Den Artikel finde ich sehr gut. Planst du, den auch noch in die deutsche Wikipedia zu übersetzen? Da fehlt etwas Entsprechendes ja auch noch. LG, DaWalda (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geht inzwischen vielleicht besser, da der Groschen l-a-n-g-s-a-m bei einigen Leuten zu fallen scheint.
Man müsste das Thema in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia wahrscheinlich im Rahmen eines weiter gefassten Artikels über die Staatsräson im engeren Sinne (also die der Bundesregierung bezüglich Israel) angehen, inklusive der deutschen Innensicht. Das Thema wird momentan glaube ich nur hier behandelt: de:Staatsräson#Israels_Sicherheit_als_deutsche_Staatsräson. Dort könnte man vielleicht als ein Anfang ein oder zwei kritische Stimmen basierend auf Quellen wie dem Artikel von de:Gert Krell einfügen. Das sind momentan meine Gedanken ... freue mich aber auch über anderweitige Vorschläge. LG, --AndreasJN46612:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My German is sadly not good enough to contribute to de. wiki much at all.
I would agree that, while Wikipedia purports to be global and based on the viewpoints of sources, not editors, in fact, the viewpoints of the editor base not infrequently color content. I'm still surprised that the German wiki editors deleted the article "accusations of Gaza genocide" because they thought it was "disgusting BDS propaganda" (!) maybe notability works differently over there (t · c) buidhe12:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I tip my hat to you :) But you’d better stick with the English Wikipedia. Working on articles here is much more enjoyable, partly due to the climate surrounding Middle Eastern topics.
Ah, true, Andreas. Honestly, after that discussion, I wouldn't feel motivated to attempt another translation on the subject either. And that was also my second thought — that a German counterpart to this article would immediately be accused of POV-pushing.
My third thought was that there's currently no article about the new “National Strategy Against Antisemitism and for Jewish Life” (NASAS). In this strategy, almost everything you’ve gathered in the article is mentioned at least in passing. For instance, it calls for an expansion of the commissioner system, setting up corresponding structures at all levels of society. Antisemitism monitoring and documentation is to “build on the existing structures of the RIAS Federal Association” (on RIAS, see Moses 2023, p. 77 f.; Rosenfeld 2023: This alone makes the AAS ideology a defining factor in the identification of antisemitism). BDS is effectively criminalized because “a boycott of goods and services from Israel could, under certain conditions, violate regulations of foreign trade law (§7 AWV)” (on BDS and NASAS, see della Porta 2024, p. 307). Deplatforming by means of funding withdrawal (on this withdrawal, see Engelke 2024; Löbbert 2024) is a sub-goal within the “Education” action area: “Antisemitic incidents are increasing in the arts and cultural sectors … The federal government’s goal is therefore to promote and strengthen opportunities for critical self-reflection as well as antisemitism-critical art and cultural work.” And so on.
But writing this article would require a lot of work. Especially regarding antisemitism-sensitive education, quite a bit has already been published since the publication of and in line with the strategy. DaWalda (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DaWalda First off, many thanks for the NASAS and Rosenfeld links. I've added those to the External links and Further reading sections of the AASG article. The Rosenfeld in particular is excellent. Moses' points on RIAS are likewise well taken. (He mentions Achille Mbembe ... I don't know if you've ever looked at de:Achille Mbembe and its talk page ... another case that would require too much work to put right in de:WP, at least for now, given that the article does not get all that many readers.)
As for BDS, the bizarre thing to my mind is that the July advisory opinion of the ICJ arguably requires UN member states to implement some boycotts and sanctions, at least as far as Israeli settlements, production outputs and development projects in the occupied territories are concerned. Germans like to insist on law and order and Rechtsstaatlichkeit and all that, but precious little is heard of the implications of the ICJ opinion (de:Gutachten zu den rechtlichen Folgen von Israels Besatzungspolitik in German political and media discourse (at least outside specialist venues like Verfassungsblog) as far as I can tell.
A de:WP article on NASAS would certainly be worthwhile. It would also have to give due weight to German mainstream opinion (and might prove really contentious and stressful to work on). Thanks again for your thoughts ... It's good to talk! Best, AndreasJN46622:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zur deutschen Wikipedia: Ich glaube nicht, dass FrancisMortain irgendetwas absegnen wird, was Kriegsverbrechen einzelner Soldaten als "Kriegsverbrechen einzelner Soldaten" zusammenfasst. Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob es ihm mittlerweile ums Prinzip geht oder ob er bewusst sabotieren will. Ich segne alles ab, was du vorschlägst, aber ich bin ein bisschen ratlos, wie man grundsätzlich unter diesen Bedingungen gute Textarbeit machen soll. LG! DaWalda (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DaWalda FM und ich sind in dieser Thematik sehr selten einer Meinung. Ich glaube, es ist bei ihm eine Mischung von beidem: wo seine Loyalität liegt, ist klar, aber manchmal enthalten seine Kritiken auch Hinweise auf mögliche Verbesserungen. Gelegentlich lenkt er auch ein.
