Talk:Hans Henning Atrott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

New start of discussion, please don't add any insults, slanderings or non-provable statements here. Please add new contributions at the bottom of this page. The old discussion has been moved to Talk:Hans Henning Atrott/Archive.

Contents 1 COPY OF A LETTER TO THE DIRECTORS OF BOARD OF WIKIPEDIA.ORG 2 Reply 3 World Federation of Right to Die Societies 4 Historical Correction

[edit] COPY OF A LETTER TO THE DIRECTORS OF BOARD OF WIKIPEDIA.ORG

info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Henning_Atrott Removal of the article

Ladies and gentlemen!

Avoiding widening I demand to withdraw the article about me in the English version of Wikipedia. My name is Hans Henning Atrott and I feel insulted by the impertinent article you write about me.

Since the article is partly written by me, I withdraw copyright for texts of mine. So, you have to delete the article since you cannot publish something that is written by me without my consent.

The article has been changed by a group of furious Germans or Christians wanting to denigrate me for reasons mentioned below. It is misguiding and misleading in order to slander me. There are enough hints that behind the group manipulating the article about me are members of German D.G.H.S. wanting to cant their crime on me.

Firstly, I was not born in Memel in the German province of East Prussia but in Klaipéda (Lithuania). The Germans violently annexed the region around river Nemunas and the Baltic Sea six years before I was born. After World War II the area was returned to Lithuania until, today. In English Klaipéda means, Klaipeda and not “Memel” and Kaunas does not mean Kowno. Those faults happen if you charge incompetent and dubious Germans with such an article. Even no post-war German government demanded this region back to Germany and the Germans demanded a lot...

Secondly, the claim that in “1993 Atrott is dismissed by the "German society for Humane Dying" is untrue. There is a difference between to dismiss and to resign. The one is being forced the other one is voluntarily. The article wants to give the impression of the first. The fact is that the concerned association (D.G.H.S) tried to dismiss me for several times and as far as I remember bimonthly in the years 1993 and 1994. However, in June 1997 I made a court settlement with D.G.H.S. in which I voluntarily renounced any membership and positions within D.G.H.S. against payment. So I was not dismissed but I resigned. I cannot imagine why the associations pays about half a million Deutschmarks that I renounce rights and jobs in 1997 if it has dismissed (originally was written: “fired”) me in 1993.

Thirdly, the allegation “1994 − Atrott gets a prison sentence of two years for dealing with potassium cyanide and tax fraud” lies by omissions. In order to depict me as criminal the current leadership of D.G.H.S. conceals that this “dealing with cyanide” was not illegal, in Germany. Reading those phrases in Wikipedia means that the reader gets the impression that in fact I deliberately perpetrated crimes. In 1987, the superior court of Munich examined such euthanasia by chemicals in question and declared it legal (see: 1 Ws Oberlandesgericht Muenchen 23/1987, NJW Heft Nr 46/1987. After having failed to jail me because of tax evasion, the Augsburg court declared such assistance in euthanasia with chemicals to be illegal although it was bound to the Munich verdict. Violating the jurisdiction of a superior court in Germany means perpetrating the crime of infringement of law. This Wikipedia article omits that my claimed condemnation is infringement of law by the correspondent Christian-Bavarian court of Augsburg. Here, it is hidden as in German media that the question is not what I did but if it was punishable what I did. It is a big difference of morals if one believes to act legally or deliberately illegally. More over, it is omitted that pertaining the alleged tax evasion the Swiss government made a Demarche to the regional government of Bavaria for illegal behavior of the German authorities. The Bavarian government promised to the Swiss one that it would not repeat this illegal behavior.

