Talk:Folke Bernadotte/Archive 1

2003 discussion

Moved from user talk page:

Uriber, Your idea of what makes an organization a terroristic one or not is too general and ill defined. First, I wonder if you are familiar with the statement, " one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter". If you are, then you should be aware that your argument smacks of the former statement. How do we really define terrorism, the Sweds viewed the count's assassination as a terrorist attack, certaintly so did the British. A question, So if the Taliban celebrates Bin Ladden, does that mean that he is not a terrorist?

On the one hand your are very right, perhaps it would be imprudent for the Israeli Gov. to praise a terrorist org.; but on the other hand, many other nations have, and will continue to praise men who are concidered assassins, terrorist, etc.. Wether you want to maintain that Lehi was a patriotic organization (by the way that's also what some Lebanese think about Hezbollah) is a matter of subjectivity. But, universally, you can not hide the fact that the group assassinated a peaceful diplmat as a means of political terror. Your country may argue that the ends have justified the means; but you can not ignore the hypocrisy in that argument. Does not Hamas maintain the same argument as those of the Lehi did? Also, Lehi targeted Palestinian civilians who were in areas that Jews wanted to settle in.

One can support their movement, or be against it, but you can not argue against the facts. 134.48.245.171 01:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)JOELGAR

Hi Ruhrjung,

Re: Your reverting of my change to the Folke Bernadotte entry - regarding Lehi.

Contrary to what you say, Lehi being a terror organization is very much disputed. Most (or at least many) Israelis (myself included) do not consider Lehi to be a terrorist organization. Lehi never targeted innocent civillians in attempt to terrorize them. All of Lehi's attacks were against military or government targets (including high-ranked officials such as Bernadotte). This is very different than what "proper" terrorist organizations do - attacking random civilian targets such as busses or airplanes.

Avraham Stern's memorial day is attended every year by Israeli political and government officials. Given Israel's effort to gain international support for its ongoing war against terrorism of all kinds, you wouldn't expect Israeli leaders to associate themselves with the memory of someone who led a terrorist organization. Indeed they don't - like me they believe that Lehi, while sometimes using extreme measures, was not a terrorist organization.

I'm not really trying to convince you that Lehi was not a terrorist organization (you are entitled to your own opinion on that) - only that the issue is disputed. Since it is indeed so, the proper place to discuss it is on the Lehi page - rather than have is stated on every page which mentions Lehi.

uriber 21:17 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As Folke Bernadotte not was in Jerusalem in the capacity as an officer of any Government or conquering Power, or something similar, but as a mediator - and as he was not there as an officer of anything, except the United Nations - I have some problems to understand you, and if I remember correctly also David Ben Gurion would have had so.

I mean: The wording as it stands there is far more NPOV than many thinkable alternatives, and by moving away from the NPOV-version, you invite to unwished changes, which beside diminishing the general value and credibility of wikipedia articles also will call for booring reverting. The subject of the article is Folke Bernadotte, and it can't be assumed that readers follow links. What's relevant here is the reasons behind the assassination, and there maybe the nature of the assassains is of some interest?

Just start with the accusations against Bernadotte for Nazi-collaboration and spying for the British, and I think you get the picture. See for instance http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/div/folke.html

best regards!
-- Ruhrjung 22:49 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There is no disagreement on the facts: Bernadotte was in Jerusalem as a mediator on behalf of the UN. As such, he had a potential influence on the future of the young state of Israel. Some people believed then (maybe correctly, maybe not) that this influence was dangerous, perhaps even destructive - and concluded that assassinating Bernadotte would eliminate this danger. This was the reason behind the assassination - not the fact that Lehi was a "terrorist organization".

As I see it, political assasination is not a form of terrorism. If it were, we would have to come up with a different word for what I see too often on the streets of the city where I live - the mass murdering of random, innocent, men, women and children going about their everyday business. (For a few recent examples see Terrorism against Israel in 2003). I'm not saying political assassination is a good thing, or a legitimate thing, or a morally justifiable thing. I'm just saying it is different from terrorism.

"As I see it, political assasination is not a form of terrorism."

Oh really?

NATO defines terrorism as "The use,or threat, of violence with the intention of influencing the political process or causing widespread fear for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause." The Stern Gang murdered a UN diplomat with the intention of making the UN back off from proposing a compromise solution unpalatable to fanatical zionists. This fits any reasonable definition of terrorism.

By YOUR definition, however, it would not be terrorism if Hizbollah were to assassinate Netanyahu in an attempt to stop the continued building of illegal Jewish settlements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.98.42.19 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

When you say "I have some problems to understand you" do you mean that my English is not good enough to understand (if this is the case, I apologize) - or do you really mean that you have problems agreeing with me?

Ben-Gurion condemned the assassination of Bernadotte. He might have even called it an act of terrorism. This does not prove anything. Ben-Gurion was a politician, and he frequently said (and did) things which were contraversial. Israelis have disagreements among themselves, as I'm sure Swedes sometimes have too.

Why is "The Jewish terrorist organization Lehi" more NPOV than "the Jewish organization Lehi"? The latter is completely neutral - it contains nothing disputed. How can you say it's non-NPOV? How does it diminish the credibility of the WikiPedia? If killing Bernadotte was a bad thing to do, and it was done by Lehi, than the reader can conclude by his own that "Lehi was bad". You don't have to shove this conclusion down his throat by adding the word "terrorist". If the reader is interested in forming an opinion on Lehi based on additional facts, he can follow the link. Wikipedia should provide the facts - not make moral judgements. That's what NPOV is all about as I understand it.

As a final thought - just consider what would happen if I searched for all mentions of the PLO in the WikiPedia, and added the words "terrorist organization" before each of them. If you consider Lehi to be terrorist - you must do so for the PLO as well. But I do not think it would be constructive to state this every time the PLO is mentioned.

Regards,

uriber 08:49 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Let's start with the understanding:
I am not conciously provocative, and I meant litterally that I didn't/don't understand how you think, although this is improved now. I also guess that both of us use English as a foreign language.

Secondly:
At least in "my" part of the world, PLO is a notorious terror organization. (Particularly in Germany.) LVI/STERN/LEVI is however not known, why I believe there is a need to characterize the group. The NPOV lies, according to my view, in chosing a term which is sufficiently descriptive for such readers who, if promted to edit, would tend to stress the relations to IDF and Israel's state leaders (and their indirect or direct responsibility), and at the same time (on the other hand) sufficiently distinct not to throw blame on the Jewry or Israel collectively. This I feel you do by characterizing the group as plainly "Jewish", and I believe your wording here invites to further editing.

Finally,
I believe in keeping to the definitions valid before the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack in USA. The term "terrorism" has since then become much more used, and its usage has also become much more questioned. I believe this process is not yet ripe, why I think seriously intended texts must be Conservative in their wording. Everyone knows that terrorists usually are freedom-fighters for someone else. That's trivial. However, if not as an act of terrorism (as the word was used before 2001), how would you characterize the assassination of a benevolent mediator from a neutral country, without any other power than that of proposing compromises? It was rather others than the victim who were targets of a intended psychological impact. "Political violence" against someone without political power, what's that if not ...terrorism?

-- Ruhrjung 13:50 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed replies, Ruhrjung. I find this to be an interesting discussion, and I hope you feel the same. I'm sorry if I was somewhat aggressive in my previous posts. I sincerely wasn't sure what you meant when you said you had problems understanding me. I'm glad we cleared this out.

I now understand better your reasons for wanting to label Lehi as a "terrorist organization" - you do not want people to think it represented all (or most) Jews. I'd like to suggest the following alternative wording: "the Jewish extrimist Lehi organization" (or perhaps, use radical instead of extrimist). This wording makes it clear that Lehi represented only a small part of the Jews (or Zionists) - which is an undisputed fact - without using the term "terrorist", which, as you said yourself, does not have a clear, agreed-upon, definition.

I hope you will find my suggestion reasonable. If you do, I would appreciate it if you went ahead and implemented it (in that case, there is no need to answer my note, unless you want to, of course). If you do not agree to the suggestion, please explain why.

You say the PLO is commonly known to be a terrorist organization. Just as an experiment, I'm going to edit the PLO page to say that. I would bet you 10 WikiMoneys that within 24 hours my change will be reverted on the grounds of being non-NPOV (except I don't have any WikiMoney - so let's not make this an actual bet :-)

I disagree with you regarding the motives of the Bernadotte assassination. You say he was "without any other power than that of proposing compromises". I think this power, when backed by an organization such as the UN (which was perhaps at the peak of its strength at that time), is not something to be taken lightly. Bernadotte was promoting a plan which, in some aspects, was much worse for Israel than the 1947 partition plan (which was pretty bad as it was). Mediators often do much more than "propose" plans. If they are backed by a strong force, they often have the power to impose their plans (See, for example, the US Road Map for Peace these days). From what I know, the reason behind the assassination of Bernadotte was to make sure his plan never became a reality. I disagree that it was done in an attempt to terrorize anyone else.

The term "terrorism" was used (here in Israel, at least) to describe random acts of violence against civillians (the kind I mentioned in my previous note) well before the September 11th attack. For me, at least, this definition was not changed by that attack.

As for what I would call the Bernadotte assassination - I would simply call it an "assassination". This is an accurate, undisputed term, which does not entail any assumptions about the motives of its executors.

Thank you for your attention,

uriber 18:46 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well,
I'm afraid we have some serious divergences regarding the concepts of mediating and neutrality. But I don't think there is reason to discuss that here-and-now. I've been sufficiently much in Israel to know what in my eyes looks like a conception of The-World-Aginst-Us. No harm intended!

We also stress the components of terrorism differently, as you stress civilian victims, and I stress fear in the non-victims, more than the other.

But that's things we have to live with.

I've made a change which I hope is in your liking. I persist, as you see, in the wish to denominate the Stern gang as Zionists instead of Jews, which they of course also are...

-- Ruhrjung 19:23 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm happy that we reached an agreed solution despite our outstanding disagreements. I have no problem, of course, with the description of Lehi as "Zionist".

Also, my change on the PLO page was already reverted, just as I expected.

Was nice talking to you,

-- uriber 20:35 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What about calling it a "political assassination", as for the debate on terrorist group or not these might help: American definition - "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear." British definition - "Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause." -- LamontCranston 02:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

For what it's worth in my opinion Bernadotte would have been alot fairer to the Arabs then Lehi would have ever been capable of - Jewish extremists are in the same league as Christian extremists or Islamic extremists - i feel extremists of any kind aren't good for anybody.

Just my two .002 PMelvilleAustin 18:31, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)

About the murder of Bernadotte

I guess the statement from the UN security council says it all: "a cowardly act which appears to have been committed by a criminal group of terrorists in Jerusalem while the United Nations representative was fulfilling his peace-seeking mission in the Holy Land"

One should remember that the council's statement could have been vetoed by the US, Israels best friend, and as the US choose not to one may take it as the view the international community has on the murder of Bernadotte. That someone wants to dispute that is as it always is with criminals, the law it not for me. Ulflarsen 11:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

At the time, I don't know if the US and Israel were necessarily that close. As I remember, the USSR was Israel's main supporter in the early days. But, yeah. Why Bernadotte? Of all people. --138.28.140.224 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt there be a reference in this article to the legal discussions that took place after his death. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered an opinion in 1949, referred to as the 'Reparations for Injuries' opinion, concerning the possibility for the UN to bring a claim against Israel for the murder on Bernadotte. This opinion is still of tremendous importance for all international lawyers nowadays. It can be found on the website of the ICJ: http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm

Can you provide any sources regarding the importance of this ICJ decision? --Zero^talk 11:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Forgotten Matters

On the morning of the day Count Bernadotte was killed, his small motorcade from the airport passed through the Mandelbaum Gate. Demostrators were at the gate awaiting his arrival. With them was a news photographer. The demonstrators unfurled a large sign, which read:

     STOCKHOLM IS YOURS
     JERUSALEM IS OURS
      YOU WORK IN VAIN

Along with the news of Bernadotte's death, TIME magazine published a photograph of the demonstrators holding up this sign.

The assassination took place on a Friday, after sundown. Nobody recalled this when P.M. Shamir stood up and walked out of peace talks in Spain, because it was now his Sabbath.

Lehi initally claimed credit for killing both Count Bernadotte and Ralph Bunche, who was actually on Rhodes. French UN Observer, Col. Serot, had been baked brown during his months in the sun, and indeed had skin darker than Dr. Bunche.

Abba Eban journied to Stockholm to attend the funeral of Count Folke Bernadotte, survived by a teenage son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.29.213 (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Felix Kersten and the forged letter

I deleted this:

However, it's been claimed that Bernadotte refused to rescue Jews, and the Jews that were included were there in spite of his refusal and as a result of pressure from Himmler and Himmler's doctor Felix Kersten <ref> The Kersten memoirs, 1940-1945, (1956); Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Last Days of Hitler (1971); Baruch Nadal, Bernadotte's murder (1968); Ofer Regev, Prince Of Jerusalem (2006); </ref>

This is based on a story which was long ago debunked. Felix Kersten, who was Himmler's masseur, was a notorious conman. Amongst other things, he convinced Belgium to award him a medal for foiling a Nazi plan to deport the entire population of Belgium when in fact there had never been such a plan. (I might have misremembered the details of that incident slightly.) After the war he produced a letter appearing to have been written by Bernadotte. It contained things like "I do not want to take any Jews." and "Your 'V' weapon is not hitting London well. I leave you a sketch with English military targets." Several historians, including Hugh Trevor Roper (later taken in by the "Hitler Diaries"), were convinced that the letter was genuine. However, when the letter was examined by the forensic division of Scotland Yard they found that it was typed on Kersten's own typewriter. The story of this letter can be found in detail in A. Ilan, Bernadotte in Palestine, 1948 (London: Macmillan, 1989). --Zero^talk 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

this fact was reaffrimed later. If you think it's debunked, you can add your info on the matter. It's sourced material that cite numerous facts on the issue, much more than what you seem to think. you can't blank out things you don't like. Amoruso 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, nice try... Here is an infinitely more reputable source than Himmler's masseur who refers to such claims as "obvious lies" and backs up the claim with facts from the World Jewish Congress [1]. So the scurrilous lies are out and any attempts to return them will be treated as vandalism. --SpinyNorman 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

this is not even a source. Why don't you read the book first ? Now to clarify this business.

