Talk:Udo Ulfkotte

References and Weblinks

References and weblinks largely point to the same sources. I suggest this redundancy should be taken out. One link each to those pages in one WP article should suffice. --Gwyndon (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete?

This article appears to have been written by Ulffkotte himself, or one of his (few) subjects. Does every ex-jounalist now deserve they own Wikipedia page? I recommend this for deletion. The fact that Ulffkotte is a sectarian hater, a (fired) populist writer and possibly a racist does not make this person noteworthy. 78.94.33.52 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the fact he is, beside his vices, an anti-American agitator, pisses off most of the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.1.175 (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not he is a nice guy is hardly relevant to his worthiness for inclusion. He seems to have a reasonably high media profile because of this Bought Journalists book, and he was the editor of one of Europe's most prestigious newspapers. The article needs improved, not deleted. Liamcalling (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

List of books

He appears to have published many more books than are listed here. There are more on the German wikipedia page and still more on amazon. Could a German speaker look at these and either list them or indicate in the article that there are more and on this page indicate the selection criteria. 31.48.7.210 (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Regrets CIA Collusion

http://www.globalresearch.ca/editor-of-major-german-newspaper-says-he-planted-stories-for-the-cia/5429324 SaintAviator lets talk 01:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Udo Ulfkotte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101024113238/http://vodpod.com:80/watch/4709665-russia-today-go-back-to-where-you-are-happy-udo-ulfkotte-on-immigration-issue-part-2 to http://vodpod.com/watch/4709665-russia-today-go-back-to-where-you-are-happy-udo-ulfkotte-on-immigration-issue-part-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Degree?

He is regularly called "Dr." Ulfkotte yet I see no substantiation so far. What I DO see is a history of truth-bending, as called out by various sites, including comments here. so either get more factual info or delete his article. I'm a former journalist with other careers that "could" be seen by some as page-worthy, yet I have no desire for a page here, nor do I know any other journalist who does - forget the talking TV heads and "pundits"~!~!~!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.23.210 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC) PS I don't know how to source the translation of the german wikipedia article which I have adde. Perhaps someone who has a great grasp of german can translate more relevant parts of that article. Agree with the person who said this page sounds like self-promo.

Self promo for a dead person?--Crossswords (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Clean off agitators

Using blogs like dialoginternational.com as a reference for real? Just read a few lines from a few articles about him and it was totally one sided. There were statements based on lies as well like a made up connection about his notability and RT & Ukrainian crisis, while the agitators 'contributing' to this page already attacked him personally as early as 2012... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.99.195 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Can anyone make sense of this?

A Quote from Der Spiegel had previously included ellipsis where part of the quote was omitted. I completed the quote and removed the ellipsis. This was reverted as “unsourced”. Can anyone make sense of the reason? Here is the full quote:

Der Spiegel noted that "Ulfkotte's book was published by Kopp, a melting pot for conspiracy theorists. Kopp publishes works by ufologists, and by authors who claim the Americans destroyed the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center themselves in 2001. Ulfkotte's book was on the bestseller lists for months. "Bought Journalists" is the bible of all those who have renounced their faith in the German media. Ulfkotte's critics see the book as a vendetta against the FAZ, which he left on bad terms."  Burrobert (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I reverted this, because a thought a quotation mark was missing. Hence it was not clear that this is a citation. It was at least possible to read this rather as a statement than a citation. But I reverted it to your version.--Nillurcheier (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok that explains it. Thanks. Burrobert (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Broken links

Hello fellow Wikipedians! The references to the two Kopp blog posts where Ulfkotte allegedly claims that Obama ordered the burning of Bibles, and that African athletes would slaughter whites if allowed into Germany, return 404 error message. Does someone have a screenshot or the like to prove that he really did make those monstrous claims? If not, I'm afraid we need to remove the statements that he did. Sincerely,Nikolaj1905 (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the statements, since no-one has responded.Nikolaj1905 (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

They were WP:PRIMARY and low-quality sources anyway. We should mention crazy stuff only if secondary sources take notice of them. I have no doubt that he actually said it, but Wikipedia should not be collection, by Wikipedia editors, of stupid things people say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

"and conspiracy theorist"

why such demagoguery here?

he isnt a conspiracy theorist, but he documented how the western (not-free) demagoguery press works ahh, i forgot why ... bcs terrorists of cia, gchq who have also the strategy to defame people all clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:A9C:7A01:385D:953E:5914:B4AF (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A reliable source called him that. Wikipedia says what reliable sources say. When random people on the internet disagree with the reliable sources, that is not Wikipedia's problem, but the problem of the random people on the internet. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is interesting as the media end up as judge and jury in their own trial. 79.69.47.25 (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's also clearly true. Anybody who knows how conspiracy theories work can see that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Certainly an issue, I agree. But Wikipedia only reflects what sources say. If they say "conspiracy theorist", then that's what's put, specially by fans of the term. Thinker78 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any link for the "reliable source" calling him like that? Because the link provided on the wiki page doesn't exists anymore. Check your "reliable source" by yourself. It seems it was a very reliable source indeed...

And btw...when you denigrate people with these kind of "reliable sources" you should also include other "reliable sources" that claim the exact opposite. Or you need just one source as long as it confirms your evident bias? This isn't even a public process, this is pure and simple slander of a persona already dead and that can't defend himself anymore. 37.119.41.56 (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/medien/verschwoerungstheoretiker-umstrittener-publizist-udo-ulfkotte-ist-tot-1.3333248

https://blog.tagesanzeiger.ch/hugostamm/index.php/34713/verschwoerungstheoretiker-hetzen-gegen-fluechtlinge/ need more? there are many more.Nillurcheier (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Blog? Thinker78 (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

you should also include other "reliable sources" that claim the exact opposite This is obvious bullshit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's remember the WP:CIVILITY policy please. Thinker78 (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Editor?

Ulfkotte is presented as "assistant editor" of FAZ which sounds a bit heavy. He was one of a few dozend employed journalists, working in the department of politics. Kipala (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)