Talk:Ilmar Reepalu

Skånskadagbladet reference

http://www.skanskan.se/article/20100127/MALMO/701269748/-/reepalu-israel-har-skapat-en-varbold RPSM (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ilmar Reepalu

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ilmar Reepalu's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "aftenposten.no":

• From Antisemitism: Hets av jøder er økende i Europa – Aftenposten. Aftenposten.no. Retrieved on 2 June 2012.
• From Antisemitism in Sweden: AV: halvor tjønn. "Jødehatet har dukket frem i Malmö – Aftenposten". Aftenposten.no. Retrieved 2012-05-29.

Reference named "forward.com":

• From Antisemitism in Sweden: "For Jews, Swedish City Is a 'Place To Move Away From' –". Forward.com. Retrieved 2012-05-29.
• From Antisemitism: Donald Snyder. For Jews, Swedish City Is a ‘Place To Move Away From’. Forward.com (2010-07-07). Retrieved on 2 June 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on anti-Semitism

This article has a mirror on Swedish Wikipedia. And even though it too addresses this issue, it was severely cut down and embedded among other controversies after intense discussions where the consensus view was that emphasis on certain statements was undue. Certainly as many felt that much of the criticism was unfounded and due to overinterpretation or even lack of understanding of what he actually said. For example "any attacks on Jewish people" is a true statement if "attacks" are "violent attacks" (possible there was one incident, bottles was hurled at a rally "for peace and Israels right to defend itself"; a little girl was nearly hit). And thus that statement is not seen as controversial in Sweden. Neither is "want to move to Israel". Most Jews that have left Malmö have left for Stockholm or other cities in Sweden. And if they instead choose to leave for Israel, it is not simply a matter for Malmö, but a matter for Sweden as a whole. In the end, the article on sv-wiki only use the examples that the local congregation felt where over the top. And that list is not nearly as extensive as the one in this article right now. Steinberger (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"many felt that much of the criticism was unfounded". I dont't think we should edit Wikipedia based on our own feelings and opinions. Neither is it solely the opinon of the local congregation that matters. We are to reflect how his actions and statements are treated in reliable sources and what other politicians, opinionmakers etc. have said about the issue . However, I agree that there is currently undue weight to the anti-semitism allegations; the section should be shortened and more focused; and it would be preferable if there was an expansion of other sides of his mayorality. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue was rather: As there are those (for example Reepalu himself and others, as commentators in newspapers) that have views that is opposed to those that have said that his statements are anti-Semitic, the article would become overly long if we where to duly express both sides. So we didn't. We said there where a hoist of statements that caused the controversy. We gave examples. But we didn't pick them arbitrary as here: Instead we took the examples from a background article to Rosenthal's visit, where a journalist summarized the controversy in a context that made it clear that he was paraphrasing someone at the Jewish congregation. As these where more clear-cut and not subject of criticism like "that quote is out of context" or "distortion of what he obviously meant". Steinberger (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources cited for this are RS. The fact is that Reepalu has drawn considerable attention to himself, not just in Sweden but also abroad for his anti-Israel rhetoric, his implicit support in violence against Jews at a Pro-Israel protest, his blatent denial of the anti-semitic violence against Jews in the city that he governs, his attempts to punish or silence his critics (by excluding them from news conferences), and his bizarre conspiracy theories. This section is already focused - all of the information here is specific to Reepalu's own words and actions, and not just to Malmo or Sweden in general. Reepalu has made a name for himself in this regard, and this has been noted by Swedish, Israeli and American news outlets. You seem to be arguing that some of Reepalu's statements were supposedly taken out of context - if you have RS sources to support your claims, feel free to add them. Likewise, if you want to add material dealing with Reepalu's other exploits as mayor, I encourage you to do so. But we shouldn't whitewash the fact that Reepalu's behaviour towards the Jewish citizens of Malmo has brought both local and international criticism.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC))

I agree the section is quite good written and organized, but I still think there is an undue weight to the criticism part, and thus the article violateS BLP:Balance, which states: "The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." The way it is now, the criticism section is by far the largest and makes up half of the body. That is not acceptable. I removed one quote that wasn´t probably sourced, and I am also considering removing another sentence where the Gatestone Institue is the source (currently, ref 18) Gatestone is a little notable, yet controversial institute, so I don't believe it is a reliable source. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 09:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• In response to your concern about the Gatestone Institute, I have removed this reference and replaced it with a source that is more reliable Jews flee Malmö as anti-Semitism grows.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC))

Hyperionsteel: Is "al-Jazeerah" (note that it isn't "al-Jazeera") a RS? And you don't have to go further then the first paragraph to find a misinterpretations of what undeniably RS say: Reepalu has not denied any "rise of Antisemitism in Malmö" and non of the sources actually say that. And there are a lot of RS that do say that statements have been torn out of context, for example here. Reepalu gives specific examples here. Moreover, police statistics do not contain a single case of violence against Jews in 2009 [1]. So to say that "there haven't been any [violent] attacks on Jewish people" is not to deny the facts as is implied that he did, he stated what he knew and insofar the statistics represent the truth, the actual truth. Steinberger (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Steinberger. I guess you didn't notice that Wikipedia prefers the spelling Al-Jazeera (although Al-Jazeerah, which redirects to the same page is also acceptable). If you feel this strongly about the spelling, I suggest you contact Wikipedia and ask them to take appropriate action. Until then, I will continue to use the spelling preferred by Wikipedia. On a similar note, please note that the Al-Jazeera (yes Al-Jazeera) article is used solely to quote Reepalu's comments, not to analyze or judge them.

But lets take a closer look at your "sources", one is a short letter to the editor from Reepalu [2] (in which he spends most of the time casting himself as the victim), although the other source [3] does have some substance. If you want to include this explanation in the article, please do so.

I have no objections to you posting material which you believe to exonerate Reepalu. However, you clearly have missed the point: while you clearly believe him (i.e. that he is a poor, misunderstood man being victimized by pro-Israel lobbyists), the news sources cited clearly indicate that a lot of people don't. That is what this article reflects.

By the way, one of the sources you cited is Stockholms Fria Tidning, which is probably not a RS by Wikipedia standards, but I won't object if you want to use it.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC))

The article in Al-Jazeera is not from the Qatar-based organisation. But another, with a similar name. And as I am Swedish: Yes I do believe him. In fact, many does. And for some statements, even his Swedish critics apparently does. As this with "no attacks" that haven't been repeated as some reprehensible thing he have said since his explanation. (Doing that would just deflect the debate away from Reepalu and make it into a technical discussion on "battery" versus "harresment" or how police statistics reflects reality.) However, I do not believe that the criticism primarily came from the small Swedish "pro-Israel lobby", even though they obviously participated in this. The most vocal critics where opportunistic right-wing editorial commentators in, primarily, Scanian newspapers that saw an opportunity to scandalize him in an election year. (If one is a bit cynical, that way they also covered the fact that they where unaware of the situation for the Jews in their own city, just as Reepalu.) However, their efforts failed miserly. Reepalu was re-elected. Steinberger (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, The Local is no more RS then anything from the "Fria Tidningar" cooperative. The quality is generally good in both, but neither are as reliable as, say, Radio Sweden/Sveriges Radio. And the issue in both the case of The Local and that of Fria Tidningen is not that of they are more "wrong" then any other newspaper, but that they more then other news outlets omit relevant facts. Thus, that one might not get the full picture. And that's why the big established newspapers, public service and the big commercial television channel are more reliable. Steinberger (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)