The information about the rescue missions of Bernadotte is based only entirely after his own books which came out immediately after the war and about witnesses who saw him standing in their way to the rescue. Many scholars have determined that Berndaotte objected to the rescue of Jews and has attempted to convince Himmler not to include Jews among those waiting to be resecued. In the end he did rescue Jews among the rescues (that's why your "quote" is irrelevant) but only because of Himmler's pressure. This is why he can't possibly be in the same list of "people who rescued Jews" but rather "people who were forced to rescue Jews". This is why Yad Vashem also didn't recognise his "rescue" and this fact is sourced with numerous scholars in the article. Amoruso 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

By "scholars", do you mean "people with an axe to grind against Bernadotte"? Try finding some actual, reputable sources to back up this preposterous claim. Until then, it is out. --SpinyNorman 09:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The sources cited are all reputable. Try finding a source contradicting these books perhaps. Not out at all. Amoruso 09:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Amitzur Ilan is a very respected historian, and I cited his book already. If you take time to look at it, you will see how he debunks Trevor Roper's position on this very thoroughly. --Zero^talk 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the concept of WP:NPOV and no WP:OR. If you have sources that contradict other sources, you can add them. You can not blank out material. Moreover, the lastest research is Ofer Regev's which prove that Bernadotte was forced to take the Jews, and debunks your theory completely. That's a book from this year. Amoruso 11:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to think a little harder about the idea of making a prima facie case for your claim. The opinions of a handful of idealogues doesn't pass the laugh test. You can't take an extreme view posited by a couple of kooks and then demand that other people debunk it. Lots of people believe that the moon landings never happened, but you won't see anything in the Apollo 11 article about these fringe views. If you want to start a separate page on conspiracy theories surrounding Bernadotte, then feel free to do so. But this stuff has no place in the main article. --SpinyNorman 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can call the memoirs of one of Himmler's lackeys (and an established liar) "reputable" as a source. --SpinyNorman 10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3 differnet scholars have established this fact using different evidence, see below. quoting Zero's rhetorics is also not very useful, especially now that you violated WP:3RR. Amoruso 10:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume that your definition of "scholar" is different from everyone else's if you seriously consider Kersten, Nadal and Regev to be "scholars". --SpinyNorman 10:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kersten and Bernadotte had a very public fight over who did what during the war. Kersten became Bernadotte's enemy and that's when he started to make vicious claims about Bernadotte. He wasn't an independent source. It is noteworthy that even those historians who are sympathetic towards Kersten make a point of stating that he was very unreliable as a witness and everything he said needed to be carefully checked. --Zero^talk 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

numerous evidence on the issue

The Himmler doctor's claims are only one of a myriad of evidence on the issue. For example, Regev in his recent book (page 184) brings a quote of a recorded interview with Ian Holm , the Danish refugee minister. This also confirms the allegations towards Bernadotte which were elaborated in the previous books cited. Amoruso 09:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian Holm?! The British actor? --SpinyNorman 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

valueable comment. what's with the spacing ? these are all serious specialists on the issue. Read Trevor-Roper. Amoruso 11:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why you think a British actor was the Danish Immigration Minister. Given Kersten's antipathy towards Bernadotte and his "arm's-length" relationship with reality, I'm also wondering why you think he is a valid source. Though I see you've dropped the fantasy that these men are "scholars". --SpinyNorman 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope when you come back from your ban, your edits will be more frutiful. Amoruso 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From your point of view, I doubt you will see them that way. But that's just proof that I'm doing the right thing. I'm still waiting for you to explain Ian Holm's relevance to this issue though.  ;-> --SpinyNorman 09:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I came here to do some research on UN personnel who were killed trying to bring peace to troubled region and I have to say Amoruso, your being even ruder and more arrogtant than Norman. And your wrong about Bernadotte. He was a good man who gladly saved lots of Jewish people and was trying to save lots more but was killed for doing it. Shame on you for repeating lies about him. What are you related to one of those Bernadotte haters? --MesaBoogie 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

that's helpful. WP:RS, WP:CITE. Amoruso 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll take arrogant over stupid any day. --SpinyNorman 09:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You're also in violation of WP:No personal attacks. Hope you're not looking for another ban, the 7th. Amoruso 09:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm not. I was referring to myself - saying that I would rather be arrogant than stupid. I wasn't referring to anyone BUT myself and therefore it wasn't a personal attack. --SpinyNorman 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page, and intend to unprotect it in 24 hours. Please see my comments on WP:ANI/3RR. I think it would be best to leave this article be for a short time, and resume editing when cooler heads may prevail. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to protect but it doesn't seem appropriate to protect a version arrived at through 3rr violations (esp. when sourced material was removed during the course of that violation.) I have restored the article to its pre-3rr version while maintaining the protection. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read the talk page, you'd have seen that the sources for the material in question are academically worthless. If you're not going to contribute positively, I would suggest you not contribute at all. --SpinyNorman 05:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you apply that principle to everyone who's editing this page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, are you volunteering to give us an example of abstention? I can't think of any article that wouldn't be better for you not editing it. --SpinyNorman 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because a user claimed they're worthless don't make them worthless, it was his personal POV. Amoruso 08:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since they don't meet ANY standards of scholarship or intellectual integrity, we're all still waiting for you to explain why they should be taken seriously. Sofar, all you have is someone who had a personal beef with Bernadotte and was known to tell extravagant lies, as well as one of the thugs who was responsible for Bernadotte's murder. Can you do better? --SpinyNorman 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your allegations are baseless. We have different established scholars and experts on the issue, like explained. Amoruso 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you answer his question, why are you taking such biased material seriously? I think Norman is right and you are wrong. After the prrotect is off I will come back and make sure Kersten material is gone. --MesaBoogie 07:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

it is not Kersten material. It is historians and experts Trevor Ruper and Ofer Regev material. Sourced and accurate material like this won't be removed. Amoruso 07:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ofer Regev isn't a "historian" nor is he an "expert", he is simply pushing his own extremist POV. Trevor-Roper's reputation as a historian in the aftermath of the debacle surrounding the Hitler Diaries isn't on very solid ground and there is no indication that he's an expert on Bernadotte. So, unless you can do better than these guys, you'd best give up the fight to have this ludicrous material inserted. --SpinyNorman 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're all in the category of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:CITE. Do not blank out sourced material next time. Amoruso 06:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You should back up your claim that they're reliable. On what basis do you consider them "reliable". Here's a hint, just because they say things that you are pre-disposed to agree with, that doesn't make them "reliable". --SpinyNorman 06:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your wrong. THey're not allowed. Read those things. --MesaBoogie 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ofer Regev, Prince of Jerusalem

The sourced material which was deleted and will return : Ofer Regev, pages 138-165, 184, numerous evidence presented about the issue. Will be re-introduced. Amoruso 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ofer Regev is a writer of popular books and not a historian. --Zero^talk 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ofer Regev is an historian who added further evidence to the already established facts laid by Trevor Ruper and Baruch Nadal. Amoruso 14:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And Baruch Nadel was a member of Lehi who claimed to have organized the killing of Bernadotte (Cary Stranger, p271). Like that really makes him an unbiased source on Bernadotte! When we start writing articles on someone based on claims by their murderers, that is when Wikipedia is dead. --Zero^talk 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

what the is Cary Stranger. Anyway, Regev approved Trevor Ruper version and added a LOT of evidence. Amoruso 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV editing

NPOV editing does not mean removing cited material that you disagree with. It means finding citations that refute the statement and ADDING them to the article. People can then read the claims, read the citations and come to their own conclusions. If you think a claim is from bad scholarship, find a citation that says as much and add that as well. It is not the job of wikipedia editors to decide which claim is true. The discussion should be about how much weight the claims and counter claims should get. Even discussions about weight should be determined by finding citations. Both sides of this debate should be working together to present an well-balanced presentation of the controversy. If you think that you know the "truth" you probably should be putting your efforts elsewhere. -- Samuel Wantman 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

well said, this is what I was aiming at, as I didn't mind the addition of more material on the subject, but rather the blanking of the existant material. Amoruso 08:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting position. Some contributor adds a statement

"However, it's been claimed that Bernadotte refused to rescue Jews, and the Jews that were included were there in spite of his refusal and as a result of pressure from Himmler and Himmler's doctor Felix Kersten"

without mentioning that the source cited, Felix Kersten, is generally considered a not very reliable source, and without listing other sources for the statement (it is references to two other books, but no information regarding what those books says about where the claim comes from). And then the proof is on the rest of us. Again, interesting position - but not something that would raise the average readers respect for Wikipedia I guess.

To be very clear, I have not seen any statement from reliable sources that confirms what is claimed regarding Bernadotte. If it can be verified - we should of course have it in the article, but as far as I can see we have some mileage before that. Ulflarsen 07:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be adding direct quotes from Regev soon. The primary evidence on the issue is not based on Kersten but at more parties involved. Amoruso 07:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the comments above made by Ulflarsen.Longleg 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

Article unprotected now -- Samir धर्म 05:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Zero's blanking

You're only allowed to add material if you think it's relevant. Your mass blanking of sourced material is not allowed. If you later claim that it's vandalism to restore the version before your blanking that's more bad faith from your part. Your claims that the information was not according to the sources is false. Amoruso 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't blank anything. I replaced poor material by good stuff copied directly from the documents themselves. And you obviously never looked at Bernadotte's "diary". --Zero^talk 02:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously i did and i quoted what was said in it. you can not blank what you don't like. these are all facts. Amoruso 02:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So the passage "When proposing an offer..." was quoted from the source you gave was it? --Zero^talk 08:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems user Zero has done a good job showing that the accusations regarding Bernadotte are just that, accusations, while you have not been able to come up with reliable sources. Kersten is not reliable and has been shown to falsify documents, Trevor-Roper relied on the former - and the last two seems to have a axe to grind with Bernadotte due to his position as UN mediator in Palestine. So I suggest you revert back, and I also suggest you remove the similar accusations from the article about the White Buses. Ulflarsen 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's Zero and apparently your POV and OR. Wikipedia is about citing WP:RS and that's exactly what was done. I do intend to quote directly from Regev's book - he has evidence much different to Kersten from other indepedent sources - soon when I get the book to my hands again. Removing them is vandalism. Amoruso 05:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have stated that you will quote from the book for some two weeks now, without actually doing it. I suggest you remove the allegations regarding Bernadotte until you can show proof here that he indeed was against taking jews with the White buses.

Sorry, I didn't have time but I'll get the book this week. I don't have to cite directly from it of course, I cited the relevant pages. Amoruso 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there's something you fail to understand. Saying "seems to have an an axe to grind with bernadotte" or attacking credibility is your WP:OR which is fabricated by Zero0000. Sourced material can not be blanked out just because someone doesn't like it. You can contradict it but you can't blank it out. There's no problem to include Zero's quotations as well on the issue. The problem is when he starts vandalising the page enforcing his own WP:POV. Both opinions can be heard, also Kersten and the allegations that he fabricated documents and so on. All this should be addressed. He can't decide for the reader, which is what he consistently did. Amoruso 04:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I think Zero has done a great job on improving the section on Bernadotte as a UN mediator including adding primary references. Second, Amuroso's accusations on Zero for vandalism is very inappropriate given that Amuroso himself recently blanked the improvements of the above-mentioned section. Longleg 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

UN mediator

I think the sentence:

Bernadotte had a close relationship to British delegates and especially to Abdullah, king of Transjordan. [4]

is irrelevant in this context (point-by-point lists of the conditions of the proposals) and should be removed from the paragraph. Longleg 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

well it's obviously relevant in SOME bernadotte context. if you feel it belongs in another paragraph, relocate it... it is there since the original edit, and later blanked out by Zero in his massive edit. Amoruso 10:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I suggest this sentence is then moved to another context, either the "Assassination" section or perhaps a concluding section covering the legacy of Folke Bernadotte. By the way, are you sure this a correct interpretation of the source? It seems strange that Bernadotte would have bluntly admitted that he was biased towards the British and the Jordanians? It should be noted that for diverse political reasons Bernadotte has often been indicted with sometimes quite different and mutually exclusive claims (e.g. biased towards both the Germans and the British, which for obvious reasons seems quite unlikely).

No, of course he doesn't say it. But it's obvious from the text (his meetings), and mention by many scholars who looked at the diary too. It doesn't say he was biased btw, simply that he had a close relationship.Amoruso 10:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that sentence for a reason. Unlike Amoruso, who seems to be copying citations from an unnamed source in violation of policy, I have a copy of this "diary" (actually a journal always intended for publication) of Bernadotte and so can check the claim. Turning to page 164, we find at the top of the page that B got a telegram from Abdullah asking to see him. This was towards the end of the truce in early July. B then went to Amman where "King Abdullah expressed his extreme uneasiness at the prospect of the war breaking out afresh." That's about it. There is nothing here about a close relationship and nothing to suggest more than the relationship one would hope an official mediator to have with the various parties. On other pages B describes similar meetings with Jewish leaders (eg. Shertok on p202, a delegation of rabbis on p142, etc etc). In summary, this sentence is an attack on Bernadotte that is not supported by the source. --Zero^talk 11:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and cool. I have the diary too and this does support it. Your interpretation is false, teh very fact he went on private meetings with abdallah more than numerous times proves it. If you want , I can name other scholars who have made same assertion (like Katz). Amoruso 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So you copied the quote on page 114 from the diary as you cited, is that right? --Zero^talk 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No , actually I saw references to his meetings with abdallah and with british representatives in several places including Katz's Days of Fire on page 449. I went on checked the reference, confirmed it's true and wrote a summary. Katz depicts how Berndaotte flew immediatly to Amman without hesistation upon a request from Abdallah, afterwards he went straight to the british embassy, and it's collaborated in the diary. Amoruso 12:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Katz. Why I am not surprised? He would be delighted to know that you have promoted him from "historian" to "scholar". Not bad for someone with no credentials at all. Bernadotte's job required him to be available to all the parties to the conflict and he was, to all of them including the Jewish leaders, the Arab leaders, the British, the Americans, the French, everyone. Not to do so would have been dereliction of duty. His whole book records him running from one meeting to another. As for "private" meetings, why didn't Katz describe Bernadotte's private meeting with Goldman, Vice-President of the Jewish Agency, that Bernadotte devotes four pages to (compared to a few lines for Abdullah) and conclude that Bernadotte was too close to the Zionists? --Zero^talk 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your lies about Katz have been refuted many times in the past. He's an established historian with full credentials of course and that was already proven. Your further bad faith remarks and WP:OR is of no interest. Amoruso 14:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, since you always check your sources personally, please tell us where in "The Kersten memoirs, 1940-1945, (1956)" and "Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Last Days of Hitler (1971)" we can read that Bernadotte refused to rescue Jews. They are sources that you brought. --Zero^talk 14:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lehi center

I cited Amitzur Ilan for the claim that the Lehi center decided on the assassination of Bernadotte because it seems the best researched. For this point Ilan cites interviews with Nathan Yelin-Mor and Yisrael Eldad (two of the central three), Yoshua Zetler (Lehi operations chief in Jerusalem), Yehoshua Cohen (the assassin), Stanley Goldfoot (Lehi intelligence chief) and Meshulam Markover (another of the assassins), and some other sources. I also cited Bowyer Bell's article because he also names Shamir as admitting it. --Zero^talk 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Section to be added

I'm working on a section which will discuss the connection of Bernadotte to Himler and whether he refused to accept Jewish refugees or not. This will include Trevor Ruper and a letter he cites , on 13 March 1945 , from Bernadotte to Himler where he says : "My attitude towards Jews is same as yours". I'm hoping that the section won't be blanked for POV reasons. If there are sources who contradict the historian Trevor Ruper or the citations and sources brought by Regev, they can be addressed in the same section. I will add the section when I finalize work on it soon. Amoruso 14:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The letter you mention is the same one that was proved by Gerald Fleming (with a little help from Scotland Yard) to have been typed on Felix Kersten's own typewriter. (Ilan cites J. Fleming, Die Herkunft des "Bernadotte Brief" an Himmler von Marz 1945, Zeitgeschichte, no. 4, 1978; that is Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte no. 4, vol. 26.) This story is well known and not disputed by any mainstream historians including Trevor-Roper. (Even earlier, in 1956, Trevor-Roper wrote that he could not authenticate it.) If Regev's case is built on evidence like that, it is just as worthless as Danny Rubinstein wrote in Haaretz recently ("riddled with inaccuracies, large and small", "mistakes are everywhere", "serious distortions", etc [2]). As for Trevor-Roper, he was fooled by Kersten and later he admitted it. Trevor-Roper in 1995: "I am not certain that Bernadotte refused to take Jews. I have some reservations about the documentation here. If he did, it may well have been that he simply had no instructions except in respect of Norwegians and Danes." (Barbara Amiel, The National Interest, Summer 1995). Did Regev cite Trevor-Roper's retraction? Why not? --Zero^talk 15:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Danny Rubenstein and others can also be added in, in fact I intended to to do. You can comment on the section too when it's finalised. Amoruso 15:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify what Rubenstein says about mistakes has nothign to do with Berndaotte's nazi relations. As for the nazi relations, rubenstein says this :

One of the more serious distortions in the book is Regev's portrayal of Bernadotte as a supporter of the Nazis during World War II. Many scholars have explored this claim, but very few have come to the conclusion that it was anything more than perhaps a tendency. Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever. Ofer Regev not only describes Bernadotte as pro-Nazi, but makes him out to be a paid Nazi spy who supplied the Germans with information on where their bombs fell. In other words, he worked for them as a kind of scout, to help them improve their aim. Bernadotte, according to Regev, was an anti-Semitic Nazi agent who traded in blood (while working to free Scandinavian prisoners from the camps toward the end of the war), and an idiot, to boot. With respect to all these allegations, scholars seem to agree that Bernadotte was no great brain. He also bragged a lot. But he was certainly no war criminal, as one might think from this book.

