Talk:Ahmed Rami (writer)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Scalene^{•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є•} 22:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Hello,

I deleted the antisemitism category. There is no reason to put him in there for now, as there is not even a mention of him being antisemitic in the article itself, let alone sources... Evilbu 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

He has been convicted for inciting racial hatred towards Jewish people, so yes, I think it's fair to put him in that category. I would even say he's one of the most crazy radical anti-semites you could find today, so if he doesn't fit into the category, then no one does. /Slarre 15:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What discussion on Talk?

83.233.154.50, if you're going to add templates referring to discussion on Talk, you need to discuss on Talk. And what are you talking about {{unsourced}}? The article is carefully sourced.
I agree with you that the source given for the claim that Rami "maintains relations with such figures as Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel, Jürgen Graf, David Irving, Otto Ernst Remer, Jürgen Rieger and John Demjanjuk" doesn't show that he does, so I agree with removing that statement and its putative source.
On the other hand, the sources for his relations with Swedish Neo-Nazi groups, and for the fact that they distribute his books, are just fine, what are you talking about? The source doesn't have to say he maintains relations, it only has to show he does. I have restored those statements and their sources. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

No, that's OR. It has to say he maintains relations, otherwise you're deducing things (as I said, OR). Also, that site is not a reliable source per WP:RS. You say the page is carefully sourced? These are the only sourced statements in the entire article:

"Rami was born in Tafraout, Morocco, where he was an army officer and still claims to have close ties with General Mohamed Oufkir"

"Rami maintains relations with Swedish Neo-Nazi groups who distribute many of his books."

Everything else is unsourced. Neutrality, alright, I'll post why I put that tag up and then you won't mind if I put it back, will you?

The article focuses too much on "charges of hate crimes" (which is all unsourced, not saying it didn't happen, but it's unsourced) and little on the support he received from for example Pehr Gahrton, among others.

Please realise that I have every right to remove all these statements and many more (hate charge crimes in France, for example) as long as they are unsourced, see Wikipedia:Living people. 83.233.154.50 11:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:Living people: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion" 83.233.154.50 12:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't have the right to remove every word that's not specifically sourced. See the word "contentious" in there? And "highly questionable"? The information is not contentious or questionable, as these are well-known and easily-checked facts. Even you say "not saying it didn't happen", because you know it did, don't you? As for removing the bit about the Neo-Nazi groups, that OR stuff will get you nowhere. Policies aren't for cherrypicking quotes from and using them to wikilawyer with, oddly enough. That's been tried by better POV pushers than you. Bishonen | talk 12:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

POV pusher? Please assume good faith. I expect you've got me pinned down as a holocaust denier already just because I edited this article but I can assure you that's not the case (not that I think I really should have to state that). What do you mean the OR stuff won't get me anywhere?? It IS OR, if that's the only source you're gonna use..! I really don't like your tone, just because I'm an anonymous user and this article is related to controversial topics such as anti-semitism and Holocaust denial doesn't mean you should feel free to call me names. Please remain civil! Also, the unsourced parts, if it's easy to check, why not be constructive and just include the sources, if they are so easy to find?? I'm not saying they are not true, I'm just saying, this is a "Living person" and because of that there should be reliable sources to support statements which, if it so happened that they were not true, would be libel.83.233.154.50 14:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, what are these accusations of wikilawyering about?? Are you suggesting I'm "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit"? If so, in what manner?? I'm surprised this behaviour is coming from an admin. 83.233.154.50 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fact-tag

I fact-tagged individual sentences instead, since "El C" removed the tag. I do not really see the benefit of doing it this way though, as the article was almost entirely unsourced, except for the opening and the closing line. I would also like to express irritation with Bishounen - first, he is incivil towards me, then, when I refrain from reverting his edits and instead write here, he ignores me. Not what I'd expect from an admin. 83.233.154.50 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"still claims to have close ties with Oufkir"

How can this be, since Mohamed Oufkir was assassinated in 1972? Furthermore, why use a suspicious style of writing about Rami's participation to the failed 1972 coup? Has anyone got information that he didn't participate to it? His ulterior opinions shouldn't interfere with factual events of the 1970s. Tazmaniacs 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jan Bergman

I have a problem with the following statement: "Rami has received support from some Swedish intellectuals. During his 1989 trial, Jan Bergman, professor of theology at Uppsala University, testified in Rami's defense and claimed that for Jews it was indeed a religious duty to kill Gentiles." It is supported by three references. But after checking the only one that is available online, it became evident that the others are its sources. One of them purportedly supported "Rami has received support from some Swedish intellectuals" while the latter should support Jan Bergmans alleged claim "that for Jews it was indeed a religious duty to kill Gentiles."

After searching around to check if the first sources support Tossavainens assersion that Rami had support among intellectuals, it turns out that the articles he cites are supposed to be examples of this alleged support. Well, I can not locate them directly. But I found some critical responses towards them, and from them it is evident that the authors never supported Rami in his views, but his right to speak.

On the source Tossavainen uses to support the alleged statement that Jan Bergman made, I note that Ahlmark is paraphrasing an ambiguous statement Bergman made before the court and that Tossavainen have taken the most extreme interpretation that can be made as true. From the Swedish article on Jan Bergman at Wikipedia, I note that his superior (prefekt) at Uppsala have defended Bergman from charges of antisemtism, saying that there is circulating false and exaggerated accounts on what he said at court.

In all, it seems evident that Tossavainen have a POV and thus that everything he alleges needs attribution. Or be chucked. (As Jan Bergman is dead, I can't point to BLP and RS. But if he wasn't, such an exceptional claim that we speak of here would need a better source then Tossavainen.) Steinberger (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you've dropped the BLP claim, thanks. Now, these are the three sources used:

1. Dennis Zachrisson, FiB-Kulturfront, No. 16, 1988 (Swedish); Claes- Adam Wachtmeister, Expressen, 26 September 1990 (Swedish); Sven öste, Dagens Nyheter, 23 September 1990 (Swedish).
2. Per Ahlmark, Vänstern och tyranniet - Det galna kvartsseklet (Stockholm: Timbro, 1994), p. 249 (Swedish).
3. Arab and Muslim Anti-Semitism in Sweden by Mikael Tossavainen, Jewish Political Studies Review 17:3-4 (Fall 2005).

Can you explain more succinctly what makes each of them unreliable? I'm not understanding your point exactly, but I note that the source you have brought – http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Bergman_%28professor%29 – is not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The first three are primary sources, that have to be interpreted to support anything in the article.

The second is what we in Sweden call a debate-book by Per Ahlmark, the chapter - the only thing in the book I have read - is a gonzo-style account on his experiences at the court. More on his own feelings and experience on what where happening, then a sober account on what really happened with a commentary. That is, it is a primary source. (If you know Swedish, here.)

Tossavainens article is a secondary source, using the other two as its sources, and I figure it can be used with attribution. But I rather would not. Tossavainen have previously been criticized for reaching fargoing conclutions based on weak sources [1] [2].

The Wikipedia article is badly written but have sources, the links are dead though. But it show that there is more to this story Tossavainen makes it. (If you know Swedish, I just found this. Although I have not figured out who is behind it, it seems serious and sober. It goes into some more detail on what is called "the Bergman affair" in Sweden.) Steinberger (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)