This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removed link to website: swedenandthejews.blogspot.com, because it was written with an strong bias and an unnuanced take on this issue, and there are not any other links to sites containing opposing viewpoints or a more nuanced perspective to counter the arguments made on this blog. Main argument against this site is that it fails to present the problem of anti-Semitism in Sweden in its true complexity, effectively painting it as more of a widespread societal problem than it is, with statements such as these anonymous quotes which are presented as though it was the entire country speaking:
"This hatred is … both understandable, reasonable and justified" Sweden 2003
“Jew pigs!” Stockholm, Sweden 2002
"DEATH TO THE JEWS!” Stockholm, Sweden 2004
Also, with loaded statements such as:
"In Sweden one can publicly scream and chant “Jew pigs!” and “Death to the Jews!”, unpunished"
The above statement isn't justifiabliy any more true in Sweden than in other democratic countries in general. In fact Sweden has instituted a law against hate speech much like other countries, which while not entirely effective in all cases, makes the above statements technically untrue from a legal standpoint.
This statement below is both disproportionate and offensive:
"So when is enough enough? A judenrein Sweden perhaps? Yes, at the beginning of the millennium little Sweden actually had some 18,000 registered Jews. That wouldn’t be too much for Israel to airlift out."
Clearly the writer has little respect for the democratic system in Sweden or the generally tolerant world view of the majority of Swedes. It ignores the fact (according to a major survey of 30,000) that while anti-Semitism is a problem in Sweden as elsewhere, the majority of Swedes are not anti-Semetic, and that the problem is largely confined to marginalized groups such as Muslims and far-right or far-left groups. The website also makes the argument that the entire Swedish media has an anti-Semitic bias, based on certain media criticisms of Isreal government policies, and makes accusations of anti-Semitism against prominent Swedish politicians and others based on similar criticisms of the Israeli government. While anti-Semitism is a problem in Sweden as it around the world, this topic should be addressed in a more nuanced, factual, and balanced perspective whether within the Wikipedia article itself or in the links on this page. It would be more appropriate to link to news articles or other similar references than to have this biased blog as the sole link about this topic. Perhaps then the site could be re-listed as an editorial site. G coen ( talk) 04:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Kiefer Wolfowitz made a number of changes in the text I added on Kenneth Andreasson's impressions on the tapes. And I can't see the reason for it. For starters, Wolfowitz claims that the Swedish Social Democratic Party owns Aftonbladet. That is not true. Schibsted owns 91% and the remainder is owned by Swedish Trade Union Confederation. The latter provides an indirect link to the party, but there is no reason to cast doubt over that the newspaper is independent as it is done in the article. Wolfowitz also removed Anreasson's summery of what Reepalu actually talked most of and instead felt that the ending note was more relevant to the matter. I don't think so. Not so that I absolutely want it removed, but if its inclusion is to the price of Andreasson's assessment over what Reepalu said, why should it be there?
However, the reason for why I brought the op-ed was to balance the articles heavily biased rant against Reeplau. My principal idea is to have it shortened severely. It seems very WP:UNDUE. And the bigger issue is not Reepalus statements but that Jews feel increasingly insecure. That Skånska Dagbladet with its Centre Party affiliation, Sydsvenska Dagbladet as independent liberal and other Swedish right-wing newspapers is more keen on Reepalu could be explained by that 2010 is an election year. (The Local said goal is to give an international audience an insight into what is discussed in Swedish media, they do not have an open political affiliation although I would say that they are liberal judging from what they write about.) Steinberger ( talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Aftonbladet is "independent social democratic" (oberoende socialdemokratisk). At least according to its owners, Schibsted and Landsorganisationen and the newspaper is also referred to in that way by other reliable newsorganizations such as Svenska Dagbladet, Sveriges Radio, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, Skånska Dagbladet, Göteborgs Posten, Expressen and Dagens Nyheter - to name a few. Steinberger ( talk) 17:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The quote from Reepalu is wrong and somewhat change the meaning of what he said. A important piece of what he said is also missing. A more correct quote is "I wish that the jewish congregation would denounce (the state of)Israel:s violations of civilian palestinians. Instead they choose to hold a demonstration that could send the wrong signals. At the same time I wish that muslim leaders in Malmö clearly state that the jews in Malmö should not be involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict." The swedish word "Församlingen" is not equal to the english word "community" as community also refers to the whole etnict/religious group. Judiska Församlingen is a mix of congregation/civil-rights group for the jewish community in southern Sweden.There is about 3000 jews living in southern parts of Sweden and around 700 of the is members of Judiska församlingen. And the context of his quote is missing. Another important part that is missing is in what context the quote is made.The source for the quote is here : http://www.skanskan.se/article/20100127/MALMO/701269748/1057