Fourthly, most impertinent is that pertaining those German quarrels the concerned Wikipedia article for about three weeks puts references to my enemies and deletes any reference to Web pages of mine as references (^ Statement of the DGHS (german) ,^ Berliner Zeitung, 15.03.1994 (german). Reference to my WebPages pointing out the views of mine (http:;//www.geocities.com/christianterror/englishindex.htm) on this topic permanently becomes deleted. This is impertinent and a blatant violation of free speech. More over, the German co-workers bungling even the English Wikipedia article do not call their actions to be web vandalism. It is the same as if Muslims only present an article of Jesus “Christ” or Hindu and the Christians are impeded to express their views. Deleting presentations of my point of view to special topics and presenting only that one of my enemies is a violation of the US constitution. (free speech) to which the English version of Wikipedia is obliged. Repressing a counter point of views of a concerned one, means lying and deceiving by omission. The context is the following one: After a media campaign of about ten years -- designed corresponding German anti-Semitism -- I was forced into custody for things the mentioned Munich court declared legal. This verdict of Munich was and is tabooed, in Germany. A few days after I illegally was apprehended a certain Kurt Thief S. (who wrote the Statement of the DGHS (german) that is mentioned in the Wikipedia article) went to the court of registry and blatantly lied to it that I (Atrott) purportedly was not interested in executing my office as president of D.G.H.S. any longer. He (the fraudulent deceiver) is to enroll and I (Atrott) to delete from the enrollment as legal representative of DGHS. It is not only my presumption that the Bavarian government jailed me and that I was taken in custody as long as it needed to establish a new leadership firmly in D.G.H.S. This is a fraud about several millions of Dollars. The officer of the court as me experienced this fraud one year later when I was released from custody. In the proceedings of D.G.H.S., the court officer notices that he never would have deleted me from enrollment if he had known about this crime, then (see: Akte DGHS, Amtsgericht Augsburg, February 1994). In Germany, there is no separation between state and religion. Attorneys work by instructions of the concerned regional government. That the state is behind the described crime becomes evident by the fact that Kurt Thief S. never was prosecuted although this crime was reported several times to the Bavarian attorney and is fixed in the court proceedings of the association (Feb. 1994). Perhaps Wikipedia wants to become a book of jokes: 'Puffing oneself up because of several thousands of Deutschmarks but keeping silent to a felony of fraud of several millions of Euros or Dollars does not lack perfidy!

Fifthly, in the English version is written that I provided no proof that the Christian minister that was my guardian was a homosexual child abuser. In the German edition of Wikipedia, the Germans deleted this passage completely because it does not fit the German black and white painting and obsession: here the very good Christians and there evil Atrott. I ask you: When I tell you that the person in question was that kind of individual – is this no evidence? That betrays much of the co-workers you charge and you guess and this makes me more determined that Atrott and Wikipedia should sever. Recently, the concerned Kurt Thief S. – obviously a German stately covered felon– more and more gets difficulties because of the crime of fraud to the court (see: Humanes Leben – Humanes Sterben Nr. 2/2006 or: http://www.geocities.com/atrott.geo/jun06.htm. That is why he and his henchmen (with the very German Nazi-name: Seewolf, Grabwoski, Lost Bay, “Walter Falter” etc.) are very busy in manipulating lexicons like, for instance, Wikipedia. Especially the fact, that an article about me refers to my enemies which have filched my job by a demonstrable fraud on a court and even represses my representation of this matter by deletion of web vandalism, disgusts me very, very much and took away any reputation I rendered to you, before. I do not want a special text in that article. I also do not want a counter-representation. I am fed up with Wikipedia! It is your fault that your permit the Germans even to bungle the English version of Wikipedia to which the US-constitution, in particular, the right of free speech is to apply. Often, many people supporting me asked you to charge someone else than those Germans with this article. However, everything was in vain and so I am sick off you. I only want that I do not have to do anything with you, any longer. I demand to eliminate the article from Wikipedia. I expressively prohibit you to publish those parts the article I wrote as I was eliminated from the enrollment of the court of registry by the crimes of Kurt Thief S. who is also behind the incriminated perpetrations, here.

It is most abominable that you allow your co-workers to put references to the concerned fraudulent criminal (on the court of registry) and even permanently delete the presentation of the person, which this article is about!

I expect this deletion latest until

September 7th, 2006!

Otherwise, I infer that you are not willing to stop insulting and telling lies about me. You can also insult and lie by omissions and wrong references. I do not mind if you delete me from Wikipedia, at all. I only will feel honored by it. I deem that Kurt Thief S. would more fit Wikipedia! I recall that I withdraw my copyright to those parts of the article I contributed and therefore publication of this article is illegal. Last, but not least I unmistakably want to make clear that I am not willing and will not tolerate Wikipedia as a podium of insulting me. Do what you want to do or cannot stop doing, however without my name! Not to mention that by this article on me you violate your own standards about living individuals!

