Talk:Jürgen Elsässer
|
This Conspiracy theories related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
|
This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. |
What's with all citations in German?[edit]
Is that considered acceptable here? How are the claims supported when most readers can't access the sources?---Mona- (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you can find citations in English, go provide them. Sources in German are better thaen no sources at all. English WP also has (gasp!) sources in languages other thaen English and your mysterious second language from time to time. Deal with it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is the problem, if you cover wingnuts from outside of the US/UK, who didn't make that big of a splash outside of said countries/countries.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Given that his case went up to the Bundes Verfassungs Gericht (not spelled that way in German, but making breaks for google translate, you're welcome), we can see more international coverage in days to come... BTW, Miss Ditfurth still needs help covering the costs of the trial. If you'd like to chip in, I can link you to the relevant stuff... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Labeling Elsässer an "antisemite"[edit]
If I'm reading the article correctly, wasn't he vindicated in a German court case on this accusation? It continues to disturb me that there are no sources in English I can read on this issue. But at the very least whowe should qualify the label "antisemtie" with the word "allegedly" in light of a court case that did not find he is an antisemite.---Mona- (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)No. The court case is still not settled. It was a libel case where Jutta Ditfurth (a well known German progressive) said "he is a fiery Antisemite" about him (among other things he did not object to) and Elsässer claimed her saying that would harm his career. The lower court in Munich (neither of the two lives in Munich or close to it btw) ruled in favor of Elsässer because he "does not recur positively to what happened 1933-1945". So basically, he is "not a Nazi" (in the 1933-1945 sense) and therefore "can't be an antisemite"... And over here, we aren't in the sugarcoating things business. We are in the calling a spade a spade business... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand your explanation. This was a defamation action, yes, involving her claim that "he is a fiery Antisemite?" Did the court agree she said something defamatory and thus hold for Elsässer?---Mona- (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Considering that this pertains to a BLP and a court case that Elsässer has (sort of) won the first round of, but where the defendant (Ditfurth) is trying to get it appealed to the German supreme court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), I think it's probably a good idea to be a wee bit cautious, lest RW is exposed to a similar lawsuit.
- For what it's worth, the court seems to have been particularly concerned with whether Elsässer could be called a fiery (glühenden) anti-Semite, i.e. not just your run-of-the-mill anti-Semite, but an especially egregious or dangerous example of the species. If that's what's going on, it would seem that Ditfurth might have had a stronger case if this adjective had been omitted. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- That was also my concern. In the U.S. you can call someone an antisemite, a racist, a homophobe etc, all day long, and not be held liable in any court. But if it's different in Germany I would guess some care should be taken. I don't know squat about the German legal system and most of their law. It seems weird to me that an adjective like "fiery" should make a lot of difference, but then I don't understand the German judicial mind.---Mona- (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- My guess is that, for good reasons, calling someone a "fiery anti-Semite" in Germany is likely to raise the spectre of Nazism, though I don't know German political discourse well enough to say whether such a term is an outright dog whistle term for "you're a Nazi" (which seems to be how the judge interpreted it). Anyway, considering the potential consequences of being a Nazi in Germany, where certain Nazi-associated claims, symbols etc. are punishable offences, I see why it's worth suing over anything hinting in those directions, let alone that getting a "Nazi'ish" reputation is likely to sink any career as a media figure (which I think was Elsässer's complaint in making the suit). Anyway, I hope it does goes to the supreme court, because this seems to be an important issue touching on fundamental rights, so it would be odd to have precedent set at the state, rather than the federal level. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually to chip in, when people are accused of being antisemites the usual non-sequitur "defense" is' But (s)he is not a Nazi / politically to the right... And yes the tiny adjective ("glühend") is indeed one of the things the court case revolves around... Also German courts couldn't care less about this here wiki... And there other things on here that might arouse more interest in e.g. an English court (who are even more egregious when it comes to "libel") Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Courts not wasting time on us is not a valid reason to put us in legal jeopardy and if you plan to have that attitude, I will enforce a perpetual ban on you. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Usually the "sentence" for "libel" (especially if it is akin to free speech, which [free speech] the constitutional court has recently ruled to be a pretty broad concept in Germany) is "Don't say it again". Of course I don't want RW to be sued, but I don't think the risk is too big. Regardless, we may want to wait a couple of months until the ruling is out... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your one and only answer to "Do not put the wiki at legal risk" is "Yes sir". Any other answer is what will get you a perpetual ban for putting the wiki at legal risk. Any risk at all, even a 0.0000000000001 risk, is unacceptable. We banned a user for a year for putting us at risk, you will not be afforded a timelimit because you have exhausted that sort of kindness and patience. So, do you consider it acceptable to put us at any legal risk? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly don't don't feel the need to be especially sensitive to European laws in most cases. But where : 1. The accusation is currently a matter of litigation and at this point is decided in the defamed person's favor, and 2. Involves Avenger's judgment as to who and what is an "antisemite," and 3. I/we (most of us) can't read the source material to decide for myself, then I'm especially skeptical of simply hurling the accusation.---Mona- (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- "I honestly don't don't feel the need to be especially sensitive to European laws in most cases." Huh? And why not, if I may ask? I would be exactly as concerned with European laws on libel or defamation as US ones and actually more so, if the one suing for libel/defamation was able to sue in the UK (a notorious destination for "libel tourists"). As Paravant put it, don't make RW a target unless you're willing to commit to footing the bill yourself in advance. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not even then. Put it on your blog or something. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please excuse me saying in maybe muddled words, but I thought "I don't want RW to be sued" to be clear enough. I dislike the libel suing industry (though its German branch is much smaller thaen its English branch) but if a thing we say puts us at a legal risk, we should find a way of saying it that doesn't... If German media are any guide, saying "he is currently suing Jutta Ditfurth to disallow her from saying X" (with the X spelled out) is a rather safe bet, though let others judge how safe... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- The world is bigger than the U.S., and even bigger than Europe. If we didn't allow, say, "hate speech" that's prohibited in the UK and many other places, a good deal of commentary here (or at many U.S. sites, or even WP) couldn't occur. Also, at least in the U.S., a retraction is generally sufficient to avoid lawsuit. RW is incorporated, is it not, as a U.S. entity? Finally, no site, especially one like ours, could speak much of the unpopular truth if we were to adopt terror of litigation as our primary concern. That's inimical to a free press and the publishing of truth. If someone wants to use UK libel law, and it's expense, to shut you down, they just can and will, even if they ultimately lose. ---Mona- (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please excuse me saying in maybe muddled words, but I thought "I don't want RW to be sued" to be clear enough. I dislike the libel suing industry (though its German branch is much smaller thaen its English branch) but if a thing we say puts us at a legal risk, we should find a way of saying it that doesn't... If German media are any guide, saying "he is currently suing Jutta Ditfurth to disallow her from saying X" (with the X spelled out) is a rather safe bet, though let others judge how safe... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not even then. Put it on your blog or something. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- "I honestly don't don't feel the need to be especially sensitive to European laws in most cases." Huh? And why not, if I may ask? I would be exactly as concerned with European laws on libel or defamation as US ones and actually more so, if the one suing for libel/defamation was able to sue in the UK (a notorious destination for "libel tourists"). As Paravant put it, don't make RW a target unless you're willing to commit to footing the bill yourself in advance. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I honestly don't don't feel the need to be especially sensitive to European laws in most cases. But where : 1. The accusation is currently a matter of litigation and at this point is decided in the defamed person's favor, and 2. Involves Avenger's judgment as to who and what is an "antisemite," and 3. I/we (most of us) can't read the source material to decide for myself, then I'm especially skeptical of simply hurling the accusation.---Mona- (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your one and only answer to "Do not put the wiki at legal risk" is "Yes sir". Any other answer is what will get you a perpetual ban for putting the wiki at legal risk. Any risk at all, even a 0.0000000000001 risk, is unacceptable. We banned a user for a year for putting us at risk, you will not be afforded a timelimit because you have exhausted that sort of kindness and patience. So, do you consider it acceptable to put us at any legal risk? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Usually the "sentence" for "libel" (especially if it is akin to free speech, which [free speech] the constitutional court has recently ruled to be a pretty broad concept in Germany) is "Don't say it again". Of course I don't want RW to be sued, but I don't think the risk is too big. Regardless, we may want to wait a couple of months until the ruling is out... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Courts not wasting time on us is not a valid reason to put us in legal jeopardy and if you plan to have that attitude, I will enforce a perpetual ban on you. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually to chip in, when people are accused of being antisemites the usual non-sequitur "defense" is' But (s)he is not a Nazi / politically to the right... And yes the tiny adjective ("glühend") is indeed one of the things the court case revolves around... Also German courts couldn't care less about this here wiki... And there other things on here that might arouse more interest in e.g. an English court (who are even more egregious when it comes to "libel") Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- My guess is that, for good reasons, calling someone a "fiery anti-Semite" in Germany is likely to raise the spectre of Nazism, though I don't know German political discourse well enough to say whether such a term is an outright dog whistle term for "you're a Nazi" (which seems to be how the judge interpreted it). Anyway, considering the potential consequences of being a Nazi in Germany, where certain Nazi-associated claims, symbols etc. are punishable offences, I see why it's worth suing over anything hinting in those directions, let alone that getting a "Nazi'ish" reputation is likely to sink any career as a media figure (which I think was Elsässer's complaint in making the suit). Anyway, I hope it does goes to the supreme court, because this seems to be an important issue touching on fundamental rights, so it would be odd to have precedent set at the state, rather than the federal level. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- That was also my concern. In the U.S. you can call someone an antisemite, a racist, a homophobe etc, all day long, and not be held liable in any court. But if it's different in Germany I would guess some care should be taken. I don't know squat about the German legal system and most of their law. It seems weird to me that an adjective like "fiery" should make a lot of difference, but then I don't understand the German judicial mind.---Mona- (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't understand your explanation. This was a defamation action, yes, involving her claim that "he is a fiery Antisemite?" Did the court agree she said something defamatory and thus hold for Elsässer?---Mona- (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, if some asshat decided to sue RW for bullshit reasons of libel, I'd be on the phone to the people I know here. They live to defend against this sort of nonsense.---Mona- (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- It still costs us money, and that is unacceptable. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just because RW is incorporated in the US doesn't make it proof against being sued in other countries. Again, the UK springs to mind and even though it has clamped down somewhat on the most blatant forms of libel tourism, an irate Brit might be able to sue RW in the UK according to British libel laws. So, don't push the envelope.