So when did it assume the character of a (sic) race problem, and how was this solved? RPSM ( talk) 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There are two Swedish sources for the history of the Jews in Sweden: Hugo Valentin, and Eskil Olán. Neither of them appear to have been consulted for this article, and essentials are missing. There is an anti-Jewish bias to the article. RPSM ( talk) 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The Local is apparently wrong in pointing out a doubling in reported "violent incidents". (There was one such incident in Malmö 2009, according to the statistics.) What there was an doubling of is hate crimes in general. This according to DN who is citing the "National Council for Crime Prevention" (BRÅ). Steinberger ( talk) 10:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be nice to have a list of famous Jews from Sweden here. -- 83.254.36.6 ( talk) 21:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this is slightly wrong "permission was only given to reside in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Landskrona and Norrköping" and it should be "permission was only given to reside in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Karlskrona and Norrköping". Someone should check this up. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.121.84 ( talk) 10:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth is this article on Swedish-Jewish history contextualised by the reign of a British monarch in the 16th century? The anglocentricity of the "British Isles" school of British nationalism is consistently impressive in the narrowness of its worldview. 88.131.58.163 ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
This section seems rather problematic to me. It consists largely of lengthy quotes from the editorial in question; essentially there's a section of the article which explicitly defends Reepalu, which is hardly neutral. CharlesMartel ( talk) 23:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)CharlesMartel
I think we should reference this flag in the article. It seems to be political, though, but really it is rather relevant. Any thoughts? Shikku27316 ( talk) 02:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have added a POV-tag to the section about the situation in Malmö with regards to antisemitism. This belongs to Antisemitism in Sweden and just copying it from there to any article about the same topic is not right. Summarize the content instead. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 10:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Jews in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the Jews in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The page ignores anti-Jewish policy before the Holocaust, eg. ban on J-passports. Xx236 ( talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the section respect the timeline?
I see no need in this article for an image showing Sweden's location on the globe. Seems to me that info is readily available in other relevant articles. I will remove that again unless someone can explain its pertinence here. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
An edit war brewing? I do not agree with this reversal of what was in the article before. People of any kind who by law were not allowed to do business centuries ago, for example, but then were given what in current law was called "privileges" - should Wikipedia change the term to "civil rights"? Looking for more input, before I change this back to "privileges" again to coincide with the legal terminology of that time. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removed link to website: swedenandthejews.blogspot.com, because it was written with an strong bias and an unnuanced take on this issue, and there are not any other links to sites containing opposing viewpoints or a more nuanced perspective to counter the arguments made on this blog. Main argument against this site is that it fails to present the problem of anti-Semitism in Sweden in its true complexity, effectively painting it as more of a widespread societal problem than it is, with statements such as these anonymous quotes which are presented as though it was the entire country speaking:
"This hatred is … both understandable, reasonable and justified" Sweden 2003
“Jew pigs!” Stockholm, Sweden 2002
"DEATH TO THE JEWS!” Stockholm, Sweden 2004
Also, with loaded statements such as:
"In Sweden one can publicly scream and chant “Jew pigs!” and “Death to the Jews!”, unpunished"
The above statement isn't justifiabliy any more true in Sweden than in other democratic countries in general. In fact Sweden has instituted a law against hate speech much like other countries, which while not entirely effective in all cases, makes the above statements technically untrue from a legal standpoint.
This statement below is both disproportionate and offensive:
"So when is enough enough? A judenrein Sweden perhaps? Yes, at the beginning of the millennium little Sweden actually had some 18,000 registered Jews. That wouldn’t be too much for Israel to airlift out."
Clearly the writer has little respect for the democratic system in Sweden or the generally tolerant world view of the majority of Swedes. It ignores the fact (according to a major survey of 30,000) that while anti-Semitism is a problem in Sweden as elsewhere, the majority of Swedes are not anti-Semetic, and that the problem is largely confined to marginalized groups such as Muslims and far-right or far-left groups. The website also makes the argument that the entire Swedish media has an anti-Semitic bias, based on certain media criticisms of Isreal government policies, and makes accusations of anti-Semitism against prominent Swedish politicians and others based on similar criticisms of the Israeli government. While anti-Semitism is a problem in Sweden as it around the world, this topic should be addressed in a more nuanced, factual, and balanced perspective whether within the Wikipedia article itself or in the links on this page. It would be more appropriate to link to news articles or other similar references than to have this biased blog as the sole link about this topic. Perhaps then the site could be re-listed as an editorial site. G coen ( talk) 04:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Kiefer Wolfowitz made a number of changes in the text I added on Kenneth Andreasson's impressions on the tapes. And I can't see the reason for it. For starters, Wolfowitz claims that the Swedish Social Democratic Party owns Aftonbladet. That is not true. Schibsted owns 91% and the remainder is owned by Swedish Trade Union Confederation. The latter provides an indirect link to the party, but there is no reason to cast doubt over that the newspaper is independent as it is done in the article. Wolfowitz also removed Anreasson's summery of what Reepalu actually talked most of and instead felt that the ending note was more relevant to the matter. I don't think so. Not so that I absolutely want it removed, but if its inclusion is to the price of Andreasson's assessment over what Reepalu said, why should it be there?