Indeed I will not make the case that Berndaotte is a war criminal, but he also isn't a Jewish saver. Amoruso 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I will also add official Lehi responses over the assassination in addition to the existant. Amoruso 15:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove that Bernadotte was against transporting jews it should of course be in the article. However, as far as I can see there is little evidence to that, and a lot to the contrary. He did bring along a lot of jews with the White Buses expedition - although the main aim of it was to transport Danes, Norwegians and Swedish spouses of German men to safety in Sweden. Regarding his alledged nazi sympaties - he was married to an american woman, he was close to the americans and had close contact with them, both before, during and after the war. As most people during the second world war he was probably also first and foremost a citizen of his own country - that is he followed the official and unofficial Swedish line; and as we know this changed as the war changed. As far as I can see the gravest critique that can be brought against Bernadotte and the White Buses is that he accepted to transport some 2 thousand prisoners out of Neuengamme, in order to facilitate Danes and Norwegians, as Ingrid Lomfors has shown in her book "Blind Fläck". This is well described in the Norwegian article about the White Buses and will soon be in the English one as well, as I am on my way in translating it. Ulflarsen 10:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Number of prisoners saved

Changed the number, as during World War II the White Buses expedition saved around 15 thousand, those are the numbers stated from the Swedish Red Cross. In addition another 10 thousand were transported out of Germany to Sweden after the German surrender, also stated by the Swedish Red Cross. Ulflarsen 10:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Konrad Meinerzhagen

We have a quote from "British intelligence officer Konrad Meinerzhagen" via Yediot. I cannot find any other reference to such a person (Google gives exactly 0 hits for several reasonable spellings), and strongly suspect it is an error for Richard Meinertzhagen, who was indeed a British intelligence officer who wrote a well-known diary. He was one of the most famous Christian Zionists. One day I'll look in his diary to check but it isn't worth a special trip to the library. Someone else, feel free. --Zero^talk 07:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I notice that our article Richard Meinertzhagen says that some of his diary entries were fabricated. --Zero^talk 07:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Amoruso, we have a source saying that many Jews were included among those saved. Nobody here has denied that. That means it's not dubious. You apparently have a source saying that this wasn't his intention, but that's a different issue. The "dubious" label, where you've placed it, is simply inaccurate. I don't know about previous compromises, but clearly this is not an appropriate solution.

The statement that he is perceived as an anti-Zionist is also unsourced and provocative, which is why I removed it as well. I also changed the style to make it NPOV. You're asserting things in an ambiguous manner which makes it unclear whether they are facts or simply Lehi's perception of him. Are you unaware of this? It creates bias in the article. That's why I made the changes. If you disagree, please discuss rather than simply reverting. Mackan79 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Response:

• dubious tag - I agree with you, sorry.
• I'll make it clear it's Lehi's perception. allright?
• I'm re-adding Richard Meinertzhagen. The fact he's possibly lying can be dealt with but it's not for us to remove him. Amoruso 19:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The continued edits relate to NPOV, as explained on history. Also, Lehis' motives are relevant to an extent, of course, in as much as they're relevant to Bernadotte's life, but they're not relevant simply as the motives of Lehi. I'd suggest a general concern with giving too much space to a subject's assassins, simply because they assassinated him. An extended discussion of their justifications would go on their page, not on his, unless the accusations were broad and significant to his life, which they appear not to be. Mackan79 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it should go into a page about the assassination I would think, but that doesn't exist and this is long enough if it's undue weight concerned. What I think is that this is not just a murder or so - it's a controversial event... in history. So I think their views reflect real views of Israel's society and its history and events that led to its independence and these views should be represented especially in light that a lot is missing in the article and we're still thinking how to bring that into question - information that in some ways make the assassination entirely justifibable in some views, so I don't think that it's wrong to represent their views. Amoruso 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see that what you removed didn't fit what you wanted to remove - the source about close relationship to Abdallah for instance. And again, I really don't think it's undueweight to explain the opinion of Lehi on the section called "assassination". I really don't see how that's possible here, and I don't know why it bothers you. I hope you agree now. The citations you requested is there - it's all in the ynet. Amoruso 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I removed exactly what I intended to remove: the unsourced statement that he "was perceived by members of Lehi as an anti-Zionist who also had relations with Nazi officers during the World War." In addition to being unsourced, this statement is extremely provocative and biased. It is, indeed, a classic smear, lacking any substance, and presented entirely to associate him with Nazis, without explaining or substantiating the smear in any way.

2. Beyond that, the bias is in your syntax, which conflates an assertion of opinion with one of fact in a way that makes unclear which is which. This is classic biased writing: "Amuroso is perceived by Mackan as a partisan hack, who also often finds his partisan edits reverted." Does Amuroso actually often find his partisan edits reverted? Are they actually partisan? The implication, of course, is in the ambiguity. Another biased version: "Amuroso is perceived by Mackan as someone who engages in extensive partisan hackery, who also has a head, two eyes and a nose." Notice here how it is actually the first assertion which is rhetorically bolstered by the subsequent obvious facts. A nonbiased version, incidentally: "Amuroso has been accused of Mackan of being a partisan hack, which Mackan suggests is evidenced by Amuroso's edits often being reverted. Amuroso denies that his edits are often reverted, calling it an instance of "the pot calling the kettle black," which Mackan also denies." See? NPOV. Why? Because it says what it says, and it's clear, and it doesn't endorse either view, and it doesn't create extraneous accusatory implications.

3. The rest of your edit suffers from similar bias and simply awkward wording (I don't speak Hebrew, so you got me there). For example: "Since Bernadotte had a close relationship to British delegates and especially to Abdullah, king of Transjordan in Lehi's opinion, this implied to them that Bernadotte was serving British interests in opposition to the interests of Israel." First, note that all of this information was included in my revision. The simple change: removing the implicit endorsement of Lehi's allegations. Your sentences on Meinertzhagen I retained. Finally, your last sentence, "He was assassinated primarly because of what members of Lehi saw as his close relationships and involvement in the conflict and their fear of the fate of Jerusalem. [3]" was similarly retained, except for the awkward bias. To say he was assasinated for what Lehi saw as his position is again ambiguous as to whether this IS his position, or whether this is simply what Lehi thought. That kind of ambiguity is the essence of biased writing, which is why I removed it, while retaining the information.

4. The main point: to be NPOV, you have to either say something or not say it, depending on whether the statement is justified. You can't simply make it ambiguous and call it a compromise. This is why I am removing the bias from your writing while retaining the underlying information. Interestingly, you appear to think that the assassination was justified, and want that reflected in the article. Again, though, the way to do that isn't simply by including language that implies the justification. If that's what you want, then say "Many Israelis feel that the assassination was in fact justified, for the following reasons." Then we would have a section on why many people also consider this belief evidence of Israeli's support for terrorism. So does all this really belong in the article? Mackan79 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (oops, didn't sign in for the edit, and you're right that I deleted the source on accident).

This is all a bit intricate to me at this time of night. I want to assume goof faith WP:AGF with you so I won't bicker with you over each word. But your whole argument starts with a flaw. You say the line with the Nazis wasn't sourced. It was, like I explained before, it's sourced to the ynet source. It's simply placed only once in the end of the paragraph. Amoruso 03:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"To Jerusalem" does not support the claim it is being cited for. --Zero^talk 08:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't speak Hebrew. Would you translate the passage that allegedly says he had too close a relationship with Nazis? Sourced or not, I am extremely skeptical of this statement, which as I said, is a classic smear, made particularly absurd by the fact that he was a /diplomat/. Clearly he was negotiating with Himmler; is that what they mean by a close relationship? Or is the reader just supposed to let his imagination run? This is not an off-hand opinion; this is an extremely inflammatory factual assertion. It's a little bombshell, as I think you well understand. To insert it as an offhand comment, whether sourced or not, is I believe highly inappropriate, unless the substantiation or refuation of the factual assertion itself can also be included.

For the reasons noted above, though, I also think such an extended discussion of the motives of his assassins, simply because they assassinated him, is inappropriate. That is, unless you can show wide-spread support for his assassination?

2. The reason I included the preliminary sentence is because the paragraph is very unnatural without it. Without it, you go directly from saying a man was assassinated, to offering various motives for assassinating him, without explicitly saying that's what you're doing. This is offensive and POV, and implies an endorsement of the alleged motivations themselves. This is very important, and something widely overlooked in Wikipedia. If you're going to have a set of contentious arguments, you can't just jump directly into the arguments. You have to say "There are a set of arguments on this topic. Here are some of them." I have a strong feeling that by saying preliminarily that "The motives were thought to be political," you think I'm trying to undermine the arguments themselves. I'm not; I'm trying to make it neutral. The reason it feels like I'm undermining the argument is because I'm eliminating what would otherwise be an implied /endorsement/ that these were actual characteristics of Bernadotte which might have motivated someone to assassinate him, in addition to an implied endorsement that there were legitimate reasons for an assassination. The first are contentious facts, while the latter is a fringe view; clearly neither should be endorsed in that way. (As I said, if you want to suggest some people think the assassination was legitimate, then that's what you have to say [although this would of course be inapprorpriate simply because it is a fringe view.])

3. I appreciate the removal of some of the ambiguity, which is an improvement, but I do not believe that saves it.

4. Lehi "frowned"? Heh, interesting word for gunning a diplomat to death, no? Mackan79 15:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So, I took out the Nazi allegation and the anti-Zionist allegation. The anti-Zionist accusation, if it is in the source, is unnecessary, as we already said they didn't think he was pro-Israel enough. Was there actually a prominent accusation that he was an anti-Zionist? What does that even mean? That he opposed the existence of Israel? Or something else? It's unclear, unnecessary, and inflammatory. I also removed the statement that Lehi frowned and feared for the future of Jerusalem, which is self-evident, and simply serves to legitimize a fringe position. In shortened form, I don't think the preliminary sentence that this relates to motives is necessary, so I left that out.

Again, you may think Lehi was justified to assassinate Bernadotte, but I think it is pretty clear that this is a fringe position. I do not believe that view deserves special validation in his article. I think the discussion of their motives should be short and clinical, which is how it now is. Mackan79 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A measure of how seriously the Nazi-connection allegation should be taken is provided by the timing. Pretty much all of Bernadotte's war-time activity was publicised well in advance of his appointment as UN mediator, yet he was almost universally lauded as a hero for saving people. (I only included "almost" for lack of knowledge; actually I don't know any contrary examples at all.) After he started his Palestine task and it became clear that we was less than 100% behind the Israeli position, people who didn't like that started looking for ways of discrediting him. Therefore these accusations need to be regarded as belonging to the Israeli-Arab polemic and not as objective judgments. Another proof of that is that these allegations are only ever made by people whose position in the Zionist right wing is very clear. --Zero^talk 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:OR.

Mackan79, instead of removing the sentences again and again, rephrase them any way you want but keep the fact what the source says. Amoruso 12:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Was there actually a prominent accusation that he was an anti-Zionist? What does that even mean? That he opposed the existence of Israel" - yes there was. This is what the source says, we can't remove it by going like a merry-go-around and every time say that it's not written well. You can rephrase it anyway you like but the allegations exists, it's sourced and it stays. This was the allegations. You first said that it sounded like it's true and not like Lehi said it, later you said it's fringe - well this is the opinion of the assassins and it's noteworthy and it's not fringe at all - it was supported, then you say it's "inflammatory"? well it's not, it's only claimed that he is by these people, it's noteworthy and it's sourced. There's no justification to remove it just because you don't like it, sorry. Cheers, Amoruso 12:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure anymore it's what the source said. I read it and couldn't find it. It says the Jerusalem thing so I kept it. I'll search for the source I meant and was probably removed somehow between edits. Amoruso 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I agree with user:Zero0000 that it's not clear whether he was pro-nazi or not from the sources because some were attacked, I will attempt to write a npov balanced version but it need mention. Amoruso 12:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Amuroso,

1. Please note that you seem to have accidentally removed the cite to the 6500-11000 Jews statement that I just provided, which is the same as the first reference.

2. I strongly oppose your extended discussion of all criticism of Bernadotte in a section about his assassination. The views of the assassins themselves is clearly fringe, as they've repeatedly been denounced by their own government. You may think I'm being POV, but let's be straight about the fact that you are the one admitedly trying to legitimize an assassination of what from all accounts appears to have been a very well respected diplomat.

3. The very source you provide clearly states that it is a fringe view. As it states "One of the more serious distortions in the book is Regev's portrayal of Bernadotte as a supporter of the Nazis during World War II. Many scholars have explored this claim, but very few have come to the conclusion that it was anything more than perhaps a tendency. Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever." Did you read that? "Distortion." "Very few" give it any credibility at all, and even then very little. "Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever." This is the source you provided; how much clearer could it be that this is a fringe view? Fringe views are not to be included in Wikipedia. Your source says this is a fringe view. So far, your support for this statement is -1.

4. Now, as to some of the information you included, like alleged criticism from the Israeli press, etc., and as a NPOV discussion of how his work was received, I would be receptive to this appearing in the previous section on his work. This, indeed, would be the appropriate place to include if there had been wide-spread condemnation of Bernadotte's work. It should not appear in the section on his assassination. A section on someone's assassination is not the appropriate place to include every negative fringe statement that was ever said about them. This should be obvious.

