Talk:Lutz Heilmann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heine[edit]

To my mind comes the famous page in one of Heinrich Heine's books, in which everything was censored, except the phrase "German Censors ... Idiots ...". ("Die deutschen Zensoren — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Dummköpfe — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —.")

Call it by whatever name you want, Censorship is censorhip, and people need to be able to research and establish the truth themselves. Prohibiting wikipedia.de from linking to de.wikipedia.org is a completely disproportionate measure, and needs to undone. The behavior of Lutz Heilmann in trying to suppress this information is on itself evidence of the mind-set that cannot operate under free speech, and ultimately leads to corruption, and makes proper government impossible. We also should not accept the attempts to redefine free speech as anything else but unrestricted speech. The proper way to deal with cases like this is not less information, but more. Let him add documented materials and arguments that show that the contended claims are false, let him lift the contended speech to a "controversy" page, but not let him threaten with violence (even be it legalized violence) to take it off line.

Closing Wikipedia on November 13th[edit]

I wanna help making things clear about the trouble wikipedia.de has right now because it is also mentioned in this article here. I could find some other discussions on the internet about Lutz Heilmann and his reaction on "certain information about him [...] included in the German Wikipedia" (English Wikipedia)

Why am I writing this here?[edit]

Because I read a lot of statements in the last hours where people diskussed the way the german law works and criticized that a court can dispose a "obstruction of the free speech", as they called it, and that it is against what is Wikipedia for.

For your information I am german and might have a better view of all this because of understanding much more what's going on right now. Actually I do not have very much information about the guy personel but want to show how it went so far that the German Wikipedia Site was going down. It is not very easy to find good information about all this because there are many different versions about his history and what is discussed. It is true that he was acting in the SED and serving for the Military from 1985 to 1990 (Resume of Lutz Heilmann). You should know that people, specially politicians, do not want other people to see their files still kept in some archives from the old DDR (GDR) so to keep there privacy they have the right to keep them closed. In the last days, as far as I can follow this, one guy wrote on the german Wikipedia that his files are open now as some sources told, but he knows from his own and other friends that they were denied of having a sight into them. I think the problem is that it turned out that he had no good sources to proof that his files are open and that is the reason why had chosen the preliminary injunction so these information will not be spread any more because they are wrong - as he says.

So before you justice about him, about the germans closing websites and things like that, think about why this happened: Because a person felt treated unfair and calumniated so in Germany we have rights for that. Why? Because freedom of speech is not that you are allowed to say what you want if it is right or not, it is "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression". I still do not know if he acted right because there is still no information about what is really right and what wrong in that case. Maybe when something new turns out I'm gonna translate it and post it here.

So why did I write all that here?[edit]

I want to make sure that people reading about the Link shutdown to the german Wikipedia but do not understand german might have a good point where to find answers to some questions.

Why is there only an ip-address?[edit]

Because I could not change my account from german Wikipedia to a global one yet - sorry for that. --98.207.113.25 (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de.wikipedia.org is still up and running (as that domain name is owned by the US-based WikiMedia Foundation). Only wikipedia.de (owned by the Wikimedia Deutchland EV) is replaced by a explanation notice. --h2g2bob (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stasi-Linker legt wikipedia.de lahm"[edit]

"Stasi-Linker legt wikipedia.de lahm

von Gregor Patorski

Er hat eine düstere Vergangenheit als Stasi-Mitarbeiter. Und jetzt zieht er den Zorn aller deutschen Wikipedia-Benutzer auf sich: Der deutsche Bundestagsabgeordnete Lutz Heilmann von «Die Linke» hat die deutsche Wikipedia-Internetadresse sperren lassen." Source -- Jörg ÖA (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which means:
"Stasi-Left-winger paralyzes wikipedia.de"
by Gregor Patorski
"He has a dark past as a Stasi employee. And now he draws the anger of all German Wikipedia users: the German Bundestag representative Lutz Heilmann from 'die Linke' has had the German Wikipedia internet address be blocked." Scbarry (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pl: translation available[edit]

There is a pl:Lutz Heilmann available, I cannot add the interwiki, as the article is semiprotected. 83.5.158.171 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Scbarry (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"So before you justice about him, about the germans closing websites and things like that, think about why this happened: Because a person felt treated unfair and caluminated so in Germany we have rights for that. Why? Because freedom of speech is not that you are allowed to say what you want if it is right or not, it is "the right to hold opinions without interference."

