioned in Wikipedia. This only shows that his publications and his non profit centre are important.

If Christian Bartolf did make gramatical errors in his articles they could simply have been corrected. After all, this is the job of the editors.

Holger Terp Editor of The Danish Peace Academy.

PS Yes, I published one of Bartolf articles and indexed all his books in the bibliography of mine Peace in Print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.112.240 (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So you want to challenge the notability arguing the standards of wikipedia are a kind of censorship for unnotable articles? It seems, you haven't read anything above...--Kresspahl 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Read the last sentence in my comment again. Holger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.112.240 (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As a Quaker and peace activist in my own country, I sympathize with your dilemma. I'm sorry, but there is very little tolerance here for a claim of "We're really, really important, only nobody but a handful of our friends has heard of us." If the center is notable, then there should be some significant mention of it in the mainstream press, even if only to mock the work they are trying to do; and someone besides Bartolf should be interested in writing an impartial and informative article. --Orange Mike 13:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you google "Christian Bartolf it gives 2.190 hits, including reviews. "Gandhi Information center gives 2.900 hits. "Gandhi-Informations-Zentrum gives 1.340 hits. Gandhi, Kallenbach Buber gives 133 hits Here is one review:

libertäre buchseiten   


>> 232 oktober 1998  

Gandhi, Kallenbach und Buber Zwei weitere wichtige Arbeiten aus dem Gandhi-Informations-Zentrum Viel zu unbeachtet und inzwischen seit Jahren wegweisend für die Gandhi-Forschung wie auch für Projekte interkultureller Zusammenarbeit sind die Veröffentlichungen im Selbstverlag des Berliner Gandhi-Informations- Zentrums. Zwei der jüngsten Publikationen befassen sich mit dem freundschaftlichen Verhältnis Mahatma Gandhis zu zwei jüdischen Freunden, dem Zimmermann und praktischen Aktivisten Hermann Kallenbach und dem Philosophen Martin Buber. Die Kallenbach-Biographie hat Christian Bartolf mit der Israelin Isa Sarid zusammen geschrieben, der Tochter der Nichte (Hanna Lazar) von Hermann Kallenbach. Zusammen fanden die beiden anläßlich einer Ausstellung des Gandhi-Informations-Zentrums in Israel im Jahre 1987. Hermann Kallenbach stammt aus einer russischstämmigen jüdischen Familie, wurde aber in Ostpreußen geboren. Er lernte "Baugewerksmeister", eine Verbindung von Maurer, Zimmermann und Architekt. Dann fuhr er 1986 zu seinem Onkel nach Südafrika. Dort traf er zufällig mit Gandhi zusammen, beim indisch-islamischen Rechtsanwalt Khan, für den Gandhi arbeitete. Sehr schnell wurden sie Freunde und Kallenbach änderte sein Leben radikal. Zusammen mit Gandhi nahm er 1910 Kontakt mit Tolstoj auf und gründete dann die Tolstoj-Farm nahe Johannesburg, wo er sowohl sein Ideal einfacher und gleichberechtigter Arbeit verwirklichte als auch eine soziale Basis für die Emanzipationsbewegung der InderInnen in Südafrika formte. In einem ganz dokumentierten Gefängnisbrief Kallenbachs wird deutlich, daß er aber nicht nur als Handwerker und Architekt, sondern auch als Aktivist und Organisator unschätzbare Dienste bei den Streiks und Aktionen leistete. Nach einem Aufenthalt in London während des Ersten Weltkriegs war es Kallenbach als offiziell Deutschem nicht erlaubt, mit Gandhi in Indien einzureisen. Er ging in den 20er Jahren wieder nach Südafrika und machte sich als Architekt öffentlicher Gebäude einen Namen. In den 30er Jahren hatte er Kontakt mit dem Bauhaus-Architekten Walter Gropius. In den späten 30er Jahren fuhr Kallenbach nach Palästina und unterstützte die zionistische Bewegung, allerdings schwebte ihm eine Ackerbau-Gemeinschaft ohne Staat, Armee und Industrie vor. Nach dem Vorbild des tolstojanischen Sozialisten A.D. Gordon, des Gründers des ersten Kibbuz, wollte auch Kallenbach bei zionistischen Siedlungen Kolonialismus und Imperialismus konsequent vermeiden. Mit dem Auftrag, die zionistische Sache Gandhi besser zu vermitteln, besuchte er ihn 1937, nach 23 Jahren, erstmals wieder in Indien. Gandhi sprach sich gegen eine Durchsetzung der zionistischen Interessen in Palästina mit Waffengewalt aus, zusammen mit Kallenbach versuchte er aber, die 70 Mio. MuslimInnen in Indien auf die Seite einer Gesprächslösung zwischen arabischen und jüdischen Ansprüchen in Palästina zu bringen. Nach einer Malaria-Erkrankung starb Kallenbach 1945, seine Urne liegt im Kibbuz Degania/Israel.