5. Your use of citations is repeatedly wildly inaccurate. Your statement "Some sources suggesting that Bernadotte was anti Jewish have been refuted while other allegations still exist," for instance, is completely inaccurate based on the source. Your source provides a statement that Regev thinks he's anti-semitic, but also that there is no available credible evidence for this. Your statement should be "Regev has called Bernadotte anti-semitic, but this has been called a distortion." Or, "A recent book called Bernadotte anti-semitic, but most of the scholarly literature strongly refutes this." Of course, that would be absurd, though, to cite to one person simply because he calls him anti-semitic, unless this is a prominent view. Your source, however, suggests that it's not a prominent view at all. Your summary of the source, also, is blatantly biased and POV. Thus, I removed it.

6. Your statement that there has been a debate about whether Bernadotte was reluctant to include Jews amongst those saved is completely unsourced. This is why I removed it. In addition, at this point, we have strong evidence that even if this view does exist, that it is a fringe view, not suitable for wikipedia. Until you have a source, however, the statement clearly cannot be there.

7. Note that my last edit included a sentence at the end that the issue remains controversial in Israel, where some people feel the assassination was justified. If you'd like to make some change to that, I would also be receptive to that being edited.

The basic point of it all: The fact that you and Regev think this guy was a total a-hole and deserved everything that came to him doesn't mean that this is a view which belongs on Wikipedia. Your suggestion that simply because a criticism was published that it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia is clearly wrong. On issues relating to the Middle East, any important figure is going to have numerous unfair accusations made against them. Wikipedia can't include them all, and it's policy makes clear that it doesn't. As of yet, you have failed to make any case whatsoever that these allegations represent anything more than a fringe position. As of yet, the source you've provided clearly states that they ARE fringe allegations. It would be awfully nice if you could step back and realize that you are in a small minority who thinks that Bernadotte deserved to be assassinated, and that this does not entitle you to place a prominent discussion of it in Bernadotte's wikipedia bio. Mackan79 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan79, thanks for describing the situation so clearly. I disagree with you on one point: some statement of Lehi's motivations is appropriate even though it is a fringe opinion. This has to come from a reliable source that quotes a contemporary claim, not from a post-facto justification written by Lehi's supporters. The main motivation was that Lehi feared Bernadotte would negotiate a settlement that Lehi could not accept (their demand was for a Jewish commonwealth on both sides of the Jordan River), and they thought (incorrectly) that the Jewish leaders were about to cave in. Other matters, like Lehi's insinuations about Bernadotte's war-time role, were propaganda designed to discredit him and there is no evidence that they were an important part of Lehi's motivation. This is clearly stated in the serious literature on the assassination. I'll try to bring a summary with sources, but editing in the face of Amoruso's continual disruption is a pain. --Zero^talk 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree that some discussion is appropriate, and indeed, if the discussion were remotely NPOV, I could imagine one slightly longer. My objection, as you clearly understand, is mostly to the general POV attempt here to tarnish Bernadotte and justify the assassination in any way possible. It is as a list of inaccurately sourced, dubious, non sequitor and POV attacks that I oppose the extended discussion. As I said, I think even some of the post-hoc stuff could actually be included too, but simply shouldn't go as a justification for the assassination; it should be included, if at all, in a NPOV discussion of how his work was received. Such a discussion, too, could be relevant and beneficial to the article. I'm simply not going to move these attacks into such a section because such a section should be constructed with at least some semblance of neutrality, which lacking the background, I can't provide. Also, the material provided so far is almost all unsourced.Mackan79 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The source shows it's not a fringe view at all, it's a legitimate debate of course. You have also censored out alot of other sources too like the Jerusalem/Palstine Post source. You seem to be intent on removing the allegations regarding his nazist tendencies, something which Rubinstein himself admits, so it's not only not a fringe review, but a consensus. You can reinstate the ref to the Jews but do it properly - I don't think see ref 1 is part of the manual of style. A final note - I will ignore personal attacks, but please note that the debate is something that's been discussed here and it has to do with Trevor Ruper and others - this is representing the facts in a concise NPOV matter. Your claim that it's not NPOV is of course a complete false claim. Please note that if you wish to rephrase something you can do so. But blanking out sections repeatedly is not allowed in wikipedia. Cheers. Amoruso 11:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Rubinstein does not "admit" "nazist tendencies" in the article you cite. He called this a "distortion," and said that "most" scholars "say there is no basis for the claim whasoever." He states that the strongest claim from anyone is that there is some sort of tendency, whatever that means. He does not support this charge. Please reread your source, which you are blatantly misrepresenting. Rubinstein absolutely states there is a concensus: a concensus that the allegations, to any extent, are baseless.

2. I'm not making up that it's a fringe view. Your very own source states in the clearest terms that it is a fringe view.

3. I removed the section from the Palestinian post, because as I said, it does not belong in the section on his assassination. Do you disagree? Do you think it must go in the section on his assassination? Do you have evidence that this was the motive for his assassination? If you do, please present it. As I said, I strongly disagree with the idea of including any criticism of him that you can dredge up in the section on his assassination. By all appearances, that's what you are doing. That is why I am removing it. As I also said, if you want to include your material in another appropriate section about the reception to his work, that would be fine, if you can make that section NPOV. I will help you out, despite your belligerence.

4. You are not entitled to remove a source because you feel the style is incorrect.

5. It is not your current phrasing which is POV, but the insertion of fringe material and inaccurately sourced statements. If there was something I could rephrase to improve, I would, but that's not the problem. The problem is you are trying to insert a fringe view that he may have been pro-nazi, whatever that means, when the one source you can provide clearly states that this is a thoroughly rejected claim. Please do not continue to insert the information unless you can show why this isn't true. Mackan79 14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, stop removing material just because you don't like it. If you think it needs to be written to be closer to the source material, do that, but here and elsewhere, you're either simply deleting sourced material, or, worse, rewriting it to say what you want it to say, regardless of what the source actually says. That's not acceptable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(moved [by SV] from SV talk) Are you following me around and harassing me now? In addition to ignoring the discussion and concensus, you removed sources and reverted other substantive changes without explaining why. Why are you antagonizing me? Because I'm too verbose? This seems slightly ridiculous. Mackan79 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm slightly amazed you've actually stooped to following me around and harassing me. I did not do any of the things you said, and you are making accusations against me without any explanation. I explained in great detail why I removed some of Amoruso's fringe viewpoints from the article. I also retained substantial portions and improved it. You have not responded to any of this, but simply reintroduced it, without any explanation, while also deleting sources and reverting other material with no explanation. I guess I will have to seek an arbitration, or whatever the Wikipedia method is, but I find this pretty sad. Mackan79 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Harassment, Fringe Material

SV, that information was removed because it is a fringe position, and based solely on a source that says it is a fringe position. This has been discussed in detail above. The suggestion that he was reluctant to save Jews is unsourced. You also moved material relating to the government's criticism into the assassination without explaining, but I have explained why I moved this, because it has to do with the Israeli government's opposition to his work, and no source ties it to the assassination.

I have no idea why you feel you are justified in what you are doing, but I would again ask you to please be Civil, and refrain from following me around and harassing me without discussing the matter in talk. Mackan79 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified reverts

copy/pasting this from my talk page: Hi Humus,

It appears to me that several of you are ganging up on me, in an effort to overpower my contributions. If this is true, I don't know why you think it is justified. I have explained my edits in very great detail, I have refrained from inserting POV material, and have made every effort to have a productive dialogue in the areas where I have contributed. At the same time, I have strongly disagreed with several individuals on the Zionism page, and believe they are refusing to discuss matters openly and fairly, and I find this frustrating. At the same time, I have refrained from insulting them, other than telling them that they are pretending to be dumb, which I have stopped doing. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong here?

The reversions on Folke Bernadotte strike me as extremely unjustified. Did you read the source? It states extremely clearly that the idea that Bernadotte was anti-semitic is a distortion, which the vast majority thoroughly reject, which he impliedly rejects, and the worst accusations of which are simply some sort of "tendency," which he absolutely does not endorse. What clearer example of a fringe view could you have? The single source says it's a fringe view. Meanwhile, why do you think the Israeli government's statements of bland criticism should go not under his actual diplomacy, but as an apparent justification for the assassination? Do you really believe this is less POV? Whatever it is I did to anger you guys, I take it back. This strikes me as strange and ridiculous. Mackan79 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, I am not angry with you at all and I am not responsible for anyone's contribs but my own. Sorry, I don't have time now for long and winding posts. I stand by my edit: that version seems to be supported by refs and less POV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have time to explain yourself, why did you come here and revert my edit? That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Mackan79 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd add, especially, why would you enter a situation where I'm claiming to be harassed, whether you can verify this or not, as the third editor from the previous page that you know the harassment would be based on? Wouldn't it maybe be better not to jump in as a partisan in such an ongoing dispute, if you don't actually have time to pay attention? It kind of gives the impression that you guys are on a team. Mackan79 00:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw a POV edit in a article I keep on my individual watchlist and I reverted it. I don't know what "harassment" or "team" or "you guys" you are talking about. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the group that was fighting with me on the Zionism page. This included Jayjg, and SlimVirgin, and you (not that you were fighting, but you were apparently supporting them). Suddenly, the three of you showed up here, reverting what I had done. Maybe you weren't aware of this. The fact that none of you are explaining your edits, though, makes it seem that you're being contentious. If you simply weren't aware, I'll accept that; I'm simply letting you know that it seems incivil to me for someone to come directly after one content dispute and start reverting the same person's edits in another article, while refusing to discuss their reasons. I'm a relatively new editor, at least on contentious articles, but I would have expected that sort of thing would be frowned upon, no? Mackan79 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, that people won't explain their edits? The edits have been explained, and you've been asked to explain yours below, but you won't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SV, neither Humus or Jayjg have explained anything at all. Humus said he didn't have time. Your explanation has been to accuse me of deleting sourced material, while refusing to take 2 minutes to read my explanation above. Do you really have no idea why I think you're harassing me? For one thing, you continue to refuse to respond whatsoever to any question I pose to you, while insisting that I answer anything you want to know from me. Mackan79 00:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But it isn't two minutes, that's the problem. Your posts are long. Many have commented on this; less really is more when it comes to talk pages. You'll find if you make your points clearly and briefly, without the accompanying accusations, people will read them and likely respond. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, SV, it is very easy for you to say posts are too long to read when you have a group of friends who travel around with you and help you revert things either way. Your advice is also meaningless, when you blatantly edit war, and follow me here to throw yourself into a debate and start reverting before even looking at what else you were deleting or looking into the sources to see, oh, I guess they weren't actually sourced after all. Please stop giving me social advice to justify your own violations of Wikipedia policy. Mackan79 05:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this whole "too long" thing to be absurd. I agree, talk pages should be brief, but saying that a post is just too long is a joke. If you find it's too long, don't act as if the argument just isn't there. For one, it shows disrespect for the arguments of the editor. Basically, "I don't care what you think, so if it's going to take out too much of my time to read your argument, screw it and I'll do what I want." It's a slap in the face. You have to be at least considerate of the arguments of others, even if you don't agree with them. I'd like to think we're all rational adults here. If you see that someone has an objection but you don't want to read it for whatever reason, then please don't edit on the subject. .V. 03:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I spent quite a long time trying to debate with you, too long I think, when you were defending Holocaust deniers, arguing that Noam Chomsky is one, and that their views are significant to articles about the Holocaust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there are some serious misconceptions that need clearing up. Firstly, it wasn't a debate... I was attempting to find a compromise edit all throughout that discussion, unlike everyone else who was participating. In fact, there seemed to be an outright hostility to compromise. Secondly, I find this very telling: "you were defending Holocaust deniers." In that holocaust denial article, there was the textbook weasel-wordy phrase "most scholars contend"... it's basically right out of the Wikipedia Policy. It was followed by a footnote to a book that no editor in the discussion can verify the contents of. The changing of that phrasing (this is the one I pushed for a compromise) isn't just per Wikipedia policy against weasel words, but also per NPOV. The idea that this could be interpreted as "defending Holocaust deniers" makes me think that a certain POV is being enforced on that page and others. It seems like if an attempt to provide neutral language is given, it's immediately reverted (against the Wikipedia policy on reversion, mind you, which says you shouldn't revert those edits and rather discuss it on the talk page first -- the same policy I quoted on your talk page the first time I left a message [[4]], but that you once again broke on several articles a couple days after...) and then contested by the same few people. It boggles the mind that anyone can say that "most scholars contend" is a not a weasel word, and then fight the changing of that phraseology per the example given in the weasel word policy. Even if a particular guy says it in his book, that doesn't allow the usage of this weasel word. You have to state it in the form of "So and so says most scholars contend..." just like the policy states. I tried that, and it got reverted. Guess who did that?

Also, I never said Noam Chomsky was a "holocaust denier." I made it painfully clear that he could be considered a "holocaust revisionist", given that he believes that Israel manipulates the Holocaust for its own gain. I really don't understand how you couldn't get that from my reply, because I explained it fully [[5]]. So the only options are that you didn't read it or you are willfully misrepresenting it. I hope it's the first.

Lastly, if you have anything more to say about this issue, please contact me elsewhere (email, on my my talk page, whatever.) Don't go clogging up talk pages for other articles about this. Thanks. .V. 18:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave a link to the discussion in case anyone wants to read it for themselves. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You do know that the citation marked as 5 in my post goes to that same URL? :P .V. 18:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rubinstein

Mackan, rather than posting accusations about how you're being harassed, could you please explain succintly why you keep removing the Rubinstein material? Also, are you editing as 207.195.254.167? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, do you believe it's appropriate after being in a content dispute in one article, to follow your adversary to another article, and start reverting his material without comment, only to insist that he disregard your behavior, make no comment of it, and politely reexplain his edits which are explained in detail above? I do not think this is appropriate, so I can't further answer your question. You are harassing me, apparently with the help of your friends, which prevents me from having a dialogue with you, as much as I would like to. I'd like it if you would stop. In the mean time, I'll be looking into what I can do, although by your brazeness, my guess is that my options are limited. Mackan79 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please just answer the questions. Why do you keep removing the Rubinstein material (which is properly sourced, carefully written, and clearly relevant given that he says many scholars have looked into the issue, even though most have dismissed it), and are you also editing as 207.195.254.167? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not that user, and I don't know who they are, although I thanked them on their talk page. I can't keep responding to your questions when you refuse to respond to mine, though. I posted succinct explanations above several times, which you could read in under two minutes. I find your attitude amazing. Can you tell me why you have decided that I'm not entitled to your respect?

