Diskussion:Manfred Gerstenfeld

Warum English?

Warum schreiben wir „Dutch Jewish Seminar“ und „Ph.D.“? --Erik Warmelink 01:41, 31. Aug. 2010 (CEST)

Ist „Dutch Jewish Seminar“ nicht englisch? Was denn sonst? --Pfiat diΛV^¿? 14:00, 6. Okt. 2010 (CEST)

Wenn man wüsste, wie der Verein sich in seinen Briefköpfen oder auf seinem Türschild selbst nennt, wär's wohl am leichtesten: evtl. ja tatsächlich Nederlands Israëlietisch Seminarium? --Wwwurm Mien Klönschnack 14:24, 6. Okt. 2010 (CEST)

@Pfiat diΛV^¿?: „Dutch“ ist englisch für „niederländisch“, aus dem Artikel: Manfred Gerstenfeld wuchs in Amsterdam auf. Siehe http://www.nik.nl/seminarium/, „Israëlietisch“ ist altmodisch, die Rechtschreibung ist „israelitisch“, das Niederländisch von heute hat „joods“ für die Religion, „Joods“ für die Ethnie. Ich weiß nicht ob es das Nederlands Israëlietisch Seminarium ist, es gibt keine Quelle. --Erik Warmelink 16:09, 6. Okt. 2010 (CEST)

Mag Dir altmodisch vorkommen, aber auf seiner Webseite schreibt das NIK nun mal „israëlietisch“. Eigennamen dürfen das. --Wwwurm Mien Klönschnack 16:14, 6. Okt. 2010 (CEST)

Oft mussen Eigennamen das (z.B. wann es eine inschrijving bij de Kamer van Koophandel gibt). Ich schrieb es nur um zu erklären warum „Israëlietisch“ mit „Jewish“ übersetzt sein könnte. --Erik Warmelink 17:43, 6. Okt. 2010 (CEST)

Und 20 Monaten später gibt es immer noch Dutch Jewish Seminar, teacher training degree und Ph.D.. -129.125.102.126 21:15, 18. Mai 2012 (CEST)

Und 28 Monaten später gibt es immer noch Dutch Jewish Seminar, teacher training degree und Ph.D.. --129.125.102.126 23:28, 25. Jan. 2013 (CET)

Rechtspopulismus

In videobeiträgen, die unter anderem bei "Youtube" zu finden sind, verbreitet das "Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs" Propaganda, die vor einer drohenden Übernahme Europas durch den Islam "warnt". Die geistige Nähe dieser Ansichten zu denen der europäischen Rechtspopulisten bis hin zu Rechtsradikalen und Terrorgruppen ist kaum wegzudiskutieren. E. Zeh. (nicht signierter Beitrag von 178.11.33.122 (Diskussion) 11:20, 10. Jul 2012 (CEST))

I agree. Gerstenfeld's main claim to fame is probably his writings about Norway, which received attention mainly due to the sheer extremeness of his claims. Some highlights from his career:

• In 2009 he accused the Norwegian people of being a "barbaric and unintelligent people" (a blatantly racist comment) in a TV interview which was widely reported on in Norwegian media, and which remains what he is best known for in Norway. It is essential to mention this because all his later books, articles and comments about Norway are seen in this context, and it forms the background of why he is not taken seriously in Norway and universally regarded as an extremist.
• He has accused most members of the Norwegian government (particularly those belonging to the centre-left Labour Party, sister party of the SPD), the King of Norway and so on of being "anti-semites" (by which he apparently means anyone who voices criticism about human rights violations and violations of international law in connection with the occupation of Palestine)
• In an editorial expressing the views of the newspaper, Norway's largest newspaper and main quality newspaper, Aftenposten (which is roughly Norway's equivalent of FAZ) described Gerstenfeld as part of the Israeli extremist far-right ("den ekstreme israelske høyresiden", direct German translation: "die extreme israelische Rechte") and as a fanatic. This happened after Gerstenfeld had been a regular presence in Norwegian debates for a while with comments perceived by basically everyone, including the Jewish community and most Norwegian friends of Israel, as extreme and lacking in seriousness, and indeed, as virulently anti-Norwegian. Note that in Norwegian, the word ekstrem has the same meaning as its German cognate in this context, that there are many ways in Norwegian to express that someone is very right-wing without necessarily being extreme right, and that Aftenposten doesn't throw around such accusations lightly.
• Gerstenfeld was dismissed as a disreputable and extreme person by Odd Bjørn Fure, Norway's main expert on anti-semitism and founding director of the Norwegian research centre devoted to Holocaust and Jewish studies. Fure, a widely respected expert on anti-semitism, said (among other things) of Gerstenfeld:
  • "He [Gerstenfeld] is not worth arguing against. I prefer to deal with serious people. We [i.e. the Norwegian Holocaust Centre) do not take this person seriously. We couldn't care less about his opinions."
• The Jewish community in Norway has repeatedly expressed shock and dismay at Gerstenfeld's extreme comments about Norway.
• Gerstenfeld is openly a writer for and active supporter of the Norwegian blog Document.no. This blog has been described as an extreme-right hate website publishing extremist content and that is comparable to Stormfront in an official report by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security titled Forebygging av radikalisering og voldelig ekstremisme på internett ("Prevention of radicalization and violent extremism on the Internet") ["Det norske høyreekstreme nettstedet document.no" ... "Det kan derfor være klargjørende å reservere uttrykket «ekstremistiske nettsteder» for interessebaserte fora som formidler ekstremistisk innhold, og personlige fora som brukes av ideologer og andre opinionsledere for å spre ekstremistiske meninger. Nøkkelnodene og distributørene faller i denne kategorien. På høyresiden er document.no, Stormfront og Gates of Vienna eksempler på slike fora"]. The Financial Times has described the blog as "a website rife with anti-Muslim and hard right rhetoric." The BBC has described the blog in the following way: "Anders Behring Breivik left racist, extremist right-wing comments along with fellow anti-Muslims" on the site [Document.no]". The blog is explicitly anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant and is generally considered close to the anti-Muslim English Defence League and its Norwegian "branch." One of their other writers was essentially fired from her public job in the UK when it was discovered that she was a writer for the website (North Wales fire service employee quits amid investigation into alleged posts on far-right website).
  • Gerstenfeld, on the other hand, has praised this hate website in the following way (published on two blogs which I will avoid linking to as a matter of principle, but it can be found using Google): "Were it not for a few brave people like the editors of the small Christian weekly Norge Idag and the leading Norwegian blog Document.no..." (it is "leading" in racist far-right circles, alright, although that description without a qualifier certainly reveals the political position of the author). Here it is also clear that Gerstenfeld gets most (or all?) of his "information" about Norway from extreme right fringe blogs; the German equivalent would be if some guy denounced all established German media outlets like FAZ, Die Zeit and Die Welt as being anti-whatever, and based all his information on a far-right blog published by some NPD persons.
• In conclusion, in Norway the consensus among academics and media and other reliable sources, even including those who are specifically experts on anti-semitism and Jewish issues, is that Gerstenfeld is part of the pro-settler Israeli far-right, that he makes extreme and fanatic comments about Norway in particular that don't really count in polite discourse, and that he has ties to anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant far-right groups in Europe which are ideologically close to the English Defence League, "counter-jihadism" and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories about "Eurabia." --Bjørn G. Eriksen (Diskussion) 22:23, 10. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