Kurz nach Kallenbachs Besuch veröffentlichte Gandhi 1938 zwei Aufsätze im Anschluß an die Nazi- Besetzung der Tschechoslowakei und an das November-Pogrom, in denen er die Opfer des NS-Regimes zum gewaltfreien Widerstand aufrief. Dies löste die sogenannte Buber-Gandhi-Kontroverse aus, die seither immer wieder, zuletzt in der "taz" im Vorfeld des Golfkrieges 1991, dazu benutzt wird, in Kriegszeiten antimilitaristische Bewegungen zu denunzieren (vgl. dazu GWR 153, S.5). Dazu hat Christian Bartolf nun alle diese Kontroverse mit dem jüdischen Philosophen Martin Buber betreffenden Dokumente herausgebracht. Es wird deutlich, daß Buber seine Antwort erst nach Aufforderung verfaßte, daß zusammen mit seinem Brief ein vermittelnder und um konkrete Aktionsvorschläge anfragender Brief von Judah Leon Magnes, dem damaligen Kanzler der Berliner Hebräischen Universität, an Gandhi geschickt wurde, beide Briefe aber Gandhi nicht erreichten, sodaß Gandhi auf Buber nicht antworten und an Magnes keinen konketisierende Vorschlag geben konnte. Der Dialog wurde also unglücklicherweise an der spannendsten Stelle abgebrochen. Bartolfs Buch macht deutlich, daß Gandhi einerseits die Monströsität der NS-Diktatur keineswegs unterschätzt hat (S.59ff) und Buber sich trotz seiner situativen Gewaltbefürwortung immer großen Respekt vor Gandhis Gewaltlosigkeit bewahrt hat, sogar später angesichts der atomaren Bedrohung eine "planetarische Front" (S.88) des zivilen Ungehorsams forderte.

Bruno Weil >> zurück zum inhaltsverzeichnis

http://www.graswurzel.net/232/gandhi.shtml

Holger Terp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.111.82 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource

Hi Christian,

You may not remember me, but we met in Berlin between in 1989 and 1991, when I visited GIZ. I think that a clarification is needed on the copyright of the manifesto, see s:Talk:Manifesto Against Conscription and the Military System. Regarding articles deleted on Wikipedia, I had a similar problem on the French WP. Therefore I have created a wiki hosted in Canada which can host any documents, especially on non-violence, pacifism, etc. It has already texts in 6 languages. See Wikilivres. Best wishes, Yann (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Yann, yes the copyright of the international "Manifesto against conscription and the military system" (drafted in 1993 and a.o. consisting of two quotes of the 1926 and 1930 historic manifestoes) lies with the Gandhi Information Center http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi -and:- http://www.themanifesto.info - Last year, in the year 2007, I gave free license to Wikipedia and Wikisource to publish the complete text. I will now like to see "Wikilivres" - thank you for the advise. Yes, I remember you well, just added you to the list of signatures - and i am very glad that we are corresponding. In case you have any further questions, email me: bartolf@snafu.de - thank you, dear Yann ! Chrbartolf