However, the reason for why I brought the op-ed was to balance the articles heavily biased rant against Reeplau. My principal idea is to have it shortened severely. It seems very WP:UNDUE. And the bigger issue is not Reepalus statements but that Jews feel increasingly insecure. That Skånska Dagbladet with its Centre Party affiliation, Sydsvenska Dagbladet as independent liberal and other Swedish right-wing newspapers is more keen on Reepalu could be explained by that 2010 is an election year. (The Local said goal is to give an international audience an insight into what is discussed in Swedish media, they do not have an open political affiliation although I would say that they are liberal judging from what they write about.) Steinberger ( talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Aftonbladet is "independent social democratic" (oberoende socialdemokratisk). At least according to its owners, Schibsted and Landsorganisationen and the newspaper is also referred to in that way by other reliable newsorganizations such as Svenska Dagbladet, Sveriges Radio, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, Skånska Dagbladet, Göteborgs Posten, Expressen and Dagens Nyheter - to name a few. Steinberger ( talk) 17:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The quote from Reepalu is wrong and somewhat change the meaning of what he said. A important piece of what he said is also missing. A more correct quote is "I wish that the jewish congregation would denounce (the state of)Israel:s violations of civilian palestinians. Instead they choose to hold a demonstration that could send the wrong signals. At the same time I wish that muslim leaders in Malmö clearly state that the jews in Malmö should not be involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict." The swedish word "Församlingen" is not equal to the english word "community" as community also refers to the whole etnict/religious group. Judiska Församlingen is a mix of congregation/civil-rights group for the jewish community in southern Sweden.There is about 3000 jews living in southern parts of Sweden and around 700 of the is members of Judiska församlingen. And the context of his quote is missing. Another important part that is missing is in what context the quote is made.The source for the quote is here : http://www.skanskan.se/article/20100127/MALMO/701269748/1057
So when did it assume the character of a (sic) race problem, and how was this solved? RPSM ( talk) 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There are two Swedish sources for the history of the Jews in Sweden: Hugo Valentin, and Eskil Olán. Neither of them appear to have been consulted for this article, and essentials are missing. There is an anti-Jewish bias to the article. RPSM ( talk) 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The Local is apparently wrong in pointing out a doubling in reported "violent incidents". (There was one such incident in Malmö 2009, according to the statistics.) What there was an doubling of is hate crimes in general. This according to DN who is citing the "National Council for Crime Prevention" (BRÅ). Steinberger ( talk) 10:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be nice to have a list of famous Jews from Sweden here. -- 83.254.36.6 ( talk) 21:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this is slightly wrong "permission was only given to reside in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Landskrona and Norrköping" and it should be "permission was only given to reside in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Karlskrona and Norrköping". Someone should check this up. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.121.84 ( talk) 10:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth is this article on Swedish-Jewish history contextualised by the reign of a British monarch in the 16th century? The anglocentricity of the "British Isles" school of British nationalism is consistently impressive in the narrowness of its worldview. 88.131.58.163 ( talk) 23:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
This section seems rather problematic to me. It consists largely of lengthy quotes from the editorial in question; essentially there's a section of the article which explicitly defends Reepalu, which is hardly neutral. CharlesMartel ( talk) 23:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)CharlesMartel
I think we should reference this flag in the article. It seems to be political, though, but really it is rather relevant. Any thoughts? Shikku27316 ( talk) 02:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have added a POV-tag to the section about the situation in Malmö with regards to antisemitism. This belongs to Antisemitism in Sweden and just copying it from there to any article about the same topic is not right. Summarize the content instead. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 10:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Jews in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of the Jews in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The page ignores anti-Jewish policy before the Holocaust, eg. ban on J-passports. Xx236 ( talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the section respect the timeline?
I see no need in this article for an image showing Sweden's location on the globe. Seems to me that info is readily available in other relevant articles. I will remove that again unless someone can explain its pertinence here. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 09:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
An edit war brewing? I do not agree with this reversal of what was in the article before. People of any kind who by law were not allowed to do business centuries ago, for example, but then were given what in current law was called "privileges" - should Wikipedia change the term to "civil rights"? Looking for more input, before I change this back to "privileges" again to coincide with the legal terminology of that time. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)