This is what I said above, which is that the statement is a fringe view, and thus not entitled to be on Wikipedia:

The very source you provide clearly states that it is a fringe view. As it states "One of the more serious distortions in the book is Regev's portrayal of Bernadotte as a supporter of the Nazis during World War II. Many scholars have explored this claim, but very few have come to the conclusion that it was anything more than perhaps a tendency. Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever." Did you read that? "Distortion." "Very few" give it any credibility at all, and even then very little. "Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever." This is the source you provided; how much clearer could it be that this is a fringe view? Fringe views are not to be included in Wikipedia. Your source says this is a fringe view. So far, your support for this statement is -1. Mackan79 00:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What that means is that some scholars believe Bernadotte had a "tendency" to be sympathetic toward or supportive of Nazi ideology, which is a very serious allegation, and some other scholars believe it was more than that. The fact that "many scholars," as he writes, have studied the allegation means it is worth mentioning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I explained above, is that you would be hardpressed to find /anyone/ involved in the Israel-Palestine debate -- who isn't a friend of Israel -- who has not been accused of anti-semitism by someone and one time or another. People are insinuating that I'm anti-semitic simply for my very moderate editing here left and right. It raises an extremely serious question: does that justify putting charges of anti-semitism in virtually every one of their Wikipedia bios? The way you have placed it, it says "Oh, ok, so this guy was shady when it comes to anti-semitism." That's what happens to anyone where you include that allegation. I think it creates an extremely serious question as to whether you are giving a fringe view undue weight.

Here, the one statement we have on the charges against this guy says in the clearest possible terms that it is a fringe view. And you kind of have to ask yourself: if this guy was a recognized anti-semite, would he have been chosen to head the negotiations? The incentive to level allegations against him, meanwhile, after he was assassinated, are obviously very high. Now I'm sure you'll want me to provide sources for all this stuff, but really, I have a source, and the source says the claim is bogus, and that most scholars say there is no basis for the claim "whatsoever". And that's the only source we have. If this is enough to insert a charge of anti-semitism in this guy's bio, I mean, really, for whom on the Palestinian side (which this guy's not even!) wouldn't you be able to justify it?

In any case, if it's included, it should be significantly toned down, so it doesn't simply scream "this guy's been called an anti-semite." I would at least edit:

Despite these efforts, following his assassination, there has been some debate as to whether Bernadotte was sympathetic to Nazi ideology. Israeli journalist and historian Danny Rubinstein writes that many scholars have explored this allegation, however, and "very few believe that it was anything more than perhaps a tendency," while "[m]ost say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever". [3]

But again, I say the support for including this kind of explosive and damaging statement, which simply serves to justify his assassination even though there is no basis that this was a reason or relates to anything he ever did in any way, is -1.Mackan79 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you moved the Israeli government's criticism from its own section down to the reasons for the assassination. Did you do this for a reason? I do not believe there is any evidence that this criticism was a reason, or should be there. The Israeli government has strongly condemned and appologized for the assassination. Mackan79 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That he was a British agent and/or had Nazi sympathies is not a fringe view, but was a prevalent view at the time of his assassination, and indeed was an important part of the atmosphere that led to it. It was propaganda and may have been completely wrong, and we make clear that most scholars dismiss it, but to say it's tiny-minority and fringe, and that it has no place in the article, is to show no knowledge of the type of press stories that were appearing about him at the time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Having looked through some sources, I think we should say more about it, not remove it, in order to place it in context, and to give an idea of the extent of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, I think it's necessary for NPOV to continue the narrative, and not place the accusation completely separately. The idea that he's an anti-semite is facially contradictory to the statement that he made his name saving thousands of people, including Jews, from concentration camps. The sudden jump is unnatural; I think it's only fair, if we're going to have the accusation, to acknowledge the connection (particularly when the one follows right after the other). Mackan79 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to your POV that "The idea that he's an anti-semite is facially contradictory to the statement that he made his name saving thousands of people, including Jews, from concentration camps. " - but plese recognize that it is a POV. Inserting editorial comments like "Despite this.." is contrary to WP policy. Please stop it. Isarig 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect. Let's say there was a small minority view that Oskar Schindler was actually anti-semitic. Would you simply say at the end of his biography, "Schindler has been accused of anti-semitism. Several articles in Israel have suggested he was sympathetic to the Nazis. The majority of scholars say this claim lacks merit."? Or would it be appropriate to say "Despite his efforts, Schindler has been accused by some of harboring anti-semitic sentiments. Several articles in Israel have suggested he actually harbored some sympathetic views toward the Nazis. The majority of scholars, however, say this claim lacks merit." Clearly, "Despite" and "however" here are necessary.

From the article, we know that Bernadotte was well known for saving several thousand Jews from concentration camps; in fact many more than Schindler. This was stated in the immediately previous sentence. Whatever differences they may or may not have, the same reason applies. This is why I included that phrase. Otherwise the accusation seems very abrupt and out of place. Mackan79 20:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, and it's ok for the article to mention the fact that he saved thousands (as it does). It i snot ok to push the POV that because of this, he could not be a Nazi symp, as you are doing with your editorializing comments. Isarig 20:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The guy saved thousands of Jews in the Holocast. But for Isarig this is not enough. He seems to believe that Bernadotte was still an antisemite that deserved to be killed. And that this his version should be the one on Wiki. And never mind if we all disagree with him. He will just revert us. Abu ali 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cease your persoanl atttacks immediately. This is your second and last warning. Isarig 20:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig, why are you revert warring? Two people here disagree with you, and have stated our reasons why. Yet you revert for a third time without responding? I believe you know from your talk page that this is not allowed. Please respond, or do not revert others' explained edits. Also, your comments to me have not been civil. Mackan79 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I might ask you the same question, seeing that you have already been reported for violating WP:3RR on this very page. I have expalined my edits to you, and responded to every one of your posts on the talk page. You are welocme to your POV regarding Bernadotte, but you may not editorialize in order to promote it. My responses to you have been very civil. Isarig 20:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You could not ask the same thing of me, because I have only reverted you once, which was an edit that you did not explain. Moreover, I explained my revert on the talk page, and then I explained my position again when you reverted me a second time, without reverting you again. If you have reported me for WP:3RR, your report is factually incorrect. But you also know from your talk page that even if I was edit warring, this would not excuse you for doing the same, and much more blatantly.Mackan79 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mackan, you've reverted around 23 times on just a couple of articles since December 11, despite having made only 160 edits to articles overall, and around 48 since December 11, so reverting is a very large percentage of what you do on Wikipedia. You might therefore consider toning down your claims about other people. That's not counting the anon IPs who turn up to revert to your versions, which may be you too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, he was revertwarring. Why are you defending him? And how could I have possibly toned that down? I was as polite as I could possibly be. And why are you spreading baseless accusations against me? If you looked at their pages and mine so carefully, you know very well they are not me. I was not even editing contentious articles when those pages were created, something I could tell simply from looking at them. You continue to violate wikipedia policy in attacks on me time and again.

What I've been doing on Wikipedia is try to remove some of the more blatant POV from a few articles. These have included several individuals whose pages were dominated by partisan POV smears. Are you really not aware that this goes on on Wikipedia? Whatever. You're really priceless. You treat me like crap from the beginning, and then you continue to pursue me like I've done something offensive. Here and on Zionism, you know perfectly well that my suggestions were extremely moderate. I'm not even a partisan, but for some reason you've delcared war against me. I've responded to your 3RR report, which you violated policy by reporting, since you were heavily involved. Please stop attacking me, I'm not your enemy. Mackan79 22:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a violation of policy of reporting 3RR even if you're involved in the issue. This is exactly the type of misrepresenting that's going on here. The fact that Bernadotte is not an anti semite because Jews were included in the White buses is the definition of WP:OR. In fact, it's not surprising that Bernadotte was not given any recognition by Yad Vashem for this supposed heroic act of his. Schindler on the other hand was given a recognition and a tomb adjacent to King David himself in Mount Zion. So these are the facts. Amoruso 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yad Vashem. Amuruso has twice claimed that Yad Vashem does not recognise Bernadotte for saving Jews. As nearly always, Amoruso is wrong. Yad Vashem's summary page [6] says:

Bernadotte negotiated with Heinrich Himmler on behalf of the Swedish Red Cross, and in March and April of 1945 succeeded in persuading him to release more than seven thousand Scandinavian nationals who were being held in Nazi concentration camps; these included over four hundred Danish Jews imprisoned in Theresienstadt. Following a meeting between Norbert Masur, the representative of the World Jewish Congress in Sweden, and Himmler, Bernadotte also succeeded in arranging for the release of ten thousand women from the Ravensbruck concentration camp; two thousand of the women, who were nationals of various countries, were Jewish. Most of them were transferred to Sweden.

Yad Vashem expresses no doubt whatever about Bernadotte's role. Even more convincingly, one of the White Buses is on display at Yad Vashem! You can see a photo of it here: [7] together with a statement crediting Bernadotte with the rescue. --Zero^talk 02:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever been to Yad Vashem Zero0000 by any chance ? Your futile attempts to misrepresent what other people say is becoming pathetic. I didn't say he's not mentioned, obviously the story is relevant, very relevant... but not for positive reasons necessary. I said that he's not recognised. The white bus like you see was donated by some Swedish group, it's irrelevant. The relevance is the Hasidei Umot Haolam and I've never seen him recognised although I could have missed it, but whenever Sweden is mentioned, RAOUL WALLENBERG is mentioned and only him. Wikipedia article mentions also # Per Anger,Carl Ivan Danielsson and María Elisabetta. Hesselblad[8] Yad Vashem plants trees (it's not the tree mentioned in your link) and later plaques for these righteous. Amoruso 02:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been twice. Once to the old museum and once to the new museum. Nobody claimed Bernadotte was cited as a "righteous gentile"; that's just your strawman. He didn't put his own life on the line in the fashion required by the rules. That doesn't make him an anti-semite. Yad Vashem in fact repeatedly says that Bernadotte saved Jews and never says otherwise. You lose. --Zero^talk 02:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you lose. it's not the straw-man at all, it's what I meant. Hitler is also mentioned in the museum. What's important is whether or not Bernadotte is a Righteous Among Nations or not. You just confirmed he isn't, I wasn't sure but never seen him mentioned as one. There are over 20,000 of them. If he's not mentioned and honoured because of it, it's highly suspicious and it seems there was a reason for it, maybe because he was an anti-semite and didn't want to save those Jews ? maybe ? You're confusing two things - the fact jews were saved and why and in what circumstances they were saved. In a way, a similar debate went on with Kastner. Amoruso 02:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just curious: what's the clearest evidence that Bernadotte didn't want to save Jews? So far we have a letter which sounds completely ridiculous ("By the way, here are some bomb targets in England.") So the guy was a stooge for the English who was secretly trying to help Germany destroy England? From the little information I've found, it sounds like there were far more people to be saved than spots on the buses, and it sounds like Himmler was very reluctant to allow the operation at all. Is the idea here that if there was any prioritization of Scandinavians at all, that this condemns the entire operation? I don't really understand where the anger comes from. Perhaps he could have done more -- I don't know -- but he certainly could have done a lot less. Mackan79 03:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Progress

The article is better now than a few days ago. --Zero^talk 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The third most famous thing about Bernadotte (after the White Buses and getting shot) was his feud with Felix Kersten. This is in fact the main source of the "Nazi sympathiser" charge (which was exceedingly fringe at the time of his assassination but became public in 1953). I have a lot of material on this and will try to summarise it. The passage about Rubinstein's article will make a good summary paragraph. --Zero^talk 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The passage "The group viewed ... future of Jerusalem." was more or less correct but the sources were not. I expanded it with better sources. --Zero^talk 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The reference to Richard Meinertzhagen is dubious. The source given refers to Konrad Meinertzhagen which is probably a simple mistake but doesn't add confidence; plus, our article on Meinertzhagen says that he forged diary entries. --Zero^talk 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Deleting this reference, details below. --Zero^talk 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• The sentence "Some commentators in Israel continue to suggest that the assassination may have been justified in order to safeguard Israeli interests, which some Israelis felt were incompatible with Bernadotte's position." had three refs. A 1968 book of Katz can't be used to establish current opinion nor can a 1948 book of Bernadotte. The Rubinstein article mentions one person only and does not clearly assign him this opinion. So there is actually no source at the moment. We need one that states what the current range of opinion is. Meanwhile the sentence is gone. --Zero^talk 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your additions are good, Zero. Thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Meinertzhagen

We had this sentence from a Hebrew newspaper (although it incorrectly gives his name as Konrad):

Two months before the assassination, Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen, a British intelligence officer, wrote in his diary: "Bernadotte sentenced himself to death by the Jews".<ref>[http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3280025,00.html]</ref>

M was a famously outspoken Christian Zionist, so I looked at the source Middle East Diary 1917-1956 (Cresset Press, 1959) expecting to find that he made all sorts of nasty accusations against B. I didn't find that. His overall opinion was that B was a well-intentioned fool who was blundering around with no understanding of the issues. In particular, "utter ignorance of Zionism" (p231). His plan was "stupid and ill-advised" (p231). On July 15 (p232) he wrote "Bernadotte runs a grave risk of assassination". On Sep 2 (p235) we find the part that our "quote" comes from (but note the date is not 2 months before but only 2 weeks): "In formulating this horrible proposal he has signed his own death warrant. They will have no use for him and the terrorists will get him sooner or later and everyone else who stands between Israel and Jerusalem. I'm terribly sorry that Bernadotte made such an error for he has both moral and physical courage and might have succeeded if he had understood Zionism better. As it is, the Jews will get him." (This is the last entry before the assassination so we can ask ourselves whether he really wrote it two weeks before, but anyway.) After the assassination (p235-6) he wrote "it is a shocking and unforgivable crime but was inevitable after trying to give Jerusalem to the Arabs." Then "Bernadotte was a man who has worked all his life for mankind, his mission in life has been governed by mercy; it is hideous and abominable that he should have been struck down in the city where Christ preached what Bernadotte practised." Then he rants for a while about "fanaticism and unbridled nationalism" and the "malignant growth of terrorism in Palestine".
--From this it should be clear that there isn't a single sentence that can be quoted which gives a fair account of M's complex opinion, yet, I submit, M was simply not important enough to be quoted at length; he played no significant part in the events, had no inside knowledge (at least, he doesn't claim to have), he just had opinions. --Zero^talk 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we should include it all, seems very relevant. I'll add the Sep 2 quotation, it seems very relevant for it deals with the assassination motives. It describes the reception and its possible consequences - this quote doesn't present his opinion but his observation of its reception. Thanks for this research. Amoruso 14:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your quote is a huge distortion of what Meinertzhagen said. It is inflammatory and misleading. As Zero said, this is why such a context-less quote is inappropriate, not because it is his opinion. Mackan79 15:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.

• It can't be a distortion , it's a full quote.
• It's not inflammatory nor misleading and you need to provide some backup for what you're saying
• You misrepresenting what Zero said. Not only it's appropriate, this not his opinion, it's in the section called reception of his opinion over the Jews. Him being a supporter of Zionism fits his POV to that section, although his designation as Christian Zionist is unsourced. anyway, it seems that you didn't read the quote inserted as your arguments don't support the actual claim. Amoruso 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what Zero said, which I agree with "From this it should be clear that there isn't a single sentence that can be quoted which gives a fair account of M's complex opinion, yet, I submit, M was simply not important enough to be quoted at length; he played no significant part in the events, had no inside knowledge (at least, he doesn't claim to have), he just had opinions." It's misleading because it quotes only the part refering to his plan as "horrible" and saying he signed his death warrant, while leaving off the extended words of praise: "Bernadotte was a man who has worked all his life for mankind, his mission in life has been governed by mercy; it is hideous and abominable that he should have been struck down in the city where Christ preached what Bernadotte practised."

