Talk:Barbara Lerner Spectre

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2016. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sweden Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Here is a note I received from Lukeno94 on Dec. 13, 2013 about my adding the quote from BLS from the Israel Broadcasting Authority video, The Jews of Sweden: "This is your last warning. The next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Barbara Lerner Spectre, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lukeno94" Firstly, I documented that BLS said those words on the Israel Broadcasting Authority video, The Jews of Sweden. Secondly, if you Google BLS you will find most of the first pages results allude to this quote. How is it defamatory to accurately quote someone about something they said that is generating a lot or most of the current interest in her? What am I missing? Or what is Lukeno94 missing? JeffLB (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.7.104 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's pretty simple, and it's something I've said in the edit summaries you must've read; this is neither a notable event, nor is it a subject compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well Lukeno94, you in effect raise four objections and I'd like to respond to each of them. First objection: "not a notable event". BLS made a proclamation on a public program produced by the Israel Broadcasting Authority concerning the future of Europe and in particular the part Jews would play in bringing this future about. BLS is an accomplished woman who headed a prestigious organization and who said this on a respected television program. Many or most of the people who come to this page do indeed believe this is a notable event, for better or worse, or they wouldn't have come to this page to find out more about BLS. In the last 90 days this page has had 3,062 visits and considering Google search history, we can be reasonably confident that many or most of the visitors to this page have come because of their (positive or negative) reaction to this "event". Second objection: this quote is not a NPOV. I don't know how to even respond to that, other than to say that BLS said it and that is what has generated interest in her, whether positive or negative. The words were spoken in a very public way where BLS knew many people would see her actually speaking them in the program and she decided to say them. Thus quoting her is hardly promoting a POV or defamatory. Third objection: not meeting standards for articles about living persons. The words are verifiable and verified. They are significant. And fourth objection, that the words are given undue weight. The fact that many or most people are apparently coming to this page in itself gives the words a certain weight and significance. Where is the question of undue weight? I have carefully considered your objections, Lukeno94, and this is why I don't feel they justify deleting this quote. And by the way, I am Jewish and do not believe that this quote by BLS, however I feel about it, is defamatory against my relatives and fellow Jews, which I infer, perhaps incorrectly, that you believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffLB (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You're missing nothing. You documented it and the quote is not vandalization. Citing that quote is not taking sides in the debate. It was said. It's big on the internet. Naturally a Wikipedia article should mention it. You need to ignore people who threaten you like that. The guy is full of BS saying things like "I'll get you blocked" and, "The quote isn't notable." You really just have to laugh in pity at them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannibalcaesar (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this person has sufficient notability to warrant an encyclopedia entry. It seems the woman is 'notable' only for a brief 2010 television appearance in which she attributed increased antisemitism in Sweden to Jewish advocacy of multiculturalism; if you enter her name in a search engine all of the results returned refer to this alone and are mostly from fringe right and/or antisemitic blogs, where she is derided as a hypocrite for advocating multiculturalism in Europe while opposing it in Israel. Ironically, after a long edit war, there is currently no reference to the controversial remarks for which she is in anyway 'notable' in the first place.

The article was created about a year after Spectre's television appearance by a user named "israsport", an apparent portmanteau of "Israel" and "sport", who appears to have created an account on Wikipedia solely for the purpose of creating this article, leaving the site shortly thereafter. It appears the article was created for mischievous rather than informative purposes. CannotFindAName (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your last paragraph seems to be unnecessary speculation. Anyway, WP:AFD is the place to argue that the article should be deleted. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the reference for her biography?

What are her citizenships beside the Swedish one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4942:47D0:388F:4203:BE60:ACC5 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi. Please note that the "official" web page that is listed here under "External links" was created by an impersonator, which together with two different twitter accounts in Barbara Spectre's name aimed at fueling hate towards her. They have since been reported and removed. 213.64.141.95 (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done clpo13_(talk) 17:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On their website, the organization explains itself as "Paideia - The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden is a non-denominational academic framework". Is Paideia state accredited as a private school, a university or what exactly? Is it "accredited in Europe" (the EU) or just in Sweden? Are their graduate degrees officially recognized, if yes, in which European countries? The status of this facility remains unclear. Official explanation from Swedish authorities would clear the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:1A08:5256:7182:CDEA:312B:C8E (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paideia seems to be an anti-scientific organisation of ideologists... At least, there seems to be no documented scientific work. --188.105.162.235 (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although it seems to be a well documented fact what Barbara Lerner Spectre said in one video interview, Brustopher has repeatedly removed the quote, claiming that "The whole thing is sourced to a book by a fringe nutter that's why" and also insulting an other fellow wiki editor saying that his "contribution history is stereotypically hilarious". I don't need to touch the possible fringe nuttery of a book author, because the quote is a widely documented fact. It is just such an (in)famous quote that it could be found on at least that one book, written by a "fringe nutter" as Brustopher calls him. Even if you got Youtube somehow wipe out all those video clips, there are many copies on other sites. If Brustopher or anyone keeps doing such deletions, I would call that vandalism. Until now, we could say that Brustopher did not know about the wide documentation, but the other possible explanation could be that Brustopher was motivated by a political agenda. I don't wish to see any kind of deletion vandalism and expect good will. I am sure that also the long time experienced wiki editor Brustopher understands this. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Dearest Nikolas. I am sorry to hear that you believe I am vandalising this article. I'd like to note that before you commented on this talk page you had not once made a reasoned argument for why this quote should be included. You had merely wrote "Why remove such a fine quote?" As for Jim Red you are right. I apologise for making fun of his fetish for far right politics. One should not insult their dear comrades in wikipedia editing. But he didn't give any reason for reverting either, he just removed it.