Idiot. You can't close a whole site down because one person feels insulted. That is not *proportional* with over 11 million vistors; what's with *their* rights?! Lutz Sieg Heilmann should not be allowed to be a member op parliament with such an ondemocratic attitude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.215.9.65 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "undemocratic" about the way he acted: truth isn't decided by how many people think it should be true. And this wasn't about him feeling "insulted", it was about statements that seem to be false, yet kept being added to wikipedia. We do have freedom of speech in Germany, but telling lies about someone (and making them sound like facts) isn't covered by that - neither in Germany nor in the US. Slander is a crime and getting a "einstweilige Verfügung" (=Preliminary injunction) is what most people would try to do then. I know it seems upsetting at first (I was upset, too), but that doesn't mean we now can disregard Wikipedia policies - they're there for a reason! Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a forum to express your personal opinion about a person. So please, make sure you stick to facts, reliable sources and focus on neutrality. Six words (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However as far as I can tell the truth of his membership of the Stasi is not in question. It wasn't revealed on wikipedia either, but by Der Spiegel. And I think he even admitted in himself, by now. So slander is not the issue. 145.97.225.169 (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it isn't about his Stasi history. But wouldn't you call it slander if someone keeps saying you've threatened somebody, therefore your Diplomatic immunity has been lifted? This is what the German article said not too long ago, and it was sourced by a Bild article. If this is a false statement, I'd think it is slander. Six words (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It *is* undemocratic to close a site that has millions of visits a day because one person "felt treated unfair". This is the one person nazi system all over again: only one opinion counts, namely the opinion of an idiot provence judge in Lübeck. And my point was that this is a very *disproportionate* measure for only one article with an issue.94.215.9.65 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he thought it was slander, he should have contacted a moderator. Ip-adresses can always be blocked preventing future slander. This reaction of the court is, in short, over the top. Wereldburger758 (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to his statement here http://www.linksfraktion.de/pressemitteilung.php?artikel=1246470002 he contacted wikipedia before taking legal action but wikipedia did not act. Also, he did sue one wikipedia user and two other persons not involved with wikipedia. He did not sue three wikipedia users, as the article currently says. --86.56.37.152 (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the link you have given there is no mention of contact with wikipedia beforehand. Furthermore, you cannot contact wikipedia, since it is not owned by anyone. What can be done in a case like this, is to contact a moderator. Ip-adressed can be blocked (even permanently). Something like this occurred in the Netherlands on a large scale: [1]. Anyway, the matter is resolved. Hopefully for a long time. Wereldburger758 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Tagesschau article from 16 Nov (cited in the main Heilmann article), it states:

Gegenüber den "Lübecker Nachrichten" erklärte er, dass seit kurzem falsche Behauptungen über ihn in dem Wikipedia-Artikel aufgetaucht seien. So stimme es nicht, dass er Unterlagen über seine Stasi-Tätigkeit nur teilweise öffentlich gemacht habe. Auch die Behauptung, dass er einen Online-Sexshop betreibe und dass auf Grund von Ermittlungen seine Bundestagsimmunität aufgehoben worden sei, sei unwahr, zitiert die Zeitung Heilmann. "Meine Anwältin hat sich erfolglos um eine Gegendarstellung bei Wikimedia bemüht", sagte der Abgeordnete...

Which means:

He explained to the "Lübecker Nachrichten" that false allegations about him had appeared a short time ago in the Wikipedia article. It was not true that he had only partly made public documents about his Stasi activities. The allegation that he operated an online sex shop was also untrue, as well as that his Bundestag immunity was lifted because of investigations, Heilmann was cited by the paper. "My (female) lawyer had unsuccessfully tried to get a correction at Wikimedia", said the representative...