All the same, I can't say I'm terribly opposed to it. Zero, do you have an opinion? I'll put it back in for now, in deference to your strong opinion. Mackan79 19:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How come you forgot to mention that we also left out: ". In particular, "utter ignorance of Zionism" (p231). His plan was "stupid and ill-advised" (p231)." ... ? Thanks for restoring the quote. Btw, the 2 months gap was probably the quote from July 15 confused with the one from September, just my guess. The reason I used this particular quote is because it referrs to the Jewish opinion and the possible consequence of it, not his opinion of Bernadotte or the assassins who we quoted as calling them "terrorists" - how distorting is that ? Amoruso 19:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there was someone who had an opinion of Bernadotte and published it in a book does not mean that we should reprint that opinion. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be a distillation of the most significant facts about something, not a random collection of stuff including trivia. In other words, there is some minimum required level of importance that something needs to have before it belongs in the article. If Meinertzhagen was an important player in these events, for example if his name was "Ben-Gurion", or "Bevin", or "Bunche", or "Zetler", or "Abdullah", then his opinion would certainly be important enough to include. But who was Meinertzhagen? Basically, he was nobody. He fails the importance barrier. --Zero^talk 12:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

His statement is interesting, though, for apparently having predicted the assassination. Or is this considered dubious? Trivial in a way, perhaps, but it seemed interesting to me. Mackan79 15:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You can read in Richard Meinertzhagen that some of his diary entries are regarded as dubious. Whether this applies to the 1948 material, I don't know. I only have a copy without any editorial comments. Personally I don't find it terribly interesting that someone could "predict" B's assassination, as such predictions are made all the time (most don't come true and are never publicised). For example "Bush will be assassinated" gets 1170 Google hits (and 590 more with "killed", 2060 with "shot"). If Bush is assassinated then lots of people are going to come forward claiming correctly to have predicted it. We shouldn't be impressed. --Zero^talk 02:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you have much more background on this than me. Isn't it more coincidental than that, though, a guy who seems to have been involved, saying with such certainty so close to the event? His last diary entry before it happened? It may just be retrospect, but it certainly gave me the impression that he must have had bases for asserting this, and suggests talk of assassinations was in the air. In the end, I simply don't know enough about it. If you want to remove it, I'll leave it between you and Amoruso. Ideally I wouldn't include it, but I don't see it really biasing the article, so I have a hard time getting up in arms. Best, Mackan79 03:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing Meinertzhagen after a recent Haaretz article [9] prompted me to look around the literature about him. I can't see how we can possibly treat him as a reliable source. He forged diary entries, inventing roles for himself that he never had and events that never happened.(J. N. Lockrnan. Meinertzhagen's Diary Ruse, 1995). He also plagiarised from other writers. He perpetrated "the greatest ornithological fraud ever committed" by stealing then mislabeling bird specimens, causing a big disruption in ornithology that took decades to recover from (The New Yorker. May 29, 2006. Vol. 82, Iss. 15; p. 51). Given that he had no actual connection to the Bernadotte story at all, why do we need to quote from this inveterate liar? --Zero^talk 03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

None of what you say is an argument for removing the source. All the information you want to add to his article is welcome, but it's irrelevant here. It's a notable information from him which was also quoted in the ynet article and in many books, no problem with it. Amoruso 15:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem occurs when including a source would require an extended discussion that the individual actually had little involvement, was a known plagiarist, etc. This makes a single sentence impossible. So then you have to ask, "an extended section on Meinertzhagen, or not an extended section on Meinertzhagen." I think it's a pretty strong argument against an extended section on Meinertzhagen. Mackan79 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The argument is clear. I've gone ahead and removed the section. I've also removed the Regev line. There is no way that a travel-guide writer and a historian should look like point - counterpoint. The weight was wrong. Jd2718 20:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Regev stuff, added to the rest, was overkill. I almost removed it earlier, but decided to wait. I agree with it's removal, though. The allegations are discussed generally; adding one more dubious source and then another attack on that source, IMO, only harms the article. Mackan79 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've rv'd this, as it was very inappropriate. Jd2718, please remember what the talk page is for. It's for discussing changes, not just pointing out something and doing it. Rubinstein is not a historian, I don't know where you got that from. He's just a journalist. i'm also not aware why you label regev as a travel-guide writer and wish to censor him. He wrote an extensive research about Bernadotte. Not including it is a travesty. It should be expanded obviously. I'm highly bothered by the motivation to censor information from this article. It may require external intervention in order to stop it I'm afraid. As for Meinertzhagen, many persons have allegations against them. It doesn't make them non RS. I agree that if a court of law would label him as something it could be differnet but until then the allegations are not proven enough to excluse him. There are allegations of fraud for example against Ilan Pappe but he can still be used as a source etc. There is no basis or wikipedia convention to justify deleting this sourced material. Like I said the allegations of fraud are to belong in a short sentence here or in full in his article like in every wiki article. Cheers, Amoruso 00:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Jd2718, please remember what the talk page is for. It's for discussing changes, not just pointing out something and doing it.'" Amoruso, this describes exactly what you have been doing here, editing without consensus for at least two weeks.

"'Rubinstein is not a historian'" Our article says otherwise.

This combination of bad edits has the effect of creating a grand piece of original research: that Bernadotte's assassination was deserved because of anti-semitism. Such inadvertant OR cannot be allowed on wikipedia. We cannot cherrypick marginal sources to create original research. Jd2718 00:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was your claim but it's actually exactly what YOU just did. Actually, the article only says that he's a journalist. upon reading it, it also says he teaches history. He's not more qualifed than Regev on the issue of Bernadotte - the book is an WP:RS. I think you need to review what's WP:OR or cherrypicking - none of this has been here. We're listing WP:RS matters here and not doing any OR. OR is not the perceived combined effect of something - that's your subjective view - it's writing something which was an original thought of the user and not quoting sources. As for cherrypicking, this I believe was refuted above. With regards i really don't see what bothers you here and I think we can end this dispute here by keeping this version for now. Amoruso 00:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I continue to find the Regev material inappropriate for the same reasons as others here, and as I stated myself above. My issue is not whether Rubinstein or Regev is more credible, but whether Regev has been established as noteworthy enough for inclusion, despite an already bloated section on these accusations. I do not believe Regev's book has been established as so important. Discussing the Kersten accusations, and commentary on it, appears to be much better supported. Adding Regev, I think, is excessive. I also think you have been very quick to revert, Amoruso, and am not sure what your qualm is with Jd2718. Mackan79 01:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

One of things that Wikipedia rules require us to do is to decide whether sources are "reliable" with some guidelines but no objective criteria. The current opinion about Meinertzhagen amongst people who have studied him is that he is highly unreliable. I gave several references and could easily give more. It is obvious that we have to take that opinion into account. Actually it is quite rare to have such strong evidence for the unreliability of a source. It is also obvious that the quotation would add little to the article even if it was completely above suspicion, since it is just an opinion of an unimportant uninvolved person. So the case for including it is non-existent. --Zero^talk 02:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You've just a provided the perfect example for WP:OR. If you have issues or references about him like I said, add one sentence about him here and more in his article which already exists in wikipedia. That settles that. As for Regev, I think user:Slimvirgin and others have explained above why the rubinstein-regev source is relevant. So i'll RV it all. Amoruso 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph on Nazi sympathies

The source cited says Bernadotte did not have Nazi sympathies. It is a review of what it describes as a "book riddled with factual inaccuracies." It looks like a citation from a source that makes the claim is in order. Jd2718 20:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Zero is going to write more about it when he has time. He has access to good sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll tag it in the interim. Jd2718 21:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I plan to get to this next week, just now I'm on holidays. I removed a sentence that his Nazi sympathies were prominently claimed in the Israeli press before his assassination, because I don't believe that is correct. I have not heard of any example of that at all. That could be a mistake but of course it would need a good source to show otherwise. --Zero^talk 08:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I figured out a way to rewrite the section so the unsupported claim is no longer necessary but the same information is still conveyed. That should make everyone happy. I've been caught up on some nonsense on an unrelated page involving unsourced statements and I'd like to do some positive things somewhere where they might be appreciated. --Curtis Bledsoe 04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So now we have an allegation (without a source) that is rejected by most (with a source). In other words, we have worked a rejected allegation into the article. Looks like a problem. I'll retag, waiting for Zero's source. Jd2718 04:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no allegation without a source. The fact that Rubinstein has investigated the allegation is all the source that's needed. Rubinstein has provided the source in that there was enough of a concern for him to have felt the need to investigate the question. If you want to get technical, all I've done is shift the burden of proving the existence of the question from wikipedia to Rubinstein. The question may be entirely a figment of Rubinstein's imagination, but the question not isn't whether the question is a valid one but whether Rubinstein looked for an answer to it. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence to avoid confusing readers. Jd2718 05:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I put just a little more information back. Otherwise, your edit was excellent. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis, you are not citing the Haartez article correctly. Rubinstein is writing as a journalist who is reporting what scholars have concluded regarding Bernadotte. He is not the one who did the research on Bernadotte, that was done by the (unnamed) scholars. Rubinstein has done us a favor by summarising the scholarly opinion, which is very hard for us to do on our own within wikipedia rules. So we need to cite Rubinstein for the summary, not for the research. --Zero^talk 05:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This may be a semantic point, but how could he report on the allegations without investigating them. I'm not saying he was the original researcher but he could still be said to have investigated the allegations even if he only interviewed other people who had done the actual research. It isn't really that important though. Still, I would like to at least mention his name in the article because as it stands the statement is a little vague for my taste. I'd also like to mention that Ofer Regev was the source of at least some of the allegations. --Curtis Bledsoe 05:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Curtis, Regev is hardly a reliable source. And frankly, it justs clouds the sentence. The more words, the more likely the reader will walk away with Bernadotte = Nazi, which is not the impression that anyone is trying to give. The version I am reverting to has the allegation, and indicates that it is not given much credence. That should be enough. Jd2718 05:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You and I may think Regev is a loonie but to judge by the fierce debate here, we may even be in the minority (or maybe it is just a very vocal and insistent minority who's boosting Regev). I see what you're saying about keeping it simple, but the way it is now, it is too simple. There's no indication in the article who made the original allegation or who has rejected it. So, from that point of view, there's much the same danger that you describe - someone who might be inclined to be negatively disposed towards Bernadotte might come away with the idea that he's a Nazi. It should be clearer who is making the allegation and who is rejecting it. --Curtis Bledsoe 06:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am working on a history of the pro-Nazi allegations and this discussion is going to become largely irrelevant. I hope. --Zero^talk 08:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I have a first draft, see Folke Bernadotte/temp. It is a lot longer than I planned but I'm reluctant to prune it. Should it be a separate article? --Zero^talk 13:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wherever this ends up, here or in a separate article, the title/heading/first sentence must clearly reflect what you've found, these allegations exist, but have been dbunked. The authority of the debunkers is far higher than those making the allegations.

The intro to the paragraph depends on where it is placed. If it becomes a separate article, a whole extra paragraph of background needs to be added. --Zero^talk 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not for the article, but for discussion, it appears that most of the allegations come from a friend-turned-enemy, who it turns out faked at least one document, and one of his assassins, who post fact is looking for a more sympathetic reason to justify the assassination. Jd2718 13:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that Kersten was ever Bernadotte's friend, but he certainly became his enemy. I'm not sure who you mean by "one of his assassins"; I didn't think Regev was(?). There is a book by Baruch Nadel which makes nasty claims about Bernadotte, but we can't take it seriously. Nadel was a Lehi member at the time of the murder. His book, published in 1968, claims that the assassination was organized by himself. He has no credentials which can compensate for this obvious vested interest in slandering Berndotte. In fact I can bring two sources that Nadel is not regarded as reliable even by his former colleagues. (To be clear about this, I don't know what actual charges Nadel made against Bernadotte but only found indirect mention that some were made.) --Zero^talk 12:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zero. There is no way that Kersten or Nadel can be considered objective sources about Bernadotte. I also agree with Curtis that there should be a little more to the section about Bernadotte's alleged Nazi sympathies. Just stating that the allegations have been rejected doesn't really tell the whole story. There should be something to say that they were entirely without foundation and came from Bernadotte's political enemies. Does anyone agree? --Lee Vonce 14:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The source admits that he had atleast had nazi tendencies. Saying it's simply been rejected is a misinterpretation, deliberate one. Amoruso 14:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reread the source. "One of the more serious distortions in the book is Regev's portrayal of Bernadotte as a supporter of the Nazis during World War II. Many scholars have explored this claim, but very few have come to the conclusion that it was anything more than perhaps a tendency. Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever." What he's saying is that "perhaps a tendency" is essentially the worst allegation out there, but most people don't even credit that accusation "whatsoever." Mackan79 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

True, it seems Rubinstein says there are 3 categories: most - no basis (unknown number of %), smaller group - a tendency , minority - more than a tendency essentially what Regev says. So it seems that atleast the tendency group should be represented. It's best just to add the whole quote, although it gives precedence to Rubinstein over Regev but without having a response of Regev in English we can leave it perhaps. Amoruso 14:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not best to give this much space to a defamatory accusation from one individual which has all indications of being an extreme minority view. It's not best, in a discussion of credible information regarding his life in World War II to suddenly insert an extended discussion of this accusation, dwarfing discussion of anything else he did during World War II. This is an extreme minority view, as several here have agreed, and not something which should be given extended space. Please respond to this discussion if you disagree and think it should be placed so prominently. Mackan79 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

i don't see any evidence that this is an extreme minority view. So far, we have many sources like Felix Kersten Trevor Ruper and others who made these allegations. Others disagree with them but it's filled with a huge amount of WP:OR by user:Zero0000 above. Ofer Regev based what he claims on sources. We're already giving Rubinstein's response a priority over Regev, but even he doesn't say that Regev is the only one who claimed that he had Nazi tendencies. We should present it in a neutral way, but so far it feels as people are trying to censor out information. Unfortunately, also the quote by the Colonel is being deleted without any reason. Amoruso 15:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Finding sources and referencing them is not original research. The removal of the Meinertzhagen quote was explained above, where you responded. Rubinstein states in no uncertain terms that is an extreme minority view. He personally calls it a distortion. An extreme minority can include several people, you know. We already mention the view, however, but simply don't provide it an extended discussion that would dwarf anything else he ever did. Incidentally, it seems to be generally agreed that you should discuss and find support for your changes on the talk page, not simply make them and keep reinserting them over and over. Mackan79 15:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's remember that you have repeatedly removed anything remotely negative about Bernadotte including quotes from the Jerusalem Post, quotes concerning Lehi and others. I've explained why the quote by Meinertzhagen is important, it was deleted again without reference to talk. Again here I think it's wrong not to have an extended discussion - what is it exactly that you're afraid for ? it's not our job to censor information. It's also not right to simply miscorrectly take one view of this debate which is not an extreme minority view at all, there seems to be according to Rubinstein a signficant number who agreed it was "no more than a tendency". That in itself is important. Amoruso 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso, I'd appreciate you not making accusations after your relentless attempts to insert any defamatory information into this article that you possibly can, while repeatedly completely misrepresenting the sources. You have repeatedly inserted information with absolutely no basis in the sources, only to later admit this. It should not be a mystery why I and several others have objected to your edits. The article says "few" and you say "significant number." Are you waiting for Bernstein to use the phrase "extremely small minority"? Again, what we're saying is not that it is small enough to not be mentioned, though, but that it is small enough to not warrant an extended discussion. I appreciate your opinion, but I think you need to realize that several people disagree with you that this allegation was of central importance to Bernadotte's life. Mackan79 15:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso, I'd invite you to suggest a more modest proposal for improving the discussion. I don't think people are set in stone on the exact current version, but are generally opposed to giving such a great amount of weight to this view, which the single source we have calls a distortion, and whose language strongly suggests that he does not take the accusation seriously at all. Mackan79 15:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's becoming extremely difficult to WP:AGF with you Mackan79. You're simply objecting to any criticism against Bernadotte. At the time you also deleted the jerusalem post quote. it's very disturbing. As an act of good faith, alteast repost the quote by the Colonel. Amoruso 15:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to any criticism; I'm objecting to extreme minority allegations that Bernadotte was pro-Nazi, which is an extremely incendiary accusation, and I think a travesty based on its lack of support and after the guy saved 15,000 people from concentration camps. I'm not strongly opposed to a discussion from Meinertzhagen; I had left that in earlier. Based on Zero's suggestion that it's not sufficiently relevant, though, I'm siding with him rather than with you. I particularly don't think you can simply pick out the one quote that paints him in the poorest light possible, as it appears you did.