Aussagen in Boulevardmedien können wir nicht aufnehmen, siehe WP:Q. Ingesamt gilt, dass nicht jede Äusserung relevant für einen Personenartikel sein kann. Aus WP:BIO folgt zudem, dass einzelne Episoden die Darstellung nicht dominieren dürfen. Die Aussagen von MG zu Norwegen sind für Norweger sicherlich relevant, für den Rest der Welt und für die Person MG ist das aber eher sekundär. Deshalb nehme ich die Aussage aus dem Dagbladet wieder heraus. Bei der Vokabel "rechtsextrem" sollte man hier vorsichtig umgehen. Ich lasse das erstmal stehen, aber das sollte noch ausdiskutiert werden. --Lukati (Diskussion) 19:46, 11. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

Um, that is a strawman. First of all, Dagbladet is a serious reliable source and one of Norway's largest newspapers, its main traditionally liberal newspaper. Secondly, the original source is a TV interview with Gerstenfeld himself in TV2 and the article also included the original TV2 source which is not "Boulevardmedien". Clearly this article can and needs to mention Gerstenfeld's own claims which he made in a TV interview and which were widely reported on afterwards. Thirdly, Gerstenfeld is primarily known for his books and comments and articles about Norway, and has claimed to be an "expert" on Norway. Clearly he sees himself as focused on Norway to a large degree, and clearly this is what he has become known for to the wider world. --Bjørn G. Eriksen (Diskussion) 13:00, 12. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

Du scheinst Dich da auf etwas eingeschossen zu haben. Norwegen wird weder in der englischen noch in der hebräischen Version des Artikels überhaupt erwähnt. Deine "wider world" sieht das offenbar ganz anders als Du aus Deiner Lokalperspektive. Und WP:BIO gilt natürlich auch hier. --Lukati (Diskussion) 13:08, 12. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

Furthermore, the article in Dagbladet (which is a perfectly decent source for anything related to Norway) isn't even written by Dagbladet, but by the very non-boulevard NTB (Norway's DPA), and was published by many other newspapers, including newspapers published in the broadsheet format. So the article can be cited e.g. as (the original source):

"Hevder Norge er den mest antisemittiske nasjonen i Europa", NTB tekst, 1 März 2009

All Dagbladet has done is giving it a new title and publishing it on its website and possibly in the paper version of the newspaper.

The fact that Gerstenfeld or someone close to him have edited his own biography in some other languages (the ones he speaks) to remove any critical views should have no bearing here. I should also mention that the English article (or most likely autobiography), in addition to being biased (as is often the case with articles related to anti-Muslim activism/groups/individuals), is tagged for low quality and lack of references. --Bjørn G. Eriksen (Diskussion) 13:40, 12. Apr. 2017 (CEST)

Verschwörungstheorien sind nie hilfreich. Es sollte immer näher liegen, die eigenen Ansichten kritisch zu hinterfragen, als böse Kräfte im Hintergrund zu vermuten. --Lukati (Diskussion) 20:25, 12. Apr. 2017 (CEST)