- Unless... OMG! You're a subversive working for Them! Shill! NWO agent! Agent provocateur! ScepticWombat (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Alas, my life would be so much more interesting if I were one of "them." But no, I just know that anyone can sue anyone else for anything and make them spend money to defend it if they're both Americans, even if it's just to get the suit tossed out. But it's not so easy for foreigners to sue Yanks. I suppose the UK could claim jurisdiction, but if RW is incorporated in the U.S., and only here, good luck. There's a federal statute protecting U.S. persons from suits and judgments under foreign laws that are not the same as ours.---Mona- (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
So maybe we should hash this out before it descends into revert fests[edit]
Mona just said "alleged" Antisemite ostensibly, because the ref is in German and she does not understand said language. Now given that the native speakers I know off (who could say yea trust us he is) are not the ones Mona trusts, we are in a bit of a kerfuffle here... He is an antisemite, but until and unless the trial in front of the supreme court starts there is unlikely to be much English language media coverage... Though WP never questions the validity of a source just because of its language. But WP of course has a way bigger userbase... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- Are you asking whether the word "alleged" should be included? My vote is yes, though it really would be better to avoid weasel words & say he "has been described as an anti-semite by _____". WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- One thing to put in the space of the blank would be the name "Jutta Ditfurth", though it might need an explanation as to who that is...Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well yeah. Looking at the article again, I see it just describes him as an "alleged anti-semite" and states that he's won a libel suit without mentioning the involved parties. That's surely not ideal. It would be better to steer away from directly describing him as an anti-semite & towards documenting the libel case. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 00:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should also cover more ground on the "why" of him being called an antisemite by Miss Ditfurth... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- With sources in English?---Mona- (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't find more thaen the ones I already linked to in the pub. But you can try a machine translation of this this this or this. Unfortunately in some cases if you don't speak a certain language it is hard participating in certain debates while being well informed... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, what's our policy on non-English RW articles at this site?---Mona- (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Do you mean an article written in a language other than English as an RW article? We have some of them, but I don't know the procedure to make one... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- We don't have one--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, what's our policy on non-English RW articles at this site?---Mona- (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can't find more thaen the ones I already linked to in the pub. But you can try a machine translation of this this this or this. Unfortunately in some cases if you don't speak a certain language it is hard participating in certain debates while being well informed... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- With sources in English?---Mona- (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think we should also cover more ground on the "why" of him being called an antisemite by Miss Ditfurth... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well yeah. Looking at the article again, I see it just describes him as an "alleged anti-semite" and states that he's won a libel suit without mentioning the involved parties. That's surely not ideal. It would be better to steer away from directly describing him as an anti-semite & towards documenting the libel case. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- One thing to put in the space of the blank would be the name "Jutta Ditfurth", though it might need an explanation as to who that is...Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I saw some concern about articles in Portuguese. How do we ensure quality and legality with those?---Mona- (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Currently the word "alleged" appears in the body of the article,,, Is there any other thing we can/should/might do? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't we already go over this? Aren't the discussions about it in the two sections above still ongoing? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 00:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
What should the article say?[edit]
Why not start yet another new thread asking the same questions & going over the same ground. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's a great idea! At the Saloon, several here, and how about my talk page, Avenger's, and...yours!---Mona- (talk) 00:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- They have both gone on tangents regarding law and Portuguese.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- All threads shoot off on tangents. It doesn't mean we need to discuss the subject in scads of new threads. Why, it could mean it's been discussed enough and requires no more discussion.---Mona- (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- With the result of the discussion being? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- All threads shoot off on tangents. It doesn't mean we need to discuss the subject in scads of new threads. Why, it could mean it's been discussed enough and requires no more discussion.---Mona- (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- They have both gone on tangents regarding law and Portuguese.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
konkret magazine[edit]
It would be interesting to have an article about this magazine here. Originally a libertarian socialist magazine, its founder and first editor was Klaus Rainer Röhl, husband of Ulrike Meinhof, he became a right-wing conservative nationalist in the 90's. In the 60's and 70's konkret was a magazine aligned with the student movement of '68, they even form a famous rally against the Vietnam War in Berlin. At that time, the magazine also supported the legalization of pedophilia, Röhl himself was accused by one of his daughters of abused her.
From 1974, Röhl leaves the direction of the magazine, leaving it in the hands of Hermann Gremliza. Gremliza, together with Henryk Broder, made the magazine the official press organ of the anti-German movement, a leftist movement that supported American, Israeli and NATO foreign policy, wich most of its members are Marxists or anarchists.--preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.48.129
Attacks against Greta Thunberg[edit]
He's not just a denier of global warming, but also attacked Greta Thunberg, making an unfunny and insulting pun on her name. Talk about being an asshole. Do such things belong into the article?--Max Sinister (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)