If you made an attempt to include more information in a way that showed some respect for his bio, I could work with you much more easily. I don't mean respect for him, but respect for his bio, meaning you didn't appear to simply be trying to include as much bad information as prominently as possible. If you were really trying to make your edits as WP:NPOV as possible, I think this would be a lot easier. Please note: I'm not trying to include information to puff him up. I'm not throwing in ridiculous information to somehow bolster his greatness. The information Zero added was critical, and I had no problem with it. I'm simply opposed to giving undue weight to extreme minority opinions that he supported the Nazis, which according to the sources I simply don't think is appropriate. Mackan79 16:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't seem reliable, you seem to be removing anything which puts Bernadotte in a negative light over a period of time [10].

Now, let's examine these two issues:

• The quote right now about the nazi symphaty, it's not a quote at all, and is in fact a WP:WEASEL use. We should say that Regev said this and Rubinstein said that. We can't just use weasel words there. Please explain why you prefer to use weasel words instead of quoting the sources in full like I did ? Seems strange.

• The quote by Colonel Meinertzhagen is very relevant. I'm not sure that user:Zero0000 objects to it btw. He simply brought the full quote and explained that it's 2 weeks and not 2 months before. Now, the importance of the quote is obvious. We're talking about the fact that Jews, some, were not happy with the proposal, and then he says it might go as far as the assassination. That's why this quote was provided. Of course we can't quote his whole book but the quote seems neutral enough to show his opinions, both that the proposal was very bad - the other quotes seem much more extreme - and that the people killing him would be terorrists. I don't see what argument you've provided to justify deleting it. Simply saying "Zero said this" is not an argument. You provided no explanation for this rude removal. Amoruso 16:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The WP:WEASEL rule states that it is a rule of thumb which should be balanced particularly against the need for brevity. We are noting here that there has been an allegation. We are chosing not to go into an extended discussion of what all sides have said, because such a discussion would give the allegation undue weight. See WP:NPOV. This is a reasoned decision which is entirely consistent with the WP:WEASEL policy, and is necessary for WP:NPOV.

To include a statement in Bernadotte's bio that an individual has accused him of being pro-Nazi is to give that accusation extreme prominence. Accusations fly all the time in political life; very rarely do such accusations go in encyclopedia articles. This isn't a trivial decision whether to include such an accusation and how to treat it. It's not a matter of "Oh, I just don't think that really belongs." It is a matter of critical importance to whether the bio can be considered neutral or not. Again, I am not lightly deciding to erase all critical information; you will see there is significant critical information in the article I have not removed. This particular allegation, though, I think should be treated seriously, which is why I'm objecting to you simply slipping it in. It's a central issue, and one for which there needs to be consensus. I'll leave the discussion of Meinertzhagen above. Mackan79 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that.

As for the brevity, is it your opinion that the Nazi sympathy is a minority view ? If so, it says in WP:WEASEL: "When contrasting a minority opinion. For example, "Although Brahms' work is part of the classical music canon, Benjamin Britten has questioned its value." Brahms's importance is almost, but not quite, an undisputed fact; it is not necessary to source the majority opinion when describing the minority one." - so we should atleast quote Ofer Regev for the minority view. Now one should convince another that Bernadotte NOT being a nazi sympahtiser is "an undisputed fact" - is it ? We have Rubinstein vs. Regev here and even Rubinstein doesn't speak in such concrete way. Why are we exactly preferring Rubinstein's view (who didn't write a referenced book like Regev) than Regev ? And we're going as far as saying it's generally rejected ? I think that using the word "generally" here rather than specifying the actual debates and by all means expanding it with all sources and questioning them if needed and sourced is not the best way to deal with this and I actually think , since you blamed me for WP:POV that by putting the whole passage of Rubinstein, we're actually putting Bernadotte in a better fair light because these allegations exist regardless of wikipedia and we are quoting a passage which is written convcingly and attempts to refute it. But we do have to maintain an encyclopedic language here based on facts. As it is, you're right WP:WEASEL might not apply but the line as is is complete WP:OR. Amoruso 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you, but I can't respond further at the moment. Maybe others will before me. Mackan79 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid I don't see your argument. What we have is an undue weight problem. Numerous editors have decided that discussing these accusations at length is unjustified by their prominence and support. That's to say, they lack sufficient prominence and/or support to justify an extended discussion. Some, such as me, have felt that their inclusion at all is very questionable, due to the dismissive statements of the one source we have. The current compromise is that we mention the allegations, provide the source, but don't go into detail about it. I hope you appreciate, however, that the sentence fully clues people in to the fact that allegations were made. The information is there for people to research. We simply don't discuss the matter in detail. I've said many times and in many ways my reasons why.

The statements from WP:Weasel don't relate to this undue weight concern. As far as original research, I don't know what you mean, when the sentence is sourced. Re minority viewpoints, I believe the Rubinstein source is clear that it is not a significant argument. If you presented Regev's sources, that could change the situation, but we don't have that. I hope this explains my position. Mackan79 06:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The WP:WEASEL stuff is genuinely about opinions. Britten is a composer who honestly disagrees with the majority. He is entitled to; we are discussing feelings, not facts. In this article though, we are discussing facts, and we have a non-historian making some interesting claims. Not the same situation, at all. Jd2718 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand we have a writer claiming X and a journalist claiming Y, there's no reason i can see why not quote their name instead of making up the OR that it's been rejected. I'm adding the names repsectfully. Cheers, Amoruso 12:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to keep attempting to reach consensus here before unilaterally editing that which is under discussion. We have one non-prominent person, without a reputation for being a reputable historian, making claims that do not appear in English. Even one short sentence is probably undue weight. I am reverting the edit. Please remember what the talk page is for. Jd2718 13:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, we have one journalist who seems not to agree, doesn't seem a very strong argument. is there any policy argument against changing the paragraph to non weasel version : Allegations that Bernadotte had shown sympathy to Nazi ideology have been raised by writers as Ofer Regev but journalist Danny Rubinstein claims that these allegations have generally been rejected . ? Amoruso 10:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So far the only information brought about Regev's book says very strongly that it is unreliable. In other words, the case is yet to be made that Regev's book passes the RS rule at all. --Zero^talk 12:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the fact there's a section for this, it's what I thought was best, now we can later add also the other claims by Regev which supported by differnet documents than Trevor Ruper etc. Amoruso 07:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Kersten

Thanks for the research, Zero. I did a couple of minor edits; leaving for brunch here in a minute, so I'll have to look closer later. Best, Mackan79 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Looked a little more. Basically, I think it just needs more balancing information from those who recognize his contributions, since that seems to be the prevailing review, right? As is, we have little on the basis for the recognition, and much on the criticism, despite the fact that the majority view seems to give him a lot of credit. Hopefully that info will find its way forward. Mackan79 03:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, your edits are ok except for one: "According to Amitzur Ilan, Kersten's accusations rest entirely on a letter..." This is not correct, since Ilan here refers only to insinuations that Bernadotte was antisemitic. This also excludes some accusations of Kersten that appear to be correct (for example, the accusation that Bernadotte unfairly minimised Kersten's role). Ilan's actual words are "But the entire 'proof' of this thesis [that B was an anti-Semite] turned on Trevor-Roper's allusion to a letter allegedly written by Bernadotte to Himmler dated 10 March ....". I'm inclined to restore my original version, but if you have a better idea go ahead. At the moment it isn't right. --Zero^talk 11:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I added "accusations of anti-semitism," does that fix the problem? I have a few general concerns here, but one is the heavy focus now on this charge of anti-semitism from Kersten, as opposed to any other issues of a slightly less inflammatory nature. Reading the Swedish article and some others on the internet, I see there is some detailed discussion about controversy regarding the White Busses mission, whether it shouldn't have prioritized Scandinavians, whether it should have first gone for those who most needed help, whether it could have accomplished more. Then there is counter criticism, basically calling the first group ungrateful. It simply raises the question: is the major historical question whether Bernadotte was secretly pro-nazi, or is that perhaps a debate more on the historical periphery?

I'm going to try to do a little more with the article, which could then be discussed. Generally, my current thought is that there could be a bit more on the general controversy of the mission, and then the Kersten controversy should follow. Ideally, however, might there not be a main separate article on all of this re Kersten, which would be summarized and linked from here? I almost think I remember seeing work on such an article being done. I guess we can look at that later, but those are my concerns for now. Mackan79 14:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I do like the suggestion, as devoting over one quarter of an article to accusations that may have no foundation seems to be undue weight. Jd2718 16:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lee, I think the "more damagingly" is important, simply for context. It's kind of like saying "John once missed his curfew. He also killed 7 people in cold blood." I think the reader needs a little more preparation.Mackan79 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The section has to stay of course, there's no point in making another article. It should be expanded. Regev has many different documetns that also support the nazi sympathies and when I get round to it one day I'll add them. Amoruso 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It already gives Regev (a writer of travel guides) more credit than he deserves. So far no justification has been given for treating him as a reliable source. --Zero^talk 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Undue Weight

Please review the section on Kersten Jd2718 18:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

White Buses

I translated some material from the Swedish articles on Bernadotte and the White Buses. Now I see there's an English article on the White Buses too with some better translations. Others could adjust it, or I'll do it a little later. Mackan79 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I started translating the article from the norwegian (that I wrote), will get my ass around to translate the rest. Would be good if you could correct it as I am not that fluent writing in English... Ulflarsen 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

Jd or Zero, could you say exactly what is wrong with each of the parts of the text you're removing, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are 3 separate edits. One is a heading change which I haven't actual paid much attention to. It seems to be cuaght in between. The other two are more significant, both in their own right, and because of the overall weight they give to allegations against Bernadotte.

The deletion of the Regev material has been discussed at length. 1. It is not a reliable source. 2. It is not available in English. 3. The only review we do have of it says that it is bunk. 4. Regev is neither historian nor academic, iow, he was probably out doing his own OR.

The issue with Richard Meinertzhagen is summarized at the top of its own talk section, above. The second paragraph, the one by Zero that starts "M was a famously outspoken..." probably captures 90% of what needs to be said.

Overall, Amoruso (and you?) have pushed to include more information about accusations that Bernadotte was anti-semitic or sympathetic to the Nazis. The effect is that now a quarter [a sixth, still a lot] of this article being devoted to these topics. Further, the sources that exist (and they do exist!) are either not reliable, or have been fairly effectively refuted.

Extensive listing of allegations, even with refuations as appropriate, will tend to give them undue weight. The trick is to keep the allegation, and source it, without inflating it or over-expanding it, which is what has happened here.Jd2718 07:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

For your convenience, I'll repeat from above my explanation of why I removed the Meinertzhagen paragraph today.

I'm removing Meinertzhagen after a recent Haaretz article [11] prompted me to look around the literature about him. I can't see how we can possibly treat him as a reliable source. He forged diary entries, inventing roles for himself that he never had and events that never happened. (J. N. Lockman. Meinertzhagen's Diary Ruse, 1995). He also plagiarised from other writers. He perpetrated "the greatest ornithological fraud ever committed" by stealing then mislabeling bird specimens, causing a big disruption in ornithology that took decades to recover from (The New Yorker. May 29, 2006. Vol. 82, Iss. 15; p. 51). Given that he had no actual connection to the Bernadotte story at all, why do we need to quote from this inveterate liar? --Zero^talk 03:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

(I'll add: look at the specs of this book about to be published: [12].) --Zero^talk 09:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the few sentences on Regev/Rubinstein, the version being fought over now was first inserted by me, so if it ends up being in the article I won't lose too much sleep. However, my first choice is to omit it on the grounds that Regev fails the Reliable Source test. He is an author mostly known as a writer of travel guides, and the only detailed description of his book that we have is Rubinstein's severely negative review. A negative review is insufficient reason by itself to omit something, but that combined with an apparent lack of positive evidence of reliability (eg. no known professional credentials as a historian, no known respectful citing by historians, etc) is grounds for omission, imo. Also, the particular charges of Regev that Rubinstein mentions in his review are easily identified as things that are already covered in the article using better sources. --Zero^talk 09:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on Zero your a smart guy and I'm sure you are a student of history. Reliability of individual sources is something that in most cases is not even worth bringing up until maybe about a century ago, and you have to admit that even most 20th century history has an obvious and identifiable bias. However, I still understand your concerns about this particular guy, I'm just not sure it precludes him from being used as a source at all. Of course we should probably add a qualifier to address the aforementioned concerns, but still I think his pov should be shown to some extent in the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The rules tell us to not cite unreliable sources. They don't say "cite unreliable sources but include concerns over their reliability". However, I'll explain why I myself included him at one point, since I don't completely reject the argument: the fact that people like Regev exist is somewhat notable. In this way of looking at it, Regev is the subject not the source. That is, Regev and his book might be admissible on the grounds that Danny Rubinstein is a reliable source. As I said, I won't lose sleep either way on this one. --Zero^talk 10:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, there has been significant discussion over the years regarding these controversies. It doesn't appear that Regev is an important part of that discussion. I'd suggest if this very extended section on accusations is going to stay in Bernadotte's bio, there simply isn't room to add more criticism by additional critics of questionable credentials. By any normal standard, the discussion is already much too long. In a separate article, of course, this extended discussion would be much more appropriate. Mackan79 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You have provided no proof that Regev is of questioable credentials, it seems quite a matter of pure slander. The research is extensive and in fact should be expanded to include the differnet documents and witnesses he reported which are not concerned with Kersten at all. As for Meinertzhagen , the complete WP:OR by user:Zero0000 is with respect obviously not acceptable. The source obviously should stay. Amoruso 11:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I have: 1. The section is too long already. 2. Nobody has established that Regev is important. 3. The single source we have regarding Regev says his book is riddled with errors and a distortion of history. Mackan79 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mackan79, you should self revert per your warning. Amoruso 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ofer Regev seems to be important enough because he's the subject of a Ynet and an Haaretz article dealing with Bernadotte. One (Haaretz) is Rubinstein's response [13]. The other is this: [14] it's not critical at all of Regev the second one. It mentions Trevor Ruper and the letter of Bernadotte to Himmler - the one showing he was of the same opinion of himmler about Jews according to this. It mentions Meinertzhagen (seemingly with a spelling mistake or something we're not aware of - I think Conard means Colonel). Ynet is the interent edition of Israel's biggest newspaper (by a large margin) and mainstream called Yediot Ahronot. it's the most WP:RS possible. Haaretz is also a widely spread and prestigious daily paper. Therefore, both should be included. And the header changed per explanation above that the section is not at all only about Kersten. Btw, as explained in the article Ofer Regev is a researcher of the Land of Israel and as such he also likes to head travel tours. Amoruso 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Anoter thing that should be added from the article is the meeting between Dov Yosef who was the governor of Jerusalem and Bernadotte. Yosef says that Bernadotte told him for example that he wanted to be "King of Jerusalem on behalf of U.N". This is apparently in the diary of Yosef who says that Bernadotte wanted a piece of Jerusalem to himeslf. This obviously enhances Bernadotte's bias against the Jews and the prospect of Jerusalem and is relevant to the article. The British apparently blamed Yosef for giving information leading to Bernadotte's death but Regev has an admission that this was given from someone else - a south African Journalist. This of course is fascinating stuff and proves that Regev did a comprehensive and innovative research on the subject. One should read the book and add more info from it, I want to do it eventually, but we can base what we have on the two articles for now. Amoruso 20:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