(As this is only a short excerpt from the Tagesschau article, I hope it is allowed here.) This would seem to confirm what a previous user said. Scbarry (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N and EO[edit]

Could someone with more edits than me correct "Heilman" to "Heilmann" and add the interwiki for eo:Lutz Heilmann? Thank you.--Ziko (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've corrected "Heilman", and the interwiki was added by a robot (User:Thijs!bot). The article's only semi-protected, so I don't know what would have stopped you editing. —Snigbrook 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I came from the (blocked) German article, I saw the semi-protection on the English article and instinctively believed that I - with my few en.WP edits - can't edit. Sorry and thanks!--Ziko (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stasi "elected"?[edit]

I was so shocked to learn about this Stasi guy running around in a parliament building! How come such people have been "elected"? Why are they not serving life sentences?? Something is wrong in Germany! ElizabethRobinson (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he able to stop Wikipedia if Wikipedia is American? No Stasi in America! ElizabethRobinson (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your questions are answered in the article: His stasi past was only revealed after he was elected, also the exact extent of his involvement in stasi is unclear. It appears most people seem to think of it as a "matter of the past". It should be mentioned he wasn't directly elected, but got in on a party ticket. He wasn't able to "stop" wikipedia either, only the domain wikipedia.de was taken down, with de.wikipedia.org still working as expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.117.57 (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to http://www.statbrain.com/www.wikipedia.de/ the German site has over 11 million daily visits. I think that many, if not most, of them will not get to the international site; we're not all internet domain experts. This will have much negative impact for common users, and in my opinion the Germans should not have closed the site. I that this measure won't have any chance to succeed in higher courts; it is ridiculous.94.215.9.65 (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked for Stasi is not a crime by itself. He claims that he has been only a bodyguard (in "Objektschutz", like securing a ministry). What else he might have done there - we don't know.--Ziko (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Die Welt has an article with some interesting information about the so-called "bodyguard department" of Stasi. Apparently, it was extremely much bigger than the actual need for actual bodyguards, and it also took part in regular oppression activities, employed informers, etc. The department was directly subordinated Erich Mielke. Clearly, it is difficult for many people to understand why people who served the Stasi, a criminal organisation, are not punished.Article in Die Welt Barbro Luder (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note this article in Der Spiegel, which states that his work the for Stasi was politically motivated: "Das Motiv des Kandidaten zur Bereitschaft eines Dienstes im MfS liegt in seiner bisherigen positiven politischen Entwicklung zugrunde, indem er selbst einen aktiven Beitrag zum Schutz unseres Staates leisten möchte" and "Heilmann sieht in seiner jetzigen Tätigkeit seine persönliche Perspektive" (from his personal employment files). Barbro Luder (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, the article also says that the language used in the this quotation is "bumpy", so pardon any awkwardness in the following and please correct any errors. What this says is that his personnel files state, "The motive of the candidate for being ready to serve in the MfS (Ministry for State Security) is based on his positive political development until now, in that he would like to actively participate in protecting our state" and "Heilmann sees his personal perspectives/prospects in his current activities." Scbarry (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality[edit]

The article, like the German version, reports that he is openly gay. The fact that this statement was never mentioned in any of his complaints tells me that it is probably true, however I can't find a source and the German article doesn't give one either. Maybe it was mentioned on his home page http://www.lutz-heilmann.info/ which seems to have changed a lot in the last couple of days. If anyone can find anything, please add it to the article. Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have read this somewhere, too, when I was looking around on his homepage the other day, but I agree with you that his site seems to have changed a lot very recently. The closest I could find is a reference on the site: http://www.linksfraktion.de/mdb_heilmann.php that his memberships include "CSD Lübeck e.V.", which I believe means the Christopher Street Day organization for the city of Lübeck. (You can perhaps correct me on that.) That doesn't exactly prove anything, however. Scbarry (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

formatting[edit]

The intro section (everything before first heading) is too long and should be split up by headings. (But I can't see a good choice of headings for it). RJFJR (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reordered the material a bit and introduced sections. AxelBoldt (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nuance[edit]

