This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)