Abgesehen davon gibt es in der deutschen Wikipedia das Prinzip "Konsens minus 1". Wenn mehrere Leute auf der Disk.-Seite explizit sagen, ein Text ist okay, und es nur ein oder zwei Gegenstimmen gibt, dann kommt das rein. FM wird in dem Fall dann glaube ich auch nicht revertieren.
Der sexuelle Missbrauch ist jetzt schon mal drin. Den hier vorgeschlagenen Text über die überfahrenen Palästinenser würde ich gerne als Nächstes reinkriegen (da wäre ich dir für deine Unterstützung auf der Disk.-Seite dankbar). Die restlichen Punkte in deinem Entwurf dann eben einen nach dem anderen. Es ist ein Geduldsspiel – Erfolg ist auch nicht garantiert, weil sich ja mehr Gegenstimmen melden können. Aber über eine Gegenstimme kann man sich hinwegsetzen.
Das Hauptproblem mit dem Artikel ist eigentlich, dass er VIEL zu lang (und in weiten Teilen veraltet) ist. Wäre hier in en:WP schon längst aufgeteilt worden. LG, AndreasJN46603:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jayen466, we were both editing the same section on this page, still I think it is important to better mention Mairav Zonszein's statement and its background (i.e. in the context of the Hartman Institute). Also, even though the reference you included only mentions her concern about the use of the term pogrom, she was also concerned about the term anti-Semitism in this context. I don't see why we have to select part of her statements and not others (and I don't know why the reference you have used filters out part of her opinion). Where possible it is better to respect the original sources than what others may select from them. Happy to discuss if you have other opinion. AyubuZimbale (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AyubuZimbale, I sympathise with your sentiment, but Wikipedia generally only reproduces what secondary sources (books, journals, newspapers etc.) are saying and quoting.
To expand the quote and mention her Shalom affiliation, you would have to find a secondary source (newspaper) quoting her tweet in full, and mentioning that other affiliation as well.
Otherwise you will probably find that someone will come along and delete the passage as original research – it won't "stick". That is why I went looking for a newspaper source.
Quoting X directly is generally frowned upon (see WP:TWITTER). You could argue that as the source I found for her statement is linking her tweet it should be fine for us to do so as well and to quote more from the tweet than the Dutch paper is quoting, but I'm not sure that view would gain consensus. Kind regards, AndreasJN46615:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AyubuZimbale I'm not sure why you have reverted my correction, it is perfectly clear it is Dr Marc Owen Jones, the academic of Bin Kalifa University in Qatar. because it specifically states so in the article. have you read the National article carefully? see the Achieve. The more well known Owen Jones the journalist is nothing to do with this article. If you are referring to anything what the journalist has said you need a completely different reference. Please revert it back Andromedean (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andromedean There are two different National articles and two different Owen Joneses. This is the National article currently cited in the Wikipedia article:
Do please add his quote to the article as well, but do make clear in the text that they are really two different people! It is quite a coincidence. Best wishes, AndreasJN46612:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you are going to edit the passage, it might be best to use the full quote from Owen Jones' tweet as well:
"In the world we live in, if you condemn racist fanatics literally relishing in the mass slaughter of children, then you will be branded a hateful bigot. Gaslighting isn’t strong enough a word to describe what this is."
@Andromedean I now have restored the content you added (do check the wording and edit it further if you feel anything is missing: [4]). Sorry for the mix-up and thanks for providing the Marc Owen Jones source – I should have looked for it myself earlier but was a little pressed for time. Best regards, AndreasJN46618:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hi. I saw that you were also contributing to this page, and you have more experience with wikipedia. There is an ongoing discussion (What individual reactions areWP:DUE) and (WP:DUEand the inclusion of ‘Erev Rav’ statements). My opinion is that additional content beyond government responses is relevant such as: opinions of political parties other than the government in the Netherlands (I have added one), and two NGO's opinion (civil society organisations that cancelled a local Kristallnacht commemoration due to ‘violent’ Maccabi supporters...). However, both are marked as WP:DUE by another editor. I don't have that much experience to evaluate on my own the situation and in particular ‘WP:DUE’, and my understanding is that both are relevant information as I tried to explain on the article's discussion page. I would need a second opinion, if possible. Thank you. AyubuZimbale (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