I'm a little confused how a former Stasi employee could persuade the German government to censor wikipedia.de over the difference between "serving as youth protection officer for an internet sex shop" and "participating in a business venture involving pornography". Is there some actual significant difference between those two statements that's been lost in translation? And shouldn't a politician be familiar with the results of Oscar Wilde's complaints of criminal libel? - Nunh-huh 03:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he certainly did not convince the German government but just a judge of the judge where he used to work. Anyway, maybe the judge was really wise to follow his request as this turned out to be the worst punishment for Heilmann: He will most probably loose his seat in parliament in the next election. Everybody who suffered under Stasi will definitely appreciate that.
But you are right it were just several nuances like this he complained about. Maybe we should clarify them in the article.
Another one is that he said it would not be true to say that the guy who pressed charges against him (and who did run the internet sex shop) was his former companion in life as this would require a "certain duration of a relationship" (http://www.hl-live.de/aktuell/text.php?id=47710).
Furthermore he said that it was wrong that his former "housemate" filed charges against him due to a threat. According to taz the reason was "attempted coercion" (http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/print-archiv/printressorts/digi-artikel/?ressort=na&dig=2008%2F10%2F22%2Fa0176&cHash=accf172c14). --Gilbert04 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heilmann really was quite foolish; it really does seem like it was about quibbles in phrasing after all, then. "Government" was a bad choice of words on my behalf, since it has a specific as well as a general meaning: I meant the use of state power by the judge in question. I hope he doesn't shut the web-site down over it! :)
If you do have access to the specifics in the complaint, it would help the article if they were included and clarified. - Nunh-huh 20:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I really misunderstood the "Government"! I tried to add some more information to the article according to the lines mentioned.--Gilbert04 (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Hardline totalitarian'[edit]

Barbro Luder (talk · contribs) was reverted back a passage stating 'the SED, at a time the party was still hardline totalitarian, in 1986'. I find this a dubious wording. At what precise point in history would the SED have ceased to be 'hardline totalitarian'? And totalitarianism is a hotly debated subject. Noone disputes that DDR has essentially a one-party system, the function of SED is by no means unknown, and this passage is not only weaselish but also superflous. --Soman (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interwikis[edit]

I think it can be a good idea to check the various interwikis for BLP violations. I encountered hi:Lutz_Heilmann, being basically an automated translation of a negative page. --Soman (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Openly gay"[edit]

(Copied from User talk:AxelBoldt)

Hi, AxelBoldt! Would you mind reviewing Lutz Heilmann and helping me out with something? I'm considering the Category:LGBT politicians from Germany, and the ref provided is in German (which I don't read). As far as I can tell (from Google Translate), the document says he helped organize Christopher Street Day, which doesn't mean he's gay. Furthermore, none of the news articles about the man (and there have been several since his Wikipedia fracas) - none of them mention his sexual orientation. And furthermore, the web pages that *do* mention his sexual orientation are all sensational gossip rags/blogs/etc, many of which may be reporting based on *our* claim about his sexual orientation.

So, could you verify the document provided as a ref for his sexual orientation - does it really say he's "openly gay"? If it doesn't say that, I'm going to remove that content per BLP. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lutz Heilmann is openly gay, but German news sources generally don't mention those things, and I cannot find a resilient reference; the references given right now in the article (which the German article also uses) indeed only state that he organizes gay-pride parades and that he started a queer group in his party.

The German Wikipedia had a discussion about whether to call him "schwul" (gay) or "homosexuell" (homosexual), so they emailed him, see [2]. Translation of his reply from 21 November 2008 10:26:

Dear Mr. Rieser,
thank you for your message and question. The passage regarding my gayness was indeed not subject of the temporary injunction, since it was or is not a false statement of fact. The paragraph is written awkwardly and the LAG Queer at the LINKEN SH was founded only in 2008, but that is not so important.
[...]
Viewed this way, I don't have a problem with the entry stating that that I have lived gay since 2006, it is a fact.
I hope to have answered your question. I would be happy to stay in contact.
Sincerely,
Lutz Heilmann

This is clearly original research and cannot serve as a reference, so the prudent thing seems to be to remove mentioning of his openly gay status for now. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lutz Heilmann. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lutz_Heilmann&oldid=1207609210"