As for my reasoning, the issue is not whether Mrs Spectre said the above quote. It is instead, whether there is enough reliable coverage in our sources to draw attention to the anti-semitic conspiracy theorists who've ran wild with it, and present it as proof that there's a Jewish conspiracy to take over Europe. We have a lot of guidance on this in our Biography of Living Persons policy, for instance: Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. and If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

So what source do we have. A youtube video that's been watched a lot, and a book by a guy ranting about a secret Jewish agenda. Is that enough to include this "controversy." No. We need some serious coverage from serious sources. As for your further addition about her wanting to wipe out the white race, you're going to need much stronger sourcing for that.

I wish you all the best my dear comrade in editing, on the most holy day of Shabbat tommorow. ;) Brustopher (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check google search history and you'll see the single reason for searching this woman is that quote. Nothing else comes close. So... there's that. 31.208.86.150 (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined the history of the article, and the quote from the video, taken out of context and used as an Anti-Semitic conspiracy rallying point was added improperly. On the talk page, there is no consensus for adding it. It's irrelevant to Spectre's actual career and whatever little notability she has by Wikipedia's rules. From Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons: "It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

I'm removing it. Discuss.→StaniStani 06:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds goods --Brustopher (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erkanaz:@Nikolas Ojala: Hey guys! Detailed reasoning was given by user:Stanistani for why he removed the passage. You shouldn't just blindly revert the removal without addressing any of the concerns detailed on the talk page. You also definitely shouldn't be using a "white identity" blog as a source. :) Brustopher (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, obviously.→StaniStani 03:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Including this quote is hardly sensationalist, and neither is it a titillating claim. The only reason that this woman is notable in any wider capacity and eligible for an article in the first place is due to the comment she has previously made. It is not a Wikipedia editor's job to edit out important information simply because they personally view it as Anti-semitism. Following this through to a logical conclusion, the impartial viewpoint would be to either include the quote or delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.85.51 (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that this woman is notable in any wider capacity and eligible for an article in the first place is due to the comment she has previously made. That's what I initially thought but it turned out not to be the case. There is actually quite a bit of coverage on her in reliable sources, and while I havent scoured the net particularly hard most seem to be about completley different issues. See for instance the further reading list at the bottom of the article, and the source cited in the articleBrustopher (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the further reading list. For example Times of Israel, which is part of the Jewish Week Media Group. Objectively an article from such an organisation would seem to be as much in favour of Mrs Spectre as the so-called "white identity" websites would be against Mrs Spectre. As for the other reading, these also seem to be from fringe Israel/Jewish interest groups that are not really of value as objective sources. This is a bizarre situation. We know Mrs. Spectre made this quote, there is even video footage on Youtube of her saying it. I cannot find a single article from one of the larger news organisations (such as Asociated Press, Reuters) that mentions this woman at all. Without this quote would she be notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article while countless others in academia do not qualify? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.82.3 (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So there's a bit to unpack there... Firstly, Occidental Observer is not a "so-called" white identity site, it's literally the website's tagline. The website has an article category called "Anti-Jewish Writing." Secondly, the fact that most of the reliably sourced coverage of a woman who specialises in Jewish Studies, are from Jewish publications is in no way a bar to notability. A notable botanist may only receive coverage in botanical publications. A Christian theologian may only receive coverage from theological or Christian publications, but that doesn't suddenly make them unnotable. Thirdly, drawing a false equivalence between sources written by Jews and a website that is proudly and openly anti-semitic is ridiculous. Fourthly, the issue isn't whether the sources are objective, but whether they are reliable sources per Wikipedia's policies. Some people mostly receive positive coverage from reliable sources, some receive mostly negative, some receive somewhere in between. Thats just how things are.Brustopher (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between a website that reports on white-orientated articles and a website that reports on jewish-orientated articles? Essentially both are proponents for whatever cause they align with. If we were to remain truly neutral on this matter an obscure white identity website and an obscure jewish identity website should have the same weighting as references. In a previous discussion about this issue you mention that "we need some serious coverage from serious sources". If that is true, then what qualifies as serious sources? If we follow this level of thinking, then this whole article should be deleted as it is not referenced by any mainstream serious sources. Maybe you could help to include this quote. We know the quote originates from a documentary called The Jewish Community of Sweden by Dennis Zinn, who would appear to be a writer for The Times of Israel. The unedited original video can be found here: https://player.vimeo.com/video/14907669 with the quote appearing around about the 20 minute mark. Surely with all of this information we can collectively put together an edit which can satisfy all of Wikipedia's criteria for including this quote. Your help with doing this would be greatly appreciated Brustopher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.159.51 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanistani: You seem to be more of a censor than an editor. Removing a well documented quote that arouses the interest of a number of readers reminds me of the darkest times of the freedom of opinion. Had this quote been tampered with I would see you point. But there seems to be sufficient evidence that this quote is authentic, and therefore it has to be part of the article. An article in Haaretz on Paideia confirms what Lerner is saying in her quote: https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-a-jewish-golden-age-is-underway-in-a-muslim-suburb-in-sweden-1.5459062 Ontologix (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Stanistani, Brustopher, this is still going on. I just noticed y'all's comments here after removing the entire section--which is tendentious and a BLP violation, since it clearly puts words on her mouth. If this content was so well-sourced, one would expect better sources. What I can see is a note on how her rather innocuous remarks are misread and misconstrued--that she blames the Jews for multiculturalism, etc., or that she calls for some kind of ethnic destruction, but again, that will require good sourcing. These people really can't read. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]