One of your sources says, essentially, that Regev's work is full of mistakes. The other is in Hebrew which I do not read. Regev himself does not have bona fides as a historian. Perhaps you could indicate what point he makes that you would like to see included. We could focus on that point of fact or opinion, rather than on Ofer Regev himself (it looks unlikely that you will convince anyone about the man) Jd2718 20:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Jd, sources don't have to be scholarly, although they shouldn't be publishing rubbish either. I can't find anything about Regev so I don't know how to judge his other work. But if Ynet and Haaretz both saw fit to review the book, he can't be unknown, and the Haaretz article does say that "very few" (quoting from memory) scholars agree with the Nazi-sympathies hypothesis, which means that some do agree with it. It seems to me that you want to take the reviewer's criticism seriously, but not the part where he implies that some scholars agree with the position Regev is taking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the Ha-aretz link that Amoruso provided says that Regev's work is rubbish. At best, the reviewer becomes the source that some scholars agree... but it if they exist, shouldn't we be citing them directly?

Zero says that Regev is known, but as a travel guide writer. That might explain the reviews in the major papers.

So if Regev is neither prominent as a historian, nor a reliable source (you did read the review?), perhaps we should focus on what, if anything, he is saying that belongs, and provide a better source. That's how we got the Kersten stuff (too much of it, at that). What does Regev say that you are trying to include? Jd2718 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right that we should include whichever scholars the reviewer is referring to, but I don't know who they are. Perhaps I should e-mail to ask him; that'd be the quickest thing. The other thing I noticed is that the reviewer doesn't tell us who Regev is, which implies to me that he thinks we ought to know, although of course I'm speculating. Sources don't have to be in English, by the way, regarding your point about Hebrew. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be in English, but I can't comment on what I can't read. And yes, if you could find a reliable source, that would change the discussion. I do not think Regev qualifies as RS. Zero claims that Regev is notable in Israel as a travel guide writer, which would explain why an Israeli newspaper written for an Israeli audience might not tell the reader who he is. Finally for now, is there a particular point that Regev makes that you are looking to be included? That would make it simpler in looking for reliable sources on that particular fact or opinion. Jd2718 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing I find important about the article is that it suggests some scholars do take the allegations seriously. Therefore, we need to find out who they are. Other than that, I would like to see the Regev book referred to in the article if it's a notable book in Israel, and if he's a notable author, as he would seem to be, given Haaretz's failure to identify him. I'm going to e-mail the reviewer to ask for his opinion about Regev's notability and to ask which scholars he was referring to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly bring us whatever you learn. But the publisher certainly will consider the author notable, he chose to publish him. Again, what are you trying to get into the article? If it is Ofer Regev, then we may have an impasse. If it is a claim that he makes, then lets work together to get RS for that claim. Jd2718 23:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask the Haaretz reviewer, not the publisher. I want to bring in Ofer Regev if he is notable enough. I would like to bring in the scholarly sources referred to, if I can find out who they are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Intentionally seeking out people with a particular view in order to present them sounds like either POV or OR or both to me. What you should be doing is scanning the scholarly literature to check whether the article fairly represents the consensus. I refrained from quoting from at least 5 serious historians who (in general terms) agree with Ilan and Persson, and from none at all who disagree (obviously, not including any I don't know about), so in my opinion the section I wrote if anything gives too much space to Bernadotte's detractors. However, I have to admit I am curious to know whether Danny Rubinstein had particular scholars in mind or just a nonspecific impression. If you don't get an answer I can ask him as I know him personally. Finally, it is not enough for Regev to be "notable". He has to be notable for a relevant reason, otherwise we would be quoting film stars and athletes who just happen to have opinions about history. --Zero^talk 11:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Zero0000 simply saw what was written in Ynet - that he's a researcher of Israel and leads guides to Israel. People who are interested in the land likes to tour and tell others about it and make some money about it in guides perhaps too, it doesn't diminish him. Anyway, Ynet is reliable even though it's in Hebrew - it's ok to use it if there's no english version. Anyway, Regev himeslf doesn't bother me, I'd like to add:

Actually I asked a friend connected to the Israeli publishing business. --Zero^talk 11:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• (1)The quote from Colonel Meinertzhagen. It's relevant notable and mentioned in the Ynet article. It's obviously WP:OR to say that it's not RS.
• (2)change the header to claims of antisemitism because that's what it's really about (Thanks, that showed very good faith)
• (3)Add Dov Yosef's quote, could be from his diary too directly.
• (4)NPOV the passage so it doesn't give the conclusion of one side like it does now. The article tries to paint a rosy picture of Bernadotte obviously.
• (5)in the future add interviews Regev made with more people about the nazi symphaties - once I get the book etc. That's good enough. Amoruso 21:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The wrong version

I'm sure the wrong version is being protected here, but the history looks like a tag-team match. Ladies, gents, and assorted others, please use the talk page for this. Thank you. -- Avi 01:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Claims of Antisemitism

Ok, so I'm back, and I strongly disagree with this heading. Three basic reasons: 1.)Claims is WP:Peacock; it should be allegations or accusations if anything. 2. The section would be ridiculously long for a section on "accusation of antisemitism." 3. Calling it accusations of antisemitism is extremely misleading, inaccurate, and inflammatory.

This section, primarily, is about an involved feud with another individual, involving claims that he hadn't intended to include Jews on his White Buses rescue mission. It's a controversy, from which many different angles have been taken. More importantly, the issue arises completely out of his rescue mission to a German concentration camp in which he saved 15,000 people. This isn't an accusation, "Oh, Bernadotte used racial slurs throughout his life, and he did it so much that it goes into his WP bio." This is a /subissue/ of the White Buses mission: the controversy which surrounded it. That is the only reason this is an issue, because Bernadotte saved several thousand people, and some people question whether that was his intention. That controversy involves several things: a personal feud (primarily), accusations of antisemitism, accusations of giving away British secrets, questions about his orders, questions whether the mission improperly prioritized Scandinavians.

That said, I think "Felix Kersten and Controversial Claims" was appropriate. As I had said previously, I think there should be a section on general controversy first, and then followed by the Kersten issue. Otherwise, my suggestion would be "Controversy Surrounding the White Buses Mission," or even simply "Controversy." If we're including this stuff, we at least need to put it in its context. Thanks, and apologies for any extra verve... Mackan79 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article before the recent edit war, but the claims of antisemitism section does gives undue weight to that allegation and the section should be renamed as Mackan suggests. Catchpole 12:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Any further responses? I'll make the change if nobody objects, but with previous edit warring, I think some more input would be better (and actually, if someone else could make the change, that would be much better!) Mackan79 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame the article is still written from WP:OR and WP:POV perspective. It's not at all about Kersten, as explained before, the claims are from numerous sources, and Ofer Regev uses many other sources. Trying to make it a personal dispute only is very pov and disturbing. Amoruso 13:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind that change in title. I think you should realize, though, that the prevailing view on Bernadotte is not that he is an antisemite. That claim would never be mentioned in any other encyclopedia article. I agree that the Kersten section focuses too much on Kersten, and that a more balanced section would be better, but what it needs certainly isn't more accusation, which it already has in spades. Perhaps the real problem is that the main Kersten stuff should go somewhere else, and then we could have a more balanced discussion more in keeping with a bio of Folke Bernadotte. In any case, the idea that it's somehow POV to not want excessive focus on a brand new book with unestablished credibility (and with its credibility already seriously questioned) making new accusations against an established figure, I would hope you could reconsider. That's not the kind of thing that generally goes in a bio. Mackan79 15:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not the prevailing view at all. It's the prevailing view of the WP:OR provided by user:Zero0000. This user fails to understand unfortunately this policy. This is not a thesis or a P.H.D of a user trying to prove something. Zero0000 is trying to prove he's not an anti-semite by quoting the sources he prefer. In fact, many have questioned Bernadotte's motives and it's clear that he did not inspire to save Jews in that mission and that he made some disturbing comments. As it is also clear that he had fantastic ideas about "Ruling in Jerusalem" and to "make himself a sort of governor of Jerusalem", he had such delusions and there are the sources and witnesses to back this all up. Will this not appear in other encyclopedias? Probably not as others will be more brief but wikipedia goes into details that others don't. This being a bio has to relevance, as the person is dead and it's historical important footnotes concerning the event. Information concerning these lines should be added and will be added at some point or another as the article is one sided and that's not the way things work in wikipedia - you can't press your one sided view on the article I'm afraid,, we need to provide a balanced version. Cheers, Amoruso 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I said it's not the prevailing view that he's an antisemite; I didn't say what the prevailing view was. The problem is that so far, the only evidence you've provided for your allegations are one book, recently written, which is described as unreliable. Frankly I have no idea why you expect a large section on these allegations, based solely on your one book. One book does not completely reframe a historical figure, unless, over time, that book is given authority by other sources. The fact is you don't even have an argument for why Regev should show up in Bernadotte's bio, presumably because there is no argument. It's a brand new book, with so far extremely little influence. If that changes, then of course you'll have an argument for changing the article. Till then, I don't see how you do.Mackan79 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You're (a) confusing several issues (b) misrepresenting the source. Trevor Ruper and other historians examined evidence concerning this before Regev. Not all evidence is based on Kersten. Let's begin with that. Secondly, I'm more disturbed by the idea to make Bernadotte look "good" not only in the aspect of the nazis, that's not that important, but in the context of his policy regarding Jerusalem and the borders. References to this have been continuously removed. This shows a tendency to erase anything that's not convenient. Amoruso 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha'aretz has an interesting review of Regev's book [15]. It doesn't seem to be a particularly good source. —Ashley Y 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes Ashley, if you read the past discussions, you'd see we are very much aware of this article by Rubinstein ;) Amoruso 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so Regev can be entirely ignored. So apparently we're left with Trevor-Roper, who changed his mind, and in any case Kersten is the only primary source? —Ashley Y 01:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, he can't be entirely ignored. Or rather he shouldn't. As for sources, the paragraph even as is explains it's not the only source. Amoruso 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

First Choice for Wallenberg Mission

Question for Zero or anyone: looking around the internet, I've seen two sources reference Bernadotte having originally been sought for Raoul Wallenberg's mission in Hungary, but that the Germans didn't allow it. Here's one, a speech by Per Anger[16] Curious if this is something anyone is familiar with. Mackan79 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A few others[17][18], [19]Mackan79 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard that it was the Hungarian government that vetoed it, but I don't know why. I didn't attempt to add this to the article because it is about something he didn't do when we haven't even covered all that he did do. --Zero^talk 10:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that correction from the other articles. Just curious, if it was something he agreed to do or why he was chosen, etc. Thanks for the response, Mackan79 15:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also read it in the jewishvirtuallibrary link you provided and others. It's interesting. Amoruso 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

This article was tagged NPOV today, but there has been no explanation on the talk page. Jd2718 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I find that curious as well. Does the tagger have any comment? I say we give the tagger 24 hours to make their case and if they don't, we yank the tag. Anyone want to second this motion? --Lee Vonce 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't tag it, but I fully support the tag. Really, it doesn't go nearly far enough. The second longest section in this article is about derogatory claims from an extremely suspect source. That section should be completely removed. It should an embarrassment to anyone who has worked on this article. Beelzebarn 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I broadly agree, but I think it's worth mentioning the claims even to debunk them, since it seems they have a certain degree of currency. —Ashley Y 05:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I could see it footnoted, and perhaps discussed at length in the article on Kersten. But to have it so prominently discussed here is outrageous; something like making half or more of the Siegenthaler article about the Wikipedia vandalism slander against him. The take-away from this article as written is that Bernadotte oversaw a rescue mission at the end of WWII but was probably an anti-semite, and that he was UN mediator in Israel-Palestine, but the Israeli government was not fond of him in that role (remember, he was probably an anti-semite) and eventually a faction of Israelis assassinated him. And every claim of Bernadotte's anti-semitism seems to come from the discredited Kersten - we have Trevor-Roper's article, "based on an interview and documents originating with Kersten," which he later backed off of almost completely; we have "official Dutch investigation" and Scotland yard deciding that Kersten had invented both claims of fact and documents. The closest thing to support for Kersten is from Amitzur Ilan, who only "suggested that Kersten had distorted the original" of a letter allegedly written by Bernadotte. Who exactly is it, aside from a few Wikipedia editors, that takes these charges seriously? The section absolutely does not belong in this article; it is a crude slander against someone who is not even alive to defend his honor. Beelzebarn 06:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact I believe only one editor, Amoruso, takes the charges at all seriously. —Ashley Y 10:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to move it to a footnote and the Karsten article, then, if there are no reasonable objections. Beelzebarn 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree, if you guys are going to stick around to defend the decision. I think it should be its own article, perhaps, and then this article could mention the feud in a couple or three sentences. Doing that together would be ideal. Best, Mackan79 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kersten Controversy

I reduced the section to three paragraphs, primarily by cutting the paragraph on other historians who have challenged Kersten's account. There seems to have been agreement here that the section in whole was excessive, so I hope that's ok. Perhaps an article on the issue itself would be warranted; that would be fine with me. Mackan79 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag removed

I have removed the 'NPOV' template from this article, as the dispute over its neutrality appears to have been settled (it looks that way to me, at least). If the neutrality arguments arise again in future, the tag can of course be re-added, but it's not needed at this time. Terraxos 00:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)