Talk:Thilo Sarrazin

Review

Please add another more objective review. The reputation of wikipedia suffers very much, when you take a closer look at the review and the site that review is written for. If you can't find a more objective one, at least add a contrary review from a non-racist site. 92.229.53.204 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

There is no citation for the fact that he ever noted that he relied on a GIL ATZMON. the citation that has been put are misleading because they do not cite this AT ALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.56.162 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. Moncrief (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to Gilad Atzmon? Stonemason89 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not likely. Gilad Atzmon is not a scientist. GIL ATZMON is someone else. Alandeus (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Translation from German WP article

Obviously, whole sections of the English article on Thilo Sarrazin seem to have been translated from the German article using http://translate.google.de/ Please take a moment to read this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Translation#How_to_translate

"Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing." --Gamgee (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have some ideas about mashine translations, but this article seems to have been translated by a human being.95.223.187.171 (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Book title translations

The title of the book can be:

• "Germany Does Away With Itself"
• "Germany Does Itself In"
• "Germany Eliminates Itself"

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Deutschland schafft sich ab" means eliminate/abolishes. It's a dramatic title (imo), and "does away" or "does itself in" is not a correct translation.

I speak German, and I clearly think the correct translation is "Germany abolishes itself" (to "schafft sich ab" is either to eliminate or more correctly to "abolish"). Despite the fact that many bloggers or journalists have just used this autotranslated article as their basis for their own article (yes, much of this article seems auto translated to me), despite that, there are 230 more Google hits on "germany abolishes itself" (7690) than "Germany Does Away With Itself" (7460). I think the title should be changed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliff8833 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Both translations are basically correct. Leo and other online translation dictionaries also offer both versions and more. Plus, just a couple hundred one way or the other with thousands of Google hits is rather inconclusive that it is more or less a tie. In any case, as a translator splitting hairs on this one, I'd say "abolishing" has more of a legislative/judicial sense than "doing away" does, which has a more practical oriented sense, which "eliminate" (a good third alternative) has as well. So, I say leave it at "does away with itself", which is closer to the actual meaning of the book. Alandeus (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your input Alandeus. Discussion is appreciated. "just a couple hundred one way or the other with thousands of Google hits is rather inconclusive that it is more or less a tie". Well, a very large proportion of the hits are only due to the fact that the autotranslated article (meaning this article) used "Does away with" first. And despite that, there are more hits on abolishes... But Google hits aside, a title of a book is not something you can auto translate. Much is often lost in translation that way. Right now it says "Germany Does Away With Itself' or 'Germany Does Itself In" in the article. If we were to have alternate translations than I think "Germany Does Away With Itself' or 'Germany Abolishes itself'" or "Germany Does Away With Itself' or 'Germany Eliminates Itself'" would be more correct. The two alternate translations which are there now both basically means suicide, but to "schafft ab" is more in the direction of abolish or eliminate. Kaliff8833 (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

...and that idea about "suicide" is precisely what Sarrazin is inferring and warning about. Alandeus (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the media can't decide either - the Financial Times: The Abolition of Germany, Der Spiegel "Germany Does Away with Itself: How We Are Gambling Away our Country." Hopefully there will be an English version which will be definitive. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

@Alandeus. Yes. The connotations of "schafft ab" is suicide. But it's word-by-word meaning is not suicide. In the same way, the connotations of "abolishes itself" is suicide, but it's word-by-word meaning is not suicide. Therefore I think "abolish" is more correct.

My arguments were that if we were to have two translations in the article (which we have now), than I think one of them should be with connotations and the other may be just directly suicide.

So my suggestion was, change this phrase:

"Germany Does Away With Itself or Germany Does Itself In"

into this phrase: "Germany Does Away With Itself or Germany Abolishes itself"

@Dougweller. Agree. The translated version will tell. I know the media is split. But if the wikipedia article were to have the abolish version first, than I'd guess we'd have a 80/20 distribution of the titles (because journalists use wiki for doing research). But despite the fact that wiki landed on does itself in, there majority has went another way - and have chosen abolish. And I think that's a valid point. At least enough valid that one of the two versions should be the connotation way (the same way the original title is) Kaliff8833 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree also. The two-track version is fine. Besides, I prefer "Abolishes Itself" over "Does Itself In". Who wants to have the honors of making the corrections? Alandeus (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In simplistic English: laws and rules are 'abolished'. A better title (both dramatic and simple)would be: "Germany Destroys Itself". Any layperson would understand instantly what is meant. A more realistic title (but less dramatic) would be: "Germany Hurts Itself" or "Germany Damages Itself" http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2010/08/germany-germany-is-destroying-itself.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.109.142.21 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting variations that may fit the book's content. However, the current translations are just right and as close as possible to the actual original German title. Alandeus (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Süddeutsche Zeitung survey

Sounds like bogus. Could you quote from it or better provide a link? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarrazin's own son living on welfare

Might be worth including in the article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/24/german-economist-welfare-son-benefits

http://www.u.tv/News/German-banker-and-scourge-of-welfare-left-cheated-by-sons-benefits-confession/9473c962-1f51-48c6-bb83-a189537a0df9 134.155.36.48 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's worth to be included and only included in an article on Sarrazin's son...Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV issue in first section

Concerning choosing the words "the ideology of multiculturalism", that's how Conservatives as well as the New Right generally puts it's words - As far as I know, there is no outspoken "ideology" of multiculturalism, but maybe this was in part what was discussed in his book? As I'm not familiar with the book I didn't edit anything. Best wishes. 212.107.143.107 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

genetics

The main horrifying fact here is the stunning resurgance of "nazi ideology" (Heiner Geißler and Günther Walraff both call it so) most obviously: genetics. That is why I wanted to add the following to the article, it would cure the whole article of its unexplicable lopsidedness:

"He reintroduced (for the first time on a massive scale since Hitler) the concept of genetic inferiority (now of the Turks and Southeners) into German popular culture and dialogue."

This is basically the theme of the book (german genes being diluted by foreigners) also all the other statements in the article talking about the contents of the book are not sourced either as far as i can tell but i am new here.

Do I really need to buy this awful book and read it to find a perfect qoute or is the statement about jews and basks having different genes (that is mentioned in the present article) and the whole tenor enough. And also my statement is also one of experience since i live in germany and have tried to talk to people here i could give some great qoutes about that! Perhaps someone can help me with the right qoute? Or can I just give the book as a source perhaps? Oh, and gun powder ma by the way all surveys, and there were several, give the percentage of germans that agree at around 63%! And i have talked to people her and I belive that Number! Alas!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leschmuck (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)