I AM NOT THE FIRST INNOVATOR FOR THINGS THAT BECAME JAILED BY CHRISTIANS! FOR THOSE REASONS, THE PILGRIM FATHERS IMMIGRATED TO THE USA! YOU HAVE NOT TO JOIN THOSE CRIMES!

Stop insulting me! Stop publishing lies about me!

Hans Henning Atrott

[edit] Reply

Please see User talk:Merryhobby for a reply. Tyrenius 04:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And, for heaven's sake, DO understand what wikipedia is all about! You don't own it, nor do I, neither does anyone else. Going on yelling around like you and your friends do, most likely does not help the WIKI-philospophy a whole lot. Lost Boy 16:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear to whom this is addressed. You might care to make it clear. Tyrenius 06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was clear form the context and the history. It is NOT in any way addressed to Tyrenius, on the contrary. It is addressed to Attrott, who, IMHO, lacks the understanding of what the WIKI project is about (But, then, perhaps I do lack this understanding, and insults do indeed contribute to factfinding :-) )Lost Boy 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm in the clear, but I nevertheless have to caution you to refrain from personal observations of this kind about any user, as they are inflammatory and do not help to create any content for the encyclopedia. Insults breach WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and perpetuation of them tend to get people into the barren land of blocked... Tyrenius 20:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World Federation of Right to Die Societies

The article gives the name of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies with hyphens in it which don't belong there. The correct spelling is World Federation of Right to Die Societies. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Correction

I would like an authorised editor to consider integrating the consequences of the following facts, all of which can be proven, into the article:

The Memel area, from the 1600's until 1919, was an integral part of first the prusssian provinve of Eastern Prussia, than Germany. After the Versailles peace treaty, It was (together with Gdansk (Danzig)) put under the addministration of the League of Nations. THe new nation of Lithuania occupied the area east of the river Memel and integrated it into its territory. Considering international law, this annexion, as well as the Nazi aggression against Lithuania in 1938, were both illegal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lost Boy (talk • contribs) .

I apologize for having forgotten to sign my comment; I guess, it was too early to be wide awake ;-) Lost Boy 09:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Declined: This is a biography, not a history article and such statements belong in Klaipėda, not here. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to give any historical and geographic lecture since it rightly is declined. I just want to make understandable why my father as Klaipédo does not want to be called German. In the course of its history, Klaipéda already belonged to Lithuania, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Sowjetunion and even once was administrated by France. In addition, many people from Nothern Europe (e.g. Sweden, England, Scottland, Germany, Holland etc.) immigrated to Klaipéda. In the 19th century, the high society of Klaipéda spoke English! Perhaps this makes you understand why many Klaipédos do not desire to be "possessed" by the Germans. My father had a German passport due to an article in the German constitution that people which are born in areas being annexed by the Germans are German citizens, too. In the USA, he always was regarded as Lithuanian! Merryhobby 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)merryhobby

Is your father still a German citizen? Gugganij 21:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

For talks you exclusively should use my talk page.

Merryhobby 10:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Merryhobby

Well, I don't mind. But since my question refers to a possibly interesting point in Mr. Atrotts biography (and if answered negatively might be worth being mentioned in the article), I just thought that this talk page is appropriate as well. Gugganij 00:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is directly relevant to the content of the article, and is something that other editors may wish to ascertain, so it is appropriate to have it on the article talk page. Tyrenius 12:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, I appreciate very much the impartial way you revise this page and the article. The impacts in the wake of announcing the change of my father's citizenship may on Wikipedia the less. So, as long he is living nobody but he is authorizied to decide when and what is to announce, if not the state of my father's new citizenship wants to have a say in this question. I only can assure that change of citizenship is not finished, yet. Everything further possibly could jeopardize the process. However, I only can and will say this, in addition: When the family left Germany in 1995 and while crossing river Rhine (the boarder between France and Germany) my father told me that he will not die while keeping a German passport. I hope you understand me!

Merryhobby 17:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Merryhobby

Sorry, I think I should have been clearer previously. The question of a subject's nationality is valid for the talk page, but there is no obligation to answer that personally, and I would have preferred it to be a general question, not aimed at a family member, because even if a family member made a statement, we would not be able to use it. We can only use material from verifiable secondary sources as in WP:VERIFY. Tyrenius 00:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)