Talk:Andrea Ypsilanti
 | This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
translation
editPlease feel free to improve my translation as Im not a native speaker. Jiracy (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- To be honest, I've got quite a few doubts regarding your translation. If this is indeed the German Wikipedia's version then they should really reconsider their NPOV policy. Their article seems to defend and explain Ypsilanti's actions rather than simply describe them. --Catgut (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Im sorry, I just dont get. Where did I write something that was a) not true b) biased or distorting c) judging? I merely tried to describe what happened, without saying whether it was good or bad. And whats wrong with explaining Ys actions? Of course you can keep your article on the level of a stub forever...And the article as it is now is definitely propaganda:
"The Hessian constitution allows for a continued operation of the former government in such a situation." Just wrong, as the old government can only act in commission and new elections are prescribed. And whats that got to do with Y? Its just a pseudo-justification why Y is not in power.
"Before the election Ypsilanti had promised on many occasions to never work together with The Left, the successor of the East German communist party and a party that is considered extremist and a threat to democracy by the Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz of Hesse[1], under any circumstance. However during the standstill and after a Grand Coalition with the CDU was outruled, she ultimately decided to cooperate with the Left Party in order to be elected minister-president. The first attempt had to be abandoned because at least one of her own party's representatives (Dagmar Metzger) declared she would not vote for Ypsilanti." It is certainly true that The Left is questionable, but that is not the point in this article, which is (or rather: should be) not about The Left but about Y. Describing The Left in one quarter of an article about Y is certainly not proportional (and conveys a definite biased opinion about Y). While I did not deny this fact (as pro-Y bias probably would) I just wrote the plain facts trying to describe the difficulties of forming a government.
"A new attempt [why new? there was no previous attempt] to be elected for minister-president of Hesse was scheduled for November 4. However, one day prior to the election, besides Metzger, three other SPD representatives (Carmen Everts, Silke Tesch and vice chairman of SPD Hesse Jürgen Walter) announced to vote against her, making it impossible for Ypsilanti to gain the needed majority." Yes, that is what happend (leaving out again the bad style of this action - to put it mildly) - but why? That is what a reader would probably like to know and I tried to explain it (you can easily read the facts in both the German and the English WP about Walter).
Every point I made can be verified - just as is it is in the German WP. I just saw no point in citing German newspapers for the English WP, insteading relying on the information from the German WP - which, btw, is the, imho very good, result of a very hard battle. Jiracy (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Unsourced article
editConsiderable time has passed, and this is still an unsourced article. Right now there is just 1 footnote! And this after weeks and months of campaigning... Sorry guys, but the situation is unbearable (see WP:SOURCE). Would somebody from Germany please do something about it? Thanks in advance